Thursday, June 8, 2017

Picking and Parsing Comey's Testimony

Laura Rozen is referring here to Comey's testimony that:

1) He didn't argue for a special prosecutor in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by the AG (Loretta Lynch - whom he obviously believes was way out of line in her protective approach to Hillary/Bill Clinton during the campaign and should have recused herself) or the deputy AG because he knew there was nothing to be prosecuted, and it would have taken months for a special prosecutor to work his/her way through to that inevitable conclusion; and

2) After he was fired, he gave his Trump conversation memos to "a friend" (I'll update this when I've gone back and found who that was - I've blogged it, but the name escapes me at the moment) and asked that they be given to reporters in order to force the necessity for a special prosecutor in the Trump case.

Does that mean that he knows there is something to be found that requires prosecution?

I hadn't thought about that point of contrast. Maybe that's why Grandpa Walnuts was trying to hang Comey up on the issue of how he treated Hillary versus how he's treated Trump. Comey's repeated reply to McCain was that the FBI's investigation of Clinton had been completed, and the investigation of Trump's campaign is still ongoing - something McCain couldn't seem to accept as an answer.

...but hey, do what you will anyway.

UPDATE:  The friend I was thinking of is Ben Wittes, because the New York Times article about the memos quotes him extensively.  But, after reading the transcript of Comey's testimony, I must have missed the bit where he says it was a professor at Columbia law school whom Comey does not name.

FURTHER UPDATE:  Marcy Wheeler says the professor is Dan Richman.

No comments: