Comey v. Comey: How New Disclosures Could Put Just One Week Between Comey and Perjury

Former FBI Director James Comey continues to market his book – and himself – as a lesson in “ethical leadership.”  However, the historical record is proving increasingly at odds with Comey’s account and image. After months of spins and swerves by defenders, a consensus is emerging that Comey is indeed a leaker.  The most damaging evidence, however, comes not from Comey’s critics but Comey himself.  Indeed, Comey v. Comey could be the most telling conflict in this still unfolding scandal.  However, at issue, is not simply whether Comey will be viewed as a leaker or a liar, but a perjurer.

Comey’s crumbling defense was most evident in his interview last week with Anderson Cooper when Cooper challenged his self-serving definition of a leak as only involving classified information.  That is manifestly wrong, as Cooper correctly pointed out, since leaks often involve unclassified but still non-public information.

Agency rules (including most notably the FBI’s rules) ban the release of non-public agency information whether or not it has been classified.  Indeed, many leak investigations (including some under Comey) do not involve classified information, such as leaks about White House meetings or non-public statements.  The FBI, including Director Andrew Wray, confirmed that the Comey memos were not his documents (as he continues to implausibly maintain) but rather FBI material subject to rules of nondisclosure.  Nevertheless, Comey gave at least four memos to Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman to leak information to the media.

However, in the ongoing Inspector General’s investigation into his conduct, Comey’s defense could ultimately collide with Comey’s own (prior) interpretation.  In the last two weeks, the divide between Comey and his former deputy (and acting FBI Director) Andrew McCabe widens.  McCabe has claimed that Comey knew about his giving non-public information to the Wall Street Journal.  McCabe’s counsel directly challenged Comey and said that the public should not buy Comey’s “white knight” account of his own conduct. Comey responded by publicly stating that McCabe was found to be a liar by the IG and that he was the one who called for an investigation into the “leak.”  That’s the problem.

McCabe is not accused (unlike Comey) of revealing classified information to the Wall Street Journal.  Rather it was an unclassified exchange concerning the Clinton investigation. It was reported as between McCabe and a high-ranking DOJ official where McCabe asked “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Comey was determined to find the leaker and notes from a meeting quote Comey as demanding action “to get our folks to understand why leaks hurt our organization.”

In other words, before he himself became a leaker, Comey did not qualify leaks as confined to classified information.  He promised Trump to root out such leaks while assuring Congress that he would never countenance such misconduct.

During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey was asked by Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Grassley if he’d “ever been an anonymous source in news reports in matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation.” Comey responded “Never.”

He was then asked if he had ever authorized anyone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source on these topics. Again, Comey was clear and unequivocal: “no.”  He was then asked if any classified information “relating to President Trump or his associates” had been declassified and shared with journalists. Comey responded “Not to my knowledge.”

That was May 3.  He was fired less than a week later. Since Comey is now accused of doing all three things, Grassley must be wondering if his questions proved more suggestive than probative for Comey.

Some of Comey’s staunchest defenders appear now to recognize the implausibility of his denial of being a leaker and have moved on to a more technical defense: that Comey was allowed to leak even classified information because he has “original classification authority.” In other words, he can leak classified information legally by simply declaring it to be unclassified.  This defense is flawed for two reasons.

First, Comey presumably told Richman to leak the information after he was fired as FBI Director.  At that point, whatever authority he had was gone. Comey told Congress that he did not release the memos through Richman until after he was fired: “I was worried. The media was camping at the end of my driveway at that point, and I was actually going out of town with my wife to hide, and I worried that it would be like feeding seagulls at the beach.”  While widely accepted as common sense by the media, it actually makes little sense.  Comey portrays the only choice as secretly giving the memos to a friend (who leaked the material anonymously) or throwing himself into a media mosh pit. Apparently, email and the Internet were not available that week. Nevertheless, Comey used a surrogate to leak to the “seagulls” without attribution to either himself or Comey.

Comey has not confirmed when he sent the memos to Richman. The fact is that Comey had no authority to make that judgment on the actual release of the non-public information after he was fired.  It is like an FBI agent keeping case material after retirement. You still have the obligation to clear the release of non-public information, particularly since the status of material can change. There is no indication that Comey subjected the documents for formal review before he decided to release them as a private citizen.

Second, it would still be a serious abuse of authority. There was no public interest purpose in this disclosure. Comey’s memos were written from January to April 2017. The final memo was dated three weeks before his May 2017 testimony. The Comey memos were already in the hands of FBI officials, including Andrew McCabe, and were part of the investigation. The leak was designed to help James Comey personally.  Indeed, it undermined the value of the memos for investigators by alerting the White House of their existence. It was disclosed recently that Comey conveniently made Richman a “special government employee” without pay. He then used Richman to leak the memos.  This raises serious questions for Richman who may still have been a special employee of the Justice Department when a former employee told him to leak information to the media.

Ironically, the media has been hammering away at Trump for a year in arguing that, even if he had authority to fire Comey or pardon associates, it could still be a crime if done for improper or personal purposes.  I agree with that position.  Yet, the assumption from these same commentators is that Comey could use his authority to serve his own interests with absolute impunity.

Comey’s memos were written from January to April 2017. By May 3, Comey admits that he had already written the memos as a type of insurance against a move by Trump against him.  However, he leaked the memos a week after he swore that he never leaked or authorized anyone to leak or declassified material to leak. It was like waiting for Monday to have an affair so you could go to confession on Sunday with a clear conscience.  At best, just a week now likely stands between Comey being a leaker or a perjurer. That is hardly a comfortable margin for someone teaching “ethical leadership” by example.

190 thoughts on “Comey v. Comey: How New Disclosures Could Put Just One Week Between Comey and Perjury”

  1. OT but really an important topic if Nastyyahoo can draw us into his latest skirmish

  2. President Trump will prove the allegations true, that he is a fool, if he responds to Mueller, the perpetrator of a criminally malicious prosecution. Mueller, Rosenstein and the entire Obama Gang must be thrown in prison for conducting a treasonous coup d’etat in America.

    “I don’t remember, my mind is Jello!”

    – Hillary Clinton

    “Hillary Clinton told the FBI she couldn’t recall something more than three dozen times.”

    – WaPo

  3. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, “…a dupe which will live in infamy.”

    1. George, honestly, it wasn’t that clever the first 25 times you posted it. Get some new material, man.

  4. Major kudos to Judicial Watch — their tireless in pursuit of answers/justice.

  5. Lock him up and give him as much due process as the lowliest thug charged with being a “drug kingpin” for having three rocks of crack gets. Remember Comey, half off if you plead!

  6. Sounds like another bureaucratic finagler. Manipulating public relations is how these people do business and play footsie with each other. We’d be better off if this sort of thing were stamped out with routinized dismissals. Even if what he did was unlawful, I’d wager prosecutorial discretion will keep him out of the dock (which isn’t such a bad thing; when insider privilege is keeping you out of the dock, that’s a bad thing).


    THIS IS # 7

    “During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?”

    Trump boasted in 2015 that he met with high-level Russian business executives, including Aras Agalarov, and government officials during his 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant. “I was with the top-level people, both oligarchs and generals and top-of-the-government people,” he told radio host Hugh Hewitt. “I can’t go further than that, but I will tell you I met the top people.”

    It seems Mueller wants him to go further than that.

    1. Et tu Peter Hill? Another wannabe lefty “news” consolidator with no clearly conveyed rational point of view? Perhaps you and Late can take lefty conspiracy stuff offline and maybe team up for your own version of Drudge Report. Please spare us the endless postings of articles you want us to read. Either make a point or get of the stage.

      1. The point has been made, it’s only fake news to you, when truth is exposed and in the light of day.

        1. Dear Fish Sticks: Please provide proof of Trump being aided by Russians to convince US voters to vote for Trump instead of HRC. For example, any testimonials by disgruntled Trump voters who feel like they got duped? Trump came through front door of voters homes (television) and kicked-ass/outworked 16 republicans in primary and then HRC.

          1. I feel sorry for people like you who need to believe that the fat, bald, old man with a bad comb-over is some kind of ass-kicking white supremacist super-hero instead of the lying fraud he really is.

            1. Please provide proof that our president is a “white supremacist”. That is a very inflammatory comment and I would ask that the monitor of this blog remove that comment. I have seen far less provocative comments removed.

              1. He praised the White Supremacists who ran down and killed that protester. He even blamed the protester for her own death.

                1. There was no such praise or blame. You simply bought into such blanket accusations by left media because as Trump hater you are inclined feed on the baby food spoon fed to you by left media. You so need to believe that in order to keep your hate kindled. Listen carefully to the words and not the interpretation you are told to understand. Still no proof Natacha. Enjoy your belief. Bye.

                  1. Bill: the tapes don’t lie. I saw the words come out of his mouth. No “left media” told me this. I don’t need anyone to spoon-feed me anything to realize what an unfit, obnoxious, braggadocious loser Trump is.

                2. Natacha – a single person drove that car and a group of people (without parade permits) were blocking the street)

                3. He praised the White Supremacists who ran down and killed that protester. He even blamed the protester for her own death.

                  He didn’t and he didn’t. You cannot stop lying.

          2. Bill, I think you saw a different election. 3 million more Americans voted for Hillary. So this idea that American preferred Donald Trump has no basis in reality.

            1. Electoral votes are what counts Peter. Running up the popular vote score in CA, NY, IL means nothing. While Hilary was preparing glass ceiling victory celebration in NY, she forgot about WI and MI while Trump did not.

              1. The basic fact remains that more Americans voted for Hillary. And while we’re on the subject I might point out that California and New York account for 18% of all Americans.

                Odd that New Yorkers wouldn’t vote for a native. But then they know Trump better than the rest of us.

                1. The basic fact remains that more Americans voted for Hillary.

                  No, when padded with felons, illegal aliens, and absentee ballot fraud, Hillary’s tally was higher.

                  1. Nutchacha, how would you explain the fact that most Hispanic voting districts had relatively low turnout? Could so many ‘illegals’ vote without turnout numbers surging? Would state Secretaries of State not notice those surges? Of course they would! For that reason Trump’s sham ‘Voter Fraud Commission went nowhere fast.

      2. Oh yes, there’s definitely a “point” to Mueller’s questions. The fact that you’d rather swallow the Pravda Faux News pap doesn’t have any effect in the real world, where facts are in play. No rational person in the day glo bozo’s position would dare answer these questions under oath; but that caution doesn’t apply to this buffoon.

        this is to “but, but, the federal grand jury is obviously part of the ‘Deep State’ isn’t it?” billie

        1. Marky Mark Mark – use of the grand jury can be part of the Deep State. The grand jury itself is not part of the Deep State. A federal grand jury is only empaneled for 18 months at most.

      1. Peter Hill, thank you sir for at least trying to being sanity back to this site. The alternative reality and universe crowd will never see it, but thank you anyway.

        1. FishWings – you do know the ‘fact checkers’ are biased against Trump and have called him a liar on things that were true. The fact checkers need to be checked.

          This is the problem with Fake News. Whose Fake News is it? The Right’s or the Left’s? Does all Fake News go or just the Fake News we don’t agree with?

          1. Aye. See Glenn Reynolds critique of the ‘FactChecker’ subculture, especially Kessler of the Bezos Birdcage Liner.

          2. Haha.

            this is to “they’re all in it together; I saw black helicopters hovering at the edge of my lawn” paulie

            1. Marky Mark Mark – I keep telling you I used to live near where they tested the black helicopters. It was very cool to see them go up in formations of three and do their maneuvers.

          3. Republicans say fact-checkers have a agenda, but in their world that makes sense.

            1. FishWings – that doesn’t mean they are wrong. 😉

    1. Yeah because it’s really silly to think the Donald wanted whores to pee on a bed for fun. That recalls one of the bogus falsehoods made up by British intelligence about Hitler that he was a coprophage. Ridiculous, false, nonsense. You can say a lot of bad about Hitler or Donald but seriously do you have to make stuff up? Only if you are creepy spook from MI 6 or CIA playing the operation paperclip game.

    2. Excerpted from the article to which Peter Hill linked us above:

      Apr 28 2018

      “Russian collusion. you know? I guarantee you. I am tougher on Russia, nobody ever thought — have you heard about the lawyer? A woman lawyer, she said, I know nothing. Now she supposedly — you know why? Putin and the group said, Trump is killing us. Why don’t you say you are involved with government so that we can go and make their life in United States even more chaotic?”

      Repeated 11 times [by You-Know-Who]

      P.S. Try to keep in my mind that You-Know-Who was referring to the Trump Tower meeting that took place on June 9th, 2016 when he made the statement cited above on April 28th, 2018. If Trump’s defense is that Putin knew in 2016 that Trump would be “tougher on Russia,” such that Putin sent Veselnitskaya to the Trump Tower meeting to “make their life in the United States even more chaotic,” then . . . OMG. Trump needs a new defense–STAT.




    The Russia Probe drags on because Trump won’t give Mueller interview. Trump’s lawyers know potential interview will be perjury trap. Trump can’t possibly provide honest answers without incriminating himself.

    Professor Turley knew this would be front page story this morning. But Professor has ulterior motive for falling back on Comey. Which signals that White House doesn’t want to deal with these questions.

      1. JT’s MO from the start has been nothing to see here, but look over there.

        1. FishWings, I wonder if JT still wants Trump to take the interview???

    1. I’d just tell Trump to refuse the interview and let it go indefinitely. But I guess Ty Cobb and the other high rent lawyers need to justify their existence.

    2. Another front page political story: add General Kelly to the list of cabinet members calling Trump dumb, stupid, or otherwise unqualified to serve. Yeah, we know this is just “lugepresse”, which was Hitler’s word for “fake news”.

      1. Awesome reference. Thanks for the chilling tie-in which illustrates the day glo bozo’s blueprint.

        to natacha

  9. Looking back to the beginning of the 2016 election cycle, what evidence of crimes has actually been discovered to this point?

    1. The only crime one could make an argument for,would have been the hacked/stolen emails from John Podesta and the DNC.

      However, since the DNC refused to turn the server over, there is no evidence of a crime. For all we know, a member of the DNC leaked those emails and certainly documented literature has been published to support that angle.

      So with all the ‘crimes’ allegedly committed by Team Trump, none of them ever surfaced to sway the election.

      But many people live through their hopes and dreams, so the fantasies continue.

  10. We need to adapt the model of the Netherlands. A leak on the street in plain sight is ok. They even have outdoor pee places which are not enclosed. In America we have all these verboten rules about leaking in public. It is dumb. If the truth be told then leaks will be bold.

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above;

      Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to questions read by the special counsel investigators to the president’s lawyers, who compiled them into a list. That document was provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump’s legal team.

      1. Also excerpted from the article linked above:

        President Trump said on Twitter on Tuesday that it was “disgraceful” that questions the special counsel would like to ask him were publicly disclosed, and he incorrectly noted that there were no questions about collusion. The president also said collusion was a “phony” crime.

        1. Haven’t we been constantly told that Mr. Mueller is running such a tight ship that no leaks were coming out?

          So again, just another blow for his credibility. But of course it’s okay since it’s just Pres. Trump.


          1. As a matter of business, Mueller’s team isn’t the only one with information about the investigation. Other sources about the work of the Mueller team include witnesses who speak about their own experiences with friends and colleagues. In this case, the list came from Trump’s legal team.

              1. The clue is this article today. Professor Turley knew these questions would be the most discussed story this morning. The New York Times first ran this story around 8:00 P.M. last night. Apparently the professor didn’t want to address it. So the leak is probably from Trump’s camp.

                1. And are you placing Colonel Mustard in the Library with the candlestick with your theory also?

                    1. PH, what is the advantage of either side leaking these questions? Does this help Team Trump? Does this help Team Mueller?

                      Even though you may be correct in theorizing that Team Trump is the leaker, we don’t have any proof. And I jumped the gun blaming someone from Team Mueller. How do we even know these questions are legitimate? Because they’re in The NY Times? It is fun to opine about what’s published. But it’s better to opine about facts. JT opines how Mr. Comey has been caught in lies.. And we know this by his testimony and now follow up questions he’s answering in public.

                      I do think your criticism of JT in writing this column is way off base. What we should all know by now is that Constitutional experts that have their opinions published do not write them hastily. Being that it was posted last night, the probability is that he spent Sunday forming the post.

                    2. For crying out loud Peterman. Read these sentences again . . .

                      “. . . according to questions read by the special counsel investigators to the president’s lawyers, who compiled them into a list. That document was provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump’s legal team.”

                      You demand proof even when proof was given to you right up front. That’s preposterous, Peterman.

            1. From “Above the Law”:

              Last night, the New York Times published a list of nearly 50 questions that special counsel Robert Mueller apparently has prepared for Donald Trump. Times reporter Michael Schmidt says these questions were given verbally to John Dowd, before Dowd quit. The belief is that Dowd quit specifically because Trump wanted to sit down and answer these questions, and Dowd was unwilling to be the lawyer dumb enough to let that happen.

              That this leak comes from the Trump legal team and not Mueller should be obvious, but I’ll show my work so everybody can keep up in class.
              •Mueller verbally communicated the questions to Dowd, which is what you do to make sure something like this doesn’t leak out of your office.
              •These aren’t “questions” in the investigative sense. Questions come in binders. These are “topics.”
              •To highlight the difference between topics and questions, let’s take a well known example: the Lester Holt interview where Trump admitted that he fired James Comey because of the “Russia thing.” In the published document, the question is “What did you mean in your interview with Lester Holt about Mr. Comey and Russia?” But that’s not how this topic will come at Trump in a deposition. Instead, it’ll be a series of questions like:
              “Who approached you for the Holt interview?” “Did you set it up yourself?”
              “Did you know what he was going to ask in advance?”
              “Did you do any prep for that interview? Are there documents reflecting that prep? Can we see them?”
              “Had you spoken with Holt before? His producers?”
              “How much of the interview made it on air?” “What did you talk about that was cut?”
              “When you said ‘the Russia thing’ what were you referring to? A specific report? A news item?”
              “How did Comey’s handling of the ‘Russia Thing’ displease you?”
              “Was Holt the only person you told about your thinking? Who else? Was Holt the only reporter you told about your thinking? Who else?”
              And that’s if they even ASK about Holt! Given time constraints, it might not be worth it to get additional answers to something that Trump has already talked about on the record. Again, deposition questions are way more specific than what was published in the Times.

              •Instead, this looks like defense deposition prep. And, shockingly, prep at the very early stages. You want to work out your client’s on the record take on these topics. Work out the best possible answers, and drill them into his or her head. This looks every bit like defense counsel attorney work product.
              •And, a former Mueller assistant points out that there are grammatical errors in the document that aren’t reflective of how Mueller’s office operates. Meanwhile, everybody in Trump’s orbit is as sloppy as I am in their written work.

              And if that doesn’t convince you that this document was prepared by the defense side of the table, then I’ll just also point out that Mueller’s office hasn’t leaked nearly at all during this process, while Trump’s White House leaks like a canoe that’s been strafed by an A-10 Warthog. Trump’s legal team leaked this out. And I’ve got five bucks saying it’s Giuliani time that did it.

              The more interesting question is “why?”

              My theory is that if this is deposition prep that Trump’s lawyers leaked it to the press to make Trump FOCUS. As we know, Trump doesn’t read and he doesn’t study. He gets nearly all of his information from television. Leaking these questions is both a way to warn Trump that he is not at all ready to sit down and talk to Mueller (something he allegedly still wants to do) and has the benefit of at least getting Trump to see these questions that he’s probably never looked at even though Dowd’s document has probably been floating around the White House for months. The lawyers are trying to manage their client through the media, and that’s why these questions are out.

              Stephanie Wilkins

              Joe Patrice’s theory is that Trump’s lawyers are trying to lay the groundwork for an argument that Mueller has “exceeded his mandate.” Right now, Ken Starr is ironically the one carrying a lot of water on this front. It seems clear that some Republicans want to fire Rosenstein and Mueller, and by putting these questions out there, the hope could be that people react to them as “excessive.”

              Of course, both Joe and I are giving Trump’s legal team a lot of credit. Credit they haven’t really earned. It could be that the Trump lawyers are bad enough to think that leaked questions could somehow obstruct Mueller’s ability to move forward. It shouldn’t in any way, but a Trump lawyer can dream, I suppose.

              What’s your theory? Are they trying to educate their client, obstruct the investigation, or something else entirely? Trying to figure out why anybody in TrumpWorld does any of the dumb-ass things they do is always a fun parlor game.

              1. That this leak comes from the Trump legal team and not Mueller should be obvious,

                It isn’t obvious. Nice try at stealing a base.

              2. Natasha asked, “What’s your theory? Are they trying to educate their client, obstruct the investigation, or something else entirely? Trying to figure out why anybody in TrumpWorld does any of the dumb-ass things they do is always a fun parlor game.”

                I love guessing games. I’m guessing that Trump personally authorized Guliani to leak Mueller’s questions to The New York Times in a desperate bid to whipsaw Trump’s supporters and defenders into a febrile fit of pique the likes of which the world has never . . . Well, actually, we have seen that before. Haven’t we?

                With the heavens above as my witness, I swear that Trump is the one who leaked to CNN the fact that Comey had briefed Trump on the Trump-Russia dossier. Because Comey told Trump that Comey wanted to keep it secret.

          2. The henchmen for the day glo bozo have had the questions since March. So sorry for your loss.

            this is to “I have a ‘Hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” mikey

            1. Marky Mark Mark – things change since March. New lawyers. New questions.

        2. It is. Exactly where is “collusion” in the US Criminal code? Give me a citation

          1. Conspiracy to commit election fraud. Conspiracy to fence stolen goods. Remember: The conspiracy does not have to succeed in order to be charged. Failed conspiracies are routinely charged. Moreover, the simple fact that the FBI investigation was under way and picking up steam is the most likely reason that Trump couldn’t deliver his end of the quid pro quo. Why else would Trump have been so keen on asking Comey to let Flynn go? The window of opportunity to give Russia sanctions relief was closing. And there was pesky pestering Goody Two-Shoes Comey investigating Flynn for having discussed sanctions with Kislyak. He had to fire Comey. It’s so unfair.

  11. Bill Martin:

    Here a handy little guide I use on the blog for regulars:

    Posts I always read:

    Paul C. Schulte
    Bob, Esq
    Mike Appleton
    Nick Spinelli
    Nutchacha is insufferable

    Posts I occasionally read:

    C V Brown
    Tom Nash

    Posts I read under pain of imprisonment only:

    Peter Hill
    Any variety of Ken
    David B Benson

    I’m sure I’ve missed a few in the three categories but it’s my basic filter.

    1. This list is EXACTLY how i peruse comments.

      Except ‘Mespo’ is in my ‘always read’ and even ‘pain of imprisonment’ could not force me to read the latter…….my ‘scroll by’ may be even longer ………

    2. That’s a good filter list. I almost always read Karen S, as her posts are thoughtful and well-written.

      1. You know, that’s right I forgot you and Karen S for the “Makes Sense Always” list. Must be the age thingy. FFS is so familiar 😀

    3. Well, if you don’t read what I and others post, how do you know they would offend your sensitive feelings?

      1. Natacha asked, “Well, if you don’t read what I and others post, how do you know they would offend your sensitive feelings?”

        I can answer that. When Mespo replies to what Natacha posts, Mespo can tell that A) his sensitive feelings have been offended and Natacha can tell that B) Mespo retroactively dis-read what Natacha posted.

    4. Mespo, I am offended you didn’t put me on your list. Going to find a safe space NOT =)

    5. mespo – I read you always, too. However, as an avid reader, I tend to read every one.

  12. Dear JT: More of this type of logical relevant analysis – well done, and less on frivolous civil matters (i.e. Stormy Daniels NDA and her self-promoting anti-Trump attorney).

    1. “Logical relevant analysis”: in other words, someone with a law degree going after someone with the ability to put away Trump. Typical Kellyanne Pivot.

      1. Natacha, Bill Martin is infatuated with the words “logical relevant analysis.” It’s a fetish. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the letters LOGOS were tattooed backwards to Bill Martin’s forehead.

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      • What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?

      This is one of the most intriguing questions on the list. It is not clear whether Mr. Mueller knows something new, but there is no publicly available information linking Mr. Manafort, the former campaign chairman, to such outreach. So his inclusion here is significant. Mr. Manafort’s longtime colleague, Rick Gates, is cooperating with Mr. Mueller.

      1. Diane – the important thing is that Flynn is likely off the hook and Manafort is going to fight the charges.

        1. Yes Paul. And let’s not forget that Cohen was referred by Muler to the Southern District of NY, presumably for matters unrelated to fantasized Trump-Russia collusion. If Muler had just a single thread connecting Cohen to Trump-Russia collusion, no way he punts on Cohen via referral to Southern District.

          1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

            In recent weeks the White House has agitated for McCabe’s exit, saying he is part of a broader pattern of bias against the president in the highest levels of federal law enforcement. Defenders of the Justice Department’s leadership say the charges of bias are part of the president’s effort to try to undermine the federal probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

    2. Dear Late: Please derive authentic logical thoughts and convey concisely. You are not the left version of Matt Drudge. JT blog is not place for you to act like a “news” consolidator. Please cease posting lefty articles and bring it with a to-the-point comment(s) from you.

        1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          Instead, as is now becoming plain, the Trump strategy is to discredit the investigation and the FBI without officially removing the leadership. Trump is even talking to friends about the possibility of asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions to consider prosecuting Mueller and his team.

      1. Bill Martin said, “Dear Late: Please derive authentic logical thoughts and convey concisely. You are not the left version of Matt Drudge. JT blog is not place for you to act like a “news” consolidator. Please cease posting lefty articles and bring it with a to-the-point comment(s) from you.”

        Bill Martin also said, “Dear JT: More of this type of logical relevant analysis – well done, and less on frivolous civil matters (i.e. Stormy Daniels NDA and her self-promoting anti-Trump attorney).”

        And now for a few authentic logical thoughts conveyed concisely from Bill Martin’s quotes cited above.

        Jonathan Turley does not work for Bill Martin. L4D does not work for Bill Martin. Bill Martin is not the proprietor of Res Ipsa Loquitur. But Bill Martin surely wishes he were in charge, running the show, calling the shots and naming the tune. Will Bill Martin pay the piper as well???

          1. It looks like Trump leaked Mueller’s questions to The Times then tweeted that it was “disgraceful” that Mueller’s questions had been leaked to The Times. And Bill Martin thinks L4D protests too much. Really?

  13. Forgive regulars here EnigmaInBlack and Isaac for not understanding Turley’s article, which clearly proves and confirms that their hero Comey is a liar and a felony perjurer. Too many words for them to comprehend, a problem common to most Progressives.

    1. Gowdy and others have claimed that Comey and McCabe testified to the house that contradicts several things that they are now claiming. Nunes has been trying to get the Transcripts released, but DOJ/FBI have redacted the relevant portions.

      Expect to see anothing clash between the House and DOJ/FBI, with perhaps another move directly to Trump to get the authority to release the transcripts.

    2. Turley wrote, “However, he leaked the memos a week after he swore that he never leaked or authorized anyone to leak or declassified material to leak. ”

      JoJo wrote, “Turley’s article, which clearly proves and confirms that their hero Comey is a liar and a felony perjurer.”

      JoJo needs to reread Turley’s article more carefully the second time through. Here’s another hint, JoJo:

      Turley also wrote, “just a week now likely stands between Comey being a leaker or a perjurer.”

      1. Turley also wrote this sentence, “Comey has not confirmed when he sent the memos to Richman.”

  14. Due to the FBI accepting a guilty plea from an agent in Minnesota for leaking to the media, it seems almost a guarantee that Mr. Comey will get charged. Mr. Richman’s ‘government service’ had also expired and should also be brought up on charges.

    If leakers aren’t prosecuted, then what’s the point of having the law?

    1. Comey appointed Fitzgerald as SC to go after Libby – even though Armatage had already confessed to inadvertently releasing Plames indentity AND CIA had confirmed that she was no longer NOC and therefore her name was already public.

    2. Comey won’t get charged. he’s a whale. Leaks are for little fish. Some animals are more equal than others.

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        Matthew Miller, the top spokesman for President Obama’s first attorney general, said both location and personnel matter.

        “This is another example of the Trump administration blurring the lines between the White House and law enforcement and encroaching on the Justice Department’s independence,” Miller said. “U.S. attorneys shouldn’t be anywhere near the White House podium in any event, and they certainly shouldn’t be there weighing in on hot-button issues as part of a White House political strategy. Every time the Trump administration crosses one of these lines, they weaken the rule of law in America.”

        1. Obama had a compliant DOJ and Attorneys General.
          That obviously isn’t the case in the Trump administration, where the president is often at odds with the top DOJ officials.
          It may be that Trump’s expections were that he’d have a cozy relationship with DOJ, like Obama had with Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch.
          Either situation…a compliant DOJ or a DOJ at odds with the president…can create problems.
          But the independence of the Trump DOJ is pretty well established.

        2. “This is another example of the Trump administration blurring the lines between the White House and law enforcement and encroaching on the Justice Department’s independence…”

          Just following the example of the previous administration, I suppose.

      2. Also Excerpted from the article linked above:

        John Huber is a career prosecutor in Utah who’s served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. This month, the Trump White House nominated him to serve as a U.S. attorney in that state.

        But it came as something of a surprise to current and former Justice Department veterans Wednesday when Huber appeared for a news conference in Washington: not in the halls of Justice, but at the White House podium.

        Huber and the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement used the platform to advocate for the passage of House bills that increase penalties for undocumented immigrants who break the law and jurisdictions that refuse to share information with federal immigration authorities.

  15. I think the affair analogy is apt because I think Comey is a practicing Catholic (not sure about that. just things that he has said). However, I disagree with the contention that Comey can be wrongly fired. It is a Constitutional prerogative and it does not come with stipulations.

    1. Agree in totality. Mr. Comey could have been fired for being too tall. No obstruction should be charged. Plus during the Lester Holt interview, Pres. Trump also said it would be a good thing to find out if anyone committed a crime. It’s convenient how many seem to forget.

    2. I think Turley is wrong that Trump can obstruct justice doing something that is within his powers as president.

      Acts are crimes not intentions.

      But the circumstances are NOT the same with Comey. Comey’s powers and authority are not his own. He is answerable to others – including Trump. He has far more limited authority to act on his own initiative for his own benefit.

      More simply The FBI director is not the president and does not have the same powers and authority.

      1. John Say – it is clear from his interviews that Comey was a disloyal employee who failed to give his boss all the information he should have so his boss could have made a good decision about it.

      2. I believe it is quite comical that Trump can be accused of obstruction for firing Comey despite his constitutional authority to do so, but Hillary can skate clean because she was only “extremely careless.”

        1. The press can make crap up and they often do.

          Extremely careless are words synonomous with the negligence standard that can be the basis for a prosecution of a nobody like some careless sailor mishandling a few classified infobits, but a whale like hillary isn’t the same as a big fish. Some animals are more equal than others.

    3. Supposedly, he has six children. That’s the most appealing thing about him.

      1. DSS – he has six girls. He clearly is in touch with his feminine side. 😉

Comments are closed.