Comey was back on the Hill

This is an interesting clip:

Unicorn fanatasies

No, that's because there's no such thing as a smocking gun.



No, it's not only a civil case, like Obama's.  We've been over that.  And the lawyer who "made the mistake" made it at his client's direction.  I have no doubt they've got proof of that.

Whatever happened to "there were no hush payments"?

Ba-dum-dum.



UPDATE:  Mr. Kellyanne Conway weighs in.

Conway replaced that tweet with this one:

UPDATE:

Here's a wonderful hilarious thread showing rabid Trump supporters trying to convincethemselves Trump wrote "smocking" on purpose.

And here's my favorite response to the tweet:

(play on the DeNiro/Stiller movie title, if you need an explanation)

What became of the Giuliani leak investigation?

More on Comey's testimony Friday...

Speaking on Capitol Hill at a closed-door deposition, Mr. Comey said that he ordered a leak probe after Mr. Giuliani made public statements that indicated he had inside knowledge of the FBI investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information.

“I was concerned that there appeared to be in the media a number of stories that might have been based on communications reporters or non-reporters like Rudy Giuliani were having with people in the New York field office,” Mr. Comey said in a transcript of his Friday appearance before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees that was released Saturday.

[...]

Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, previously served as the top federal prosecutor in New York, where he worked closely with the FBI’s operations in the city. That background afforded him extensive contacts in the city’s law-enforcement community.

[...]

“Mr. Giuliani was making statements that appeared to be based on his knowledge of workings inside the FBI New York,” Mr. Comey said. “And then my recollection is there were other stories that were in the same ballpark that gave me a general concern that we may have a leak problem—unauthorized disclosure problem out of New York, and so I asked that it be investigated.”

Mr. Comey said he was fired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation before the outcome of the probe was complete, and the status of the investigation is unknown.

  WSJ

If Trump had that nixed, there's another piece of evidence in Mueller's obstruction of justice probe. I'm sure there are plenty.

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

UPDATE 12/10:

Fox News must have a report this morning on Comey's testimony

Lawmakers and Comey said that the interview was tense and that Republicans were frustrated by instructions from a FBI attorney telling Comey not to answer certain questions about the Russia investigation. Comey and House Democrats said the interview was a waste of time, consumed with questions about Hillary Clinton's emails.

[...]

The questions from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers ran the gamut, focusing on everything from Comey's announcement on the reopening of the Clinton email investigation just days before the 2016 election to his thoughts on Trump's pick for attorney general, and to whether any pictures existed of him hugging and kissing Mueller — as Trump once claimed in an interview with The Daily Caller.

[...]

Much of the interview covered territory Comey has previously discussed either in past congressional testimony, his memoir, or news interviews over the past year. The interview did not contain any major revelations, but there were interesting tidbits shedding light on the tumultuous period of the FBI and Department of Justice that stretches back to the 2016 campaign.

[...]

"The Trump campaign was not under investigation," he said in response to a Democratic question asserting that it was. "The FBI, in late July, opened counterintelligence investigations of four Americans to see if they were working in any way with the Russians to influence our elections," Comey said.

There are certain clues about what Comey couldn't discuss, too. The FBI lawyer, for instance, said Comey could not answer a question about the sources used by Trump dossier author Christopher Steele, arguing that the sources for the document are still relevant to the special counsel investigation.

[...]

Comey defended the application for the surveillance warrant, which he signed off on before it was obtained in October 2016.

Comey argued that the FBI didn't need to explicitly tell the court Steele's research was paid for by the Clinton campaign, only that it was politically motivated.

"The particulars of which Democrats, which Republicans, I wouldn't think would be important to the court," Comey said. "They'd want to be aware of the general bias, and that's my reaction."

Republicans focused on whether the dossier was verified before the Page warrant was obtained.

Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas, for instance, quoted former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony that the FBI "could provide no points of verification to verify the Steele information other than the fact that Carter Page had traveled to Russia in July of 2016."

But Comey said "an effort was underway to try to replicate, either rule in or rule out, as much of that collection of reports that's commonly now called the Steele dossier as possible."

[...]

Comey reiterated his prior testimony that he viewed the President asking him to let go of the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn as a direction to "drop" the investigation. But an obstruction of justice probe was not opened while Comey was still at the FBI, he said.

[...]

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan pressed Comey about not telling then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions about his meeting with Trump in which the President said to let Flynn matter go because Comey had thought Sessions was about to recuse himself.

"Why would you make that assumption?" the Ohio lawmaker asked him. "He had not recused himself. If this is something important enough for you to memorialize, talk to your top people, why not then share it with the top law enforcement official in the government?"

Comey argued it was the right move.

"Because we believed -- it turns out correctly -- that he was about to step out of any involvement, anything related to Russia," he said.

[...]

Comey was also asked to weigh in on William Barr, Trump's pick to be his next attorney general, and said he thinks "very highly of him." Comey went on to explain that he used to work for Barr, who previously served as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, and "probably know(s) him better than I know Bob Mueller," joking that "I probably just damned him by saying he's a friend of mine, but I respect him. ... I think he's certainly fit to be attorney general."

  CNN

That might cinch the deal if any Democrat was wavering, but I don't share Comey's respect for Barr.

The transcript of the nearly seven-hour hearing ran to 235 pages and was released as part of a deal reached after Comey sought to quash a subpoena ordering him to testify in private, expressing concern testimony would be selectively leaked. Afterwards, Comey described the hearing as a “desperate attempt to find anything that can be used to attack the institutions of justice investigating this president”.

Comey, who was fired by Trump in May 2017, is due to appear again on 17 December.

[...]

In the hearing, Comey said it was a 2016 encounter between Trump adviser George Papadopoulos and a Russian intermediary in London that prompted the Russia investigation, rather than, as some Republicans maintain, Democratic-funded opposition research compiled by a former British spy.

“It was weeks or months later that the so-called Steele dossier came to our attention,” Comey said.

[...]

“We have become numb to lying and attacks on the rule of law by the president,” he said, before criticising Trump’s contention, in light of the cases of Manafort, Cohen and other former aides, that it should be a crime for subjects to “flip” and co-operate with investigators.

“It’s a shocking suggestion coming from any senior official, no less the president,” Comey said. “It’s a critical and legitimate part of the entire justice system in the United States.”

[...]

Sixty pages in, Jerrold Nadler, the New Yorker who is the likely next chairman of the judiciary committee, raised a striking claim made by Trump about Comey’s relationship with Mueller, his predecessor as FBI director.

“On 5 September,” Nadler said, “President Trump brought up special counsel Mueller in an interview with the Daily Caller, stating: ‘And he’s Comey’s best friend, and I could give you a hundred pictures of him and Comey hugging and kissing each other. You know he’s Comey’s best friend.’”

Nadler asked: “Are you best friends with Robert Mueller?”

Comey replied that though he admired “the heck out of the man”, he did not know his phone number or the names of his children.

“I think I had a meal once alone with him in a restaurant,” he said. “I like him … I’m an associate of his who admires him greatly. We’re not friends in any social sense.”

Nadler said he would not “ask whether you’ve ever hugged and kissed him”.

“A relief to my wife,” Comey said.

  Guardian

Republican lawmakers were frustrated with the proceedings, complaining that Comey didn’t give satisfactory answers to their questions. Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-S.C.) office said in a statement that Comey answered “I don’t know” 166 times and “I don’t remember” 71 times.

Comey himself complained the proceedings were too focused on Clinton.

“When you read the transcript, you will see that we are talking again about Hillary Clinton’s emails, for heaven’s sakes, so I’m not sure we need to do this at all,” he told reporters after his six-hour session. “But I’m trying to respect the institution and to answer questions in a respectful way.”

  HuffPo

I suppose it's possible he didn't know a lot of things since Trump fired him in May 2017.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) a member of the committee, said he had 14 pages of questions for Comey. He told CNN ahead of the hearing that he didn’t want Comey to testify in public because “we would be giving him a pass that I don’t think he deserves.”

