Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the recent news about Comey drafting a statement declining to charge Hillary Clinton or her staff before key witnesses were interviewed or evidence reviewed. The question is why Comey pursued the investigation if he felt comfortable months in advance in drafting the statement. I do not share the President’s view that this draft shows a “rigged process,” though some FBI agents have objected to the drafting of the statement in this context. I take Comey at his word that he did not make up his mind until after all of the evidence was reviewed. However, the draft does show a markedly different approach to the investigation of the Clinton emails and the Special Counsel investigation of the Trump Administration.
Here is the column:
It is never good when the Justice Department appears to be following the guidelines written by Lewis Carroll as opposed to the U.S. Attorneys Manual. The manual goes into great detail over the need to review evidence, witnesses and culpability before initiating or declining charges. While there is no rule against drafting a letter exonerating or implicating a target in advance, former FBI Director James Comey, reportedly drafted a statement declining charges in the Hillary Clinton email scandal in May 2016, before interviewing key witnesses, including Clinton herself. He issued his controversial announcement of no charges two months later.
For many, the timing looks like a weird variation of the Red Queen’s demand of “sentence first, verdict later” from Alice in Wonderland. In this case, it seems like “exoneration first, investigation later.” Notably, when the Red Queen uttered those infamous words, the court was debating whether to read evidence against Alice in the form of a letter. The White Rabbit told the King, “There’s more evidence to come yet, please your majesty,” but the court would have none of it. When the Queen insisted that there was there was no need for such evidence, Alice exclaimed, “Why, you don’t even know what they’re about!”
The same question might have been asked when Comey wrote his statement before actually speaking to the key witnesses. In fairness to Comey, even judges are known to draft opinions before oral argument. Both statements and opinions can be modified in light of new evidence before release. In a House Judiciary Committee hearing last September, Comey insisted that no decision (as opposed to no draft) had been made before Clinton’s July 2016 interview: “If colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately … All I can do is tell you again, the decision was made after that because I didn’t know what was going to happen in that interview.”
Of course, there were many at the time who questioned whether Obama administration Justice Department officials would truly pursue potential charges against Clinton with vigor and detachment. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham(R-S.C.) obtained transcripts from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a government watchdog agency that launched an investigation into whether Comey violated a federal law against government employees engaging in political activity.
In a highly controversial press conference, Comey announced that he would not refer charges while adding that Clinton and others were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” While I am inclined to accept assurances from Comey that he did not finally decide on charges until after reviewing all of the evidence, the details from the Clinton investigation hardly support a view of a robust and dogged effort in comparison to the type of investigation of people like Paul Manafort.
In pursuing Manafort, special counsel Robert Mueller has now enlisted an army of investigators, reached a cooperative relationship with staunch Trump critic New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and actively pursued tax and financial dealings far afield of the original Russian collusion allegations. He also ordered a heavy-handed (and unnecessary) “no knock” search in the middle of the night on Manafort’s home.
The Clinton investigation looks like Club Fed in comparison. Clinton and her staff refused to cooperate with State Department investigators seeking confirm any damage to national security. Key laptops were withheld and only turned over after Comey’s staff agreed to destroy the computers after their review, despite the relevance of the evidence to congressional investigations. Comey then cut five immunity deals with key Clinton staff members, including former State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, who set up a server in Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and worked for her at the State Department.
Pagliano refused to cooperate after invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and destroyed evidence after being given a preservation order. Those deals raised the concern over a type of prosecutorial planned obsolescence, making a viable case less likely. Once again, the drafting of the Comey statement does not prove that Comey had made up his mind regardless of the evidence. In that sense, it is not conclusive proof as President Trump has tweeted of “a rigged system.” Given the political importance of the investigation and discussion on the campaign trail, Comey may have wanted to have a base statement ready in the system but still subject to change.
It is not the specific statement but the overall context of the investigation that raises obvious concerns over the relative levels of effort. The draft letter reflected a presumption that left the burden on others to shift. It is not necessarily a bad presumption in a system based on the presumption of innocence, so long as it is uniformly followed. However, when Manafort was awoken by a FBI search team in his bedroom recently, it seemed doubtful that a draft letter of exoneration is sitting in Mueller’s computer.
For the public, there remains a concern over the different presumptions shown in such cases. In much the same way, the letter revealed against Alice said, “Don’t let him know she liked them best, for this must ever be a secret, kept from all the rest, between yourself and me.” When Alice maintained that she didn’t “believe there’s an atom of meaning in it,” the King was delighted to declare “If there’s no meaning in it that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn’t try to find any.”
Just as we should resist the president’s interjections into the Mueller investigation, we should show equal concern over the independence of the Comey investigation. There is meaning in the Comey draft and it is worth finding out what that meaning may be, even it produces a “world of trouble.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
His version then wants some serious explanation why did an experienced legal and law enforcement professional make such a bone head blunder as listing ‘intent’ as his major reason when the National
Security laws contain no such element? Kind of like his buddy Meuller not stating up front..’Yes I’ll be the Special Counsel in the search for collusion as long as everyone knows up front there is no such crime and regardless of all else that wil lbe the answer at the end but….thanks for the huge pay check for me and my buddies.”
No honesty among theives does not exclude what from Coney clearly was and is ‘intent.’ Same for Mewler.
I’m surprised that with your law degree and bar card that you don’t know that virtually all criminal offenses must have some level of intent; be it “intentional”, “knowingly”, “recklessly”, or with “criminal negligence.” Oh, wait, never mind. Pro tip: merely because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it crooked.
this is to aarethun the “knowing”
Tequila’s cheap, much like your writing.
No sense in either one.
You do not share the President’s view but you take Comey at his word. The way the guy has handled the Clinton investigation I wouldn’t believe the guy if he said his name is James Comey.
All the professional politicians and bureaucrats will skate from prosecution as always but watch what they do to this President.
“Key laptops were withheld and only turned over after Comey’s staff agreed to destroy the computers after their review, despite the relevance of the evidence to congressional investigations. Comey then cut five immunity deals with key Clinton staff members, including former State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, who set up a server in Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and worked for her at the State Department.”
And yet you say this: “I take Comey at his word that he did not make up his mind until after all of the evidence was reviewed.” What has Comey done to gain your trust in him? The cognitive dissonance is enough to put anyone else in a comatose state.
Mueller is just an extension of the corrupt FBI leadership
Really JT? lie, spin, distract, deflect, repeat……Just throw it against the wall to see what sticks? I seem to remember your posts over and over about HRC and your opinion that once Gowdy got a hold of her it was a done deal. Then we got pictures of your Alaskan vacation.
To my eyes the only thing to explain Comey’s actions was the fix was in. Clinton’s lack of transparency along with her and the FBI’s destruction of the evidence makes it difficult for me to believe otherwise. Things get worse. Tarmac meetings, key members pleading the fifth, immunity grants etc.
Then again “A Navy sailor entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “ (Politico 5/16)
The difference between the sailor and Clinton was the sailor couldn’t implement a fix.
“To my eyes . . .”
What we would all see with your eyes?
This isn’t surprising. The man’s been wearing Eau de Bureaucraticoperator cologne for some time. He’s joined at the hip with Robert Mueller, who has yet to improve the quality of public life by departing from it.
“Eau de..” LOL! It smells “prissy, so prissy so prissy and witty and gay.”
Such refinement of statement.
No sports to comment on tonight, Nick?
No homilies?
“In fairness to Comey, even judges are known to draft opinions before oral argument.”
Right. So what’s the fuss.
And Comey was known to take detailed notes of meetings with a rabid liar, too.
Who is or was Comey? And what is his game? He lives in France all the same. Man on first and w woman on second. Line drive to left and all is drivel.
Y’all know what drivel is?
Next topic.
There a two sets of Laws in this country,
or everyone trusts someone over 6ft in a $2000 Suit.
Comey missed something during the Clinton investigation. It has to do with the Clinton foundation server. How did Chelsea Clinton, acting as the foundation administrator, wind up $15 million in the bank & a $15 million apartment in NYC?
Sounds like Faux Neuz. Link to a reliable source?
Here’s a link. There are more links. Chelsea’s net worth is separate from husband Marc Mezvinsky. Marky is doing $2 million/year. This article puts NYC apartment at $10.5 million. Crunch the numbers.
https://www.earnthenecklace.com/chelsea-clinton-net-worth-rich-former-u-s-presidents-daughter/
Faux Neuz.
Miss Chelsea also worked for a hedgie. They don’t pay peanuts. Ask the Mooch or the Mnuch.
No, she worked for the McKinsey consultancy. Chelsea’s never settled on a career. She’s acquired several post-baccalaureate degrees and run through employments in consulting, academic administration, and broadcasting ‘ere going to work for her parents’ grift. She bounces from one thing to another about every 30 months or so. I assume the apartment was a gift from Hilligula. It’s interesting Mezvinsky is so well compensated given the failure of at least one of his funds consequent to bad bets on European bonds.
Chelsea Clinton also worked for a very lucrative hedge fund. Ken is right.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/13/chelsea-clinton-joins-12b-shadow-bank-kind-her-mom/
And she’s no more qualified than her philosopher hubbie to manage other people’s money.
This is just a title so people can pay her for doing nothing, crony capitalism at its finest.
The rotten apple didn’t fall far from the grifter tree.
It was the same deal with Rahm Emmanuel. He was paid an eight figure sum by Wasserstein, Perella for ‘investment banking services’. His previous history with commercial employers had concluded with a stint in his adolescent years working for an Arby’s franchise. His schooling in economics, accounting, and finance summed to bupkis. The assessment of trial lawyer Wm.Dyer (“BeldarBlog”) was ‘pre-paid bribe’. You see these massive speaking fees granted for 50 minutes of boilerplate and you have to figure that quite a few of them are laundered bribes.
Someone of my vintage can recall when Edmund Muskie’s five-figures-a-year in speaking fees or Walter Mondale’s $500,000 in fees for two-years’ worth of lobbying was considered a scandal by some prominent Democrats.
Now $250K for an hour’s worth to tell the banks what they already know is just “That’s what they offered.”
Pre-paid bribe, indeed.
CC Skeptic,….
Hillary turned a $1,000 investment in commodity futures into a $100,000 profit.
She must be a real financial wizard.😏😉
Tom, she’s a savant! LOL
Cape Cod, At the time they used punch cards that were NOT numbered. You can figure out the rest yourself.
Ask the Mooch or the Mnuch.
Michelle Obama never worked for a hedge fund. Mnuchin founded the hedge funds he ran. He was the one paying any employees.
Ya did not get it again. Mooch is Scaramucci’ s nickname. Steviie Mnuch made money working for none other Georgie Soros. In his spare time he foreclosed homes.
He worked for Goldman Sachs and later went into the private equity business. Soros was an investor in his firms.
Look it up braniac. Mnuchin worked directly for Soros Fund Management.
No, Soros was an investor in one of Mnuchin’s firms.
As Ken accurately noted, “Mnuchin worked directly for Soros Fund Management.”
http://www.newsweek.com/five-things-know-about-treasury-pick-steven-mnuchin-526893
From the previous linked article:
After departing Goldman, Mnuchin went to work for SFM Capital Management, a firm backed by billionaire George Soros, known for bankrolling liberal causes and candidates. Mnuchin later worked directly for Soros Fund Management. During the 2016 campaign season, Soros donated heavily to Priorities USA Action, a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC.
In 2004, Mnuchin departed to start his own hedge fund, Dune Capital Management. Bloomberg News reported that Dune “got hundreds of millions of dollars from Soros.” Dune invested in at least two Trump projects, one in Waikiki, Hawaii, and another in Chicago, according to Bloomberg News.
DSS needs to do a little research.
Is this guy Chelsea’s father-in-law? If so, it would be no wonder he’s such a “good fit” for the family.
“Not only did Ed Mezvinsky use his friendship with the Clintons to give him credibility to convince his victims to invest their money with him, but when he was being prosecuted, he and his wife desperately turned to Bill and Hillary Clinton to bail him out of trouble.”
“In March 2001, Mezvinsky pleaded guilty to felony charges of bank, mail and wire fraud, and he spent five years in prison, between 2003 and 2008. He and his wife were divorced in 2007.”
“Ed Mezvinsky, now 79, continues to carry his past sins with him, in the form of unpaid restitution to his victims. As recently as 2014, tabloids reported that his victims still haven’t seen their money returned and that it was unlikely it would ever happen.”
Yeah, I read earthnecklace every day! I’m so happy to find a compatriot.
Great stuff, not found anywhere else!
C’mon, JT, c’mon! Get real! Comey drafted a letter declining to press charges two months BEFORE important witnesses were interviewed, and in the process went thru all sorts of screwy maneuvers like immunizing witnesses that didn’t have to be immunized, and you don’t think this revelation proves anything???
The fix was in from the beginning, and anyone with a lick of common sense knew it way back then. Remember the Cheryl Mills representation of other subjects while she herself was a subject? And the Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch secret meeting on the tarmac??? And all the other little strange going ons???
Sheeeesh, if this was snake, it would have already bit you.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky nails it.
Agreed.
Yep.
She usually does.
Squeek, There is another HUGE red flag. A grand jury was never impaneled.
It’s like we’re watching the Zapruder film in real time and the current J. Edgar Hoover is telling us, “nothing to see here, folks, move along.”
“Who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin’ eyes?”
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” – Bill Clinton
I am lying to you and you’d better believe it.
The only one in trouble, is the one who isn’t lying – President Trump.
Reblogged this on Matthews' Blog.
Reblogged this on pundit from another planet.
Perfect. Darren Smith, you’ve outdone yourself.
Got any paid serveys for me?
If you could spell ‘surveys’ someone just might; ya never know!
Then he came out with the damaging statement about e-mails found on Climton’s private server just before the so-called election, which might have thrown it to Trump. Just what was Comey’s game? Or is he impulsive and completely inept, like Trump?
Then he came out with the damaging statement
He acknowledged in response to an inquiry by a congressional committee that they were investigating the matter of confidential documents found on the computer of the creepazoid husband of Huma Abedin.
Is it that surprising? I can imagine his office drafting a letter for exoneration AND conviction, just to have them ready faster when the time comes. Just like newspapers write obituaries for famous people who are still alive. I am not sure it proves a bias.
The drafting alone doesn’t prove bias but with the totality of other oversights, misinterpretations of the letter of the law, favoritism to certain individuals, etc. it is hard not to conclude that the outcome was preordained. The butcher’s thumb was on the scale.
If there were in fact a draft for conviction, I would be more inclined to believe him. I did not see anything about a conviction draft so I am not quite as willing as Jonathan to accept Comey’s assurances.
Yes, Wonderland is positively sane compared to inside the Beltway.
The fix was in from the beginning and the fact that reports are that Mueller has given Comey immunity, make it even worse. There is no reason to trust Comey.
I’m pretty sure I know nothing about the findings of the Mueller investigation, despite all that I expect it will uncover. Despite Turley’s protestations, he knows nothing either despite any “reports” that may have circulated. We have some idea of what is being looked into, but even the reports of IRS cooperation may have more to do with Manafort than Trump. We will see.
The smart money says that what the ‘Mueller investigation’ (conducted by staff attorneys of whom 30% are four-digit donors to the Democratic Party) will ‘uncover’ is a menu of process crimes contra Paul Manafort and others. (See Lawrence Walsh’s indictments of Elliot Abrams and Caspar Weinberger or Patrick FitzGerald’s of Lewis LIbby). These indictments will be secured at a time wherein the balance of ill-effects is optimal (stringing the process out to run up the subjects’ legal expenses but not so much as to run the clock out on the statute of limitations, with the sweet spot a time which does maximal damage to Trump in electoral contests).
As long as we’re speculating, my money would support a theory that any serious look at the finances of Trump, Kushner, Manafort and Flynn ill find they’ve traded the interests of the United States for self. We’ll see his love of Putin was really a love of money and that his administration is rife with conflict of interest. Trump has obstructed justice and will likely commit perjury before it’s over because his relationship with the truth is non-existent.
His relationship with the truth?
You mean like Loretta Lynch’s relationship with the truth regarding her meeting with former POTUS WJC on the tarmac?
The concept of truth appears to be just that, a concept.
Pointing to someone else you think lied won’t erase the mountain of lies Trump tells daily. Gotta run book my room at Trump Tower Moscow.
mountain of lies Trump tells daily.
Daily?
Yes, daily! Let’s pick tomorrow and see how many lies he tells. I’ll chart them for you because I’m helpful like that!
“We are building our future with American hands, American labor, American iron, aluminum and steel. Happy #LaborDay!” 1st known lie of the day. He has already made countless exceptions to requirements to use American steel and iron. The American workers doesn’t apply to him and Mar-a-lago. He brought in (since becoming President) dozens of workers under a Visa he hasn’t outlawed. There is a requirement that jobs be advertised first for Americans which he did, in a publication with fewer readers than my blog. #TrumpFirst.
Enigma, this describes my local grocery store, the local farm co-op of which I am a member, the local ritzy beach hotel which is staffed primarily with H-2B visa holding Eastern Europeans, and every clam and lobster shack up and down the Cape. Oh and the local McDonald’s franchisee, running 3 burger joints in Upper and Mid-Cape. These all ostensibly advertise for local employees, but lo and behold, you never see any locals in there. Last year, my son’s application at the local grocery languished (despite his virtually camping out there seeking an interview and signs in the window advertising job openings). Three weeks later, a whole group of Jamaicans are working the deli counter, screwing up orders so badly employees had to be pulled from other departments to deal with the mess. So not only are foreigners hired, they’re not even trained properly!! Double screw job for year-round residents who pay taxes with HS/college-age kids who could use the job experience.
My apologies, technically that lie was yesterday. Gen Kelly must still have his phone locked up. If nothing, Trump is resilient, the lies will get out!
“I am allowing Japan & South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States.”
I suppose it depends on what the definition of “allow” is. He cannot approve an increase in sales, only Congress can. He can recommend it, veto it (which Congress could override) but allowing is not within his power. One could interpret this to say he will let it happen if Congress decided to do so. Or, one could look at it as a grandiose statement from one looking to take credit for something he cannot himself do. I choose the latter.
I choose the latter.
Of course you do. Perhaps you forgot the number of times Mr. Pen and a Phone said he would veto (not allow) something Congress put on his desk. Not a grandiose statement at all, just doing the job, right?
I love the ability of many to ignore everything Trump does by saying, “But. Hillary” or “But, Obama,” I am only pointing out lies, or in other words, lead you to water. I can’t make you drink!
Plus, promising to veto a bill (e.g. Repealing the ACA) was something within Obama’s power. Unilaterally selling arms to a foreign country which Trump stated is not. Big difference.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of how those opposing the actions of one President actually supported those actions from another President is the opposite of ignorance. It’s called being objective. Try it sometime; it’ll free your mind from having to conjure up criticism of one President that exposes your willful ignorance of another.
Olly, enigma draws his conclusions and then makes the facts and words fit them. Reading this tells us that what he says is unadulterated and unsanitized BS.
Objectiveness is lost on enigma. He is a whiner and whiner’s are not very objective.
Enigma “thinks” something is a lie, so he concludes it has to be a lie. The logic he possess is something I tried to dispel in my own kids when they were about 5 years old.
“I have a love for these people, people think we’re talking about children but we’re really talking about young adults.” I think that alleged “love” constitutes a big lie.
“I look forward to working w/ D’s + R’s in Congress to address immigration reform in a way that puts hardworking citizens of our country 1st.”
Can you think of a single example during his Presidency where he attempted to “work with D’s?” He doesn’t even know how to work with “R’s”
“Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!”
Two things here, a lie and an inconsistency. The lie is that the Obama Administration was unable to make DACA legal. It has, in fact, stood up to several legal challenges and there is a finding on record from the Justice Department that it’s Constitutional. Second that he’ll revisit the decision if Congress doesn’t act is contrary to his decision and his tweet from… this morning.
I missed his public statement today on a couple issues and am sure there were some lies contained within, but I’m only one man and he’s so prolific.
C’mon — Loretta Lynch was a great country singer.
Nothing’s sacred anymore.
my money would support a theory
Yeah. A sure thing. Buwahahahaha
Trump has obstructed justice?? Holy moly man, re-read all that JT just wrote about Hillary Clinton and her gang. You want evidence of obstruction? Try Bleach bit, lies, hammers, destruction of emails while under subpoena, pleading the 5th, tarmac meetings with Bubba and Lowretta, FBI director acting as investigator, grand jury AND attorney general, etc,etc. Please. And whatever Manafort did before he came on board with Trump’s campaign is small beans compared to all we know about the Clinton crime syndicate. Funny we don’t hear much in the news about the Podesta brothers, etc. If you actually believe Trump is going down, you are in for some big surprises. Coming soon.
TBob, I am never amazed at the contortions some go through to prove the validity of of their ideas. No fact in the world seems to be able to change their minds.
Bingo. Your ilk fell for the big con and elected a facade of a human being, who will likely blunder into blowing up the world. You just now are admitting that?
This is to “finally awake” allan
Mark m., I’ll repeat my quote because a concrete brain is not a good media for the absorbtion of complex information. “No fact in the world seems to be able to change their minds.” Unfortunately we have to suffer fools such as yourself that impede one’s search for the truth.
Right on, allen boy!
Or is that alan, ya know, after having to use a different email account and name for awhile until Übermenschdarren helped you to post again.
Thank you, but it is Allan. Yes, I changed my name temporarily to Alan to escape the treachery of the spam entity that Darren explained afflicts the blog. At least this type of random censorship affects all equally rather than picking and choosing who should or should not be censored. The latter is what we see on too many leftist blogs that exist only to feed the minds of silly people.
If T rump becomes convinced he is going down he will start a nuclear war. Coming soon.
I look at the character of the man and yes I think he’s going down.
Focus. Refuse to follow the shiny ball under the couch. The subject of this thread is the daily lying of our buffoonish, semi-literate, liar-in-chief; don’t lose sight of the ball. Moreover, merely because Pravda Faux News makes a claim repeatedly on a fifteen-minute cycle doesn’t make it true.
the is to “now-educated” tbob
What lie has President Trump told? Specifically
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?_r=0
Mark m:
” … the daily lying of our buffoonish, semi-literate, liar-in-chief;”
**********************
My guess is that President Trump is richer, smarter, more successful, more popular and has prettier wife than you. Green is a bad color for you, btw.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?_r=0
Same thing again and again and again. Sounds like an anonymous echo.
Scroll, then. (Just balancing out all of the blather.)
Here’s another one for you:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/22/president-trumps-list-of-false-and-misleading-claims-tops-1000/
And I gave you a conservative source.
I’d suggest searching — if you really want to know — but I doubt that you do, given your responses.
You are not balancing out the blather. You are just adding to the low level of discussion.
As far as reading your two sites I read both and they are virtually copying the same things over and over again. The problem is that it is ***their opinion*** that most of these things are lies. Puffery, opinion, guesses, positions etc are not lies. They fall under different classifications even though the left likes to make meaningless lists. Start dealing with real issues and be consistent whether the issue satisfies your ideology. Don’t pick and choose solely based upon ideology
We had a discussion on freedom of speech. It’s a simple logic problem. You either believe in it or you don’t, but don’t only support speech that you like. Real freedom of speech means supporting the speech you hate.