Not sure how that would be a pass.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) told CNN prior to Comey’s deposition that the event was a “complete farce.”

“Going forward, I will be advocating for full, open public hearings on issues of this magnitude,” Krishnamoorthi said.

Comey was asked whether the FBI had any evidence that Americans were assisting Russians subvert the election when Trump was briefed on foreign intelligence threats as a candidate.

“If it was after July 29th, then the answer would be, yes, we had some reason to suspect that there were Americans who might have assisted the Russians,” Comey said.

  Newsweek

James Comey didn't bury Donald Trump in his Senate testimony, but he dug a Trump-sized hole in the ground.

While the former FBI director danced around what, if anything, the ongoing investigation into possible Trump campaign Russia ties has found, he was much more forthcoming about his relations with the president, before and after his dismissal - and how they made him feel.

He was confused by the circumstances of his firing. He felt the president and his staff "defamed" him and, more importantly, the FBI as a whole.

As for allegations that the bureau was in disarray? "Those were lies, plain and simple," he said.

[...]

Mr Trump may not have been scheming, but his efforts to draw a pledge of loyalty from his FBI director, his pleading for him to go easy on his former national security adviser and his repeated requests for assurances that he, personally, was not under investigation were ham-handed at best.

[...]

This all sets up a "he-said, he-said" conflict. As Mr Comey himself acknowledges, during the key meetings with the president, the two men were the only ones in the room.

The former director, however, comes armed with a career reputation as a straight shooter - sometimes to a fault - who is willing to take what he views as the correct course even in the face of powerful adversaries.

The president comes off a brawl of an election campaign, with more than half the American public doubtful of his very fitness for office.

[...]

It turns out [Comey's] version [of Trumps request to go easy on Flynn] is pretty much what had been reported up until now.

[...]

The former director did take a bit of heat off the president when he noted that he felt he was only being asked to back away from prosecuting Flynn for lying to federal agents about his December conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

"I did not understand the president to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign," he says.

[...]

He said, under questioning, that while Mr Trump framed his request as a "hope", he "took it as a direction" - and he decided to not to share those instructions with the FBI investigators.

"I think if our agents, as good as they are, heard the president of the United States do that, there is a real risk of a chilling effect on their work," Mr Comey said.

The other big New York Times revelation that swept through the nation last month was that, in a one-on-one dinner shortly after his inauguration, Mr Trump reportedly asked Mr Comey to give him assurances that he would be loyal.

[...]

Mr Comey told the president he would be "reliable". Mr Trump countered that he wanted - needed - "loyalty". The director says he froze, as though confronted by a wild beast while hiking in the woods.

[...]

"I didn't move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed," he says.

Finally, he offered "honesty".

Mr Trump countered with "honest loyalty" - a term on which they both agreed.

While the conversation was confusing, Mr Comey said his conclusion from it was clear given that earlier in the dinner they had discussed the director's continued tenure in office.

"My common sense told me, he's looking to get something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job," he said.

In Mr Trump's letter firing Mr Comey, the president went out of his way to mention that the director had told him three times that he was not under direct FBI investigation.

[...]

On Thursday Mr Comey gave some context to those assurances.

During a 6 January meeting, Mr Comey informed President-elect Trump he wasn't the subject of a "counter-intelligence" investigation, which he said tends to look at whether Americans were "witting or unwitting agents" of foreign powers.

Mr Comey revealed that there was a debate within the FBI over whether to give the president any such assurances, given that the investigation covered the Trump presidential campaign and Mr Trump was the candidate.

According to Mr Comey, one FBI leader insisted that Mr Trump's "behaviour, his conduct, will fall within the scope of that work".

Mr Comey decided to tell the president anyway.

Where the dispute with the Mr Trump arose, according to Mr Comey, was whether the FBI should make it clear Mr Trump wasn't in the investigatory crosshairs. The director was concerned if the FBI went public, it would "create a duty to correct, should that change".

  BBC

I feel like we've heard all this before, so I can see why Comey thinks this whole thing was a waste of time.

Another curious revelation buried in Mr Comey's testimony was that Mr Trump was less concerned about possible legal predicaments of his staff (Mr Flynn, it seems, being the notable exception).

"If there were some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong," Mr Comey said the president told him, "it would be good to find that out".

How those "satellite associates" might react to the president's supposed declaration - and what they might do if they eventually face criminal prosecution - will be an interesting question to ponder in the coming days.

Well, I hadn't heard that - or don't recall hearing it - but I think that would be absolutely natural for someone in Trump's position to have wanted.

According to [Trump attorney] Marc Kasowitz, Mr Comey's account was vindication where it helped the president and untruthful where it didn't.

[...]

"It is overwhelmingly clear that there have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified and privileged communications," he said. "Mr Comey has now admitted that he is one of those leakers."

Mr Comey's memos weren't classified, but Kasowitz's accusations will start a debate over whether they were privileged communications. Mr Trump's prior willingness to talk about his conversations with Mr Comey will make that a challenging case to make.

But make it they will. In fact, they already have. This isn't going to start a debate, it's just going to revive one.

But I think this may be a key moment in the testimony:

Trey Gowdy, the retiring South Carolina Republican who grew famous for leading a Benghazi investigation, was asking Comey whether he considered a Justice Department memo sufficient grounds for Trump to fire him. The FBI official, Cecilia Bessee, interrupted Gowdy: “Mr. Chairman, to the extent that question goes—again, goes to the special counsel's investigation into obstruction, the witness will not be able to answer.”

  TheAtlantic

I'm really looking forward to the report on obstruction, because most everything I read seems to indicate that's a hard thing to prove, so don't think it's going to be a big issue. I disagree. We'll see.

What an image. A Giant among men (and women).       Image source: Newsweek

Transcript of Comey's testimony to the House Judiciary December 7, 2018.  (at Mother Jones)

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

Comey's testimony

Transcript of Comey's testimony to the House Judiciary December 7, 2018.  (at Mother Jones)

Caveat:  The GOP majority didn't even have their shit together to start (with Gaetz saying he didn't make the agreement with Comey about how this would proceed so he didn't feel himself bound by it!).

Trump will be tweeting about it after Fox News (or Sean Hannity) tells him what's in it.

UPDATE 12/9:  Good morning!

Waiting for Comey to discuss his hearing

Republicans spent much of Friday trying to wring new information from former FBI Director James Comey during an all-day deposition — but identified little new ground after six hours of free-wheeling inquiries.

GOP members peppered Comey with queries about the origins of the FBI’s Russia investigation, the bureau’s surveillance of a Trump campaign aide and allegations of anti-Trump bias among senior officials.

But emerging from the meeting, lawmakers were tight-lipped about what answers, if any, they got. Some, like Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), came out frustrated, claiming efforts to pry loose new information were sidelined by a lawyer who intervened to block Comey's answers on matters “at the core” of their inquiry.

Democrats disputed this characterization, describing a free-flowing interview with few obstacles.

[...]

Issa came out complaining about the DOJ and FBI attorneys. He said the agencies will have to provide more detailed rationales for their intervention and arrange to have Comey return to provide more detailed answers.

[...]


[...]

Comey, speaking to reporters as he left, said he would return for another interview the week of Dec. 17. He told reporters that President Donald Trump's "attacks on the Justice Department broadly and the FBI are something that...you should find deeply troubling."

[...]

“We have the right witness with the wrong questions. This is just a big fishing expedition,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, one of the Democrats on the panel interviewing Comey Friday, in a phone interview. “We've got to stop wasting time on Hillary Clinton's emails.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is expected to chair the Judiciary Committee in January, called the interview a “fishing expedition” that would end when Democrats take over.

[...]

A transcript of his testimony — which was before the House oversight and judiciary committees — is expected to be released sometime on Saturday.

  Politico

Sounds like the transcript is going to be boring. 

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

Comey testimony will not be public

Not sure what the GOP is gaining here with 24 hours.  Fiddling with the transcript?  That seems risky if Comey can talk freely about it.

Maybe it's just them being dicks.  Like always.

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

No ruling on Comey's request to quash a subpoena

A district court judge on Friday postponed issuing a ruling on former FBI Director James Comey’s effort to quash a GOP-issued subpoena.

Judge Trevor McFadden gave the two sides the weekend to provide additional information about their arguments. The court will reconvene Monday at 10 a.m. for a ruling.

Comey on Thursday sought to quash the subpoena for closed-door testimony, arguing that House Republicans would seek to “peddle a distorted, partisan political narrative about the Clinton and Russia investigations through selective leaks” if he was not interviewed in public.

Comey’s attorneys Vincent Cohen and David Kelley argued in the motion that the subpoena “exceeds a proper legislative purpose, is issued in violation of House rules, and unduly prejudices and harasses the witness.”

[...]

Thomas Hungar, the general counsel for the House of Representatives, challenged the legitimacy of Comey’s legal efforts, arguing that it would be unprecedented for the courts to interfere with their efforts to subpoena witnesses.

Hungar says the federal government has “absolute” sovereign immunity in a civil suit and that even a court-issued stay would be viewed as interfering in congressional proceedings.

  The Hill

I don't get it. Is McFadden saying they didn't provide good arguments? Enough arguments? Is he looking for one side to give him better cover for a decision he wants to make? Was he just wanting to go home without having to think about it?

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

UPDATE:  Comey dropped the request to quash.

In a three-paragraph joint court filing Sunday, Comey’s lawyers [...] withdrew his request to a federal judge to quash the subpoena to testify before the House judiciary and oversight committees, writing, “Mr. Comey appreciates the Court’s attention to the above-captioned matter, but has now reached an acceptable accommodation with U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary for voluntary testimony.”

Lawyers for the House consented to Comey’s move to drop the case.

Comey agreed to sit for a voluntary interview on Friday under terms that include that “so long as the interview proceeds as a voluntary interview, an FBI representative will be present to advise concerning the disclosure of FBI information,” said his lawyer David N. Kelley.

  WaPo

Mueller closing in

Would love to see a video of this "interview".

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was questioned for several hours last week by the special counsel’s office as part of the investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election and whether the president obstructed justice since taking office, according to a Justice Department spokeswoman.

The meeting marked the first time that investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, are known to have interviewed a member of Mr. Trump’s cabinet.

The spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, confirmed that the interview occurred in response to questions from The New York Times.

[...]

As attorney general, Mr. Sessions was deeply involved in the firing of the former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. But Mr. Sessions’s recusal has left him with no control of Mr. Mueller — something the president has repeatedly carped about publicly and privately.

[...]

Mr. Sessions is a key witness to two of the major issues he is investigating: the campaign’s possible ties to the Russians and whether the president tried to obstruct the Russia investigation.

Mr. Mueller can question Mr. Sessions about his role as the head of the campaign’s foreign policy team. Mr. Sessions was involved in developing Mr. Trump’s position toward Russia and met with Russian officials, including the ambassador.

[...]

As attorney general, Mr. Sessions was deeply involved in the firing of the former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

  NYT

James Comey was interviewed by Mueller's team last year. That wasn't reported before now, although we could assume he would have been.

he interview with Mr. Comey focused on a series of memos he wrote about his interactions with Mr. Trump that unnerved Mr. Comey. In one memo, Mr. Comey said that Mr. Trump had asked him to end the F.B.I.’s investigation into the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.

[...]

The disclosure about Mr. Comey’s interview came hours after the Justice Department spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, confirmed that the interview with Mr. Sessions occurred. Mr. Sessions was accompanied by the longtime Washington lawyer Chuck Cooper to the interview.

Clarification Re: Comey

Fox News and tRump have this morning filled their "friends" small brains with a bunch of hooey. They're saying James Comey leaked classified information to the media. Not as James Comey tells it. He says he gave some of his notes to a friend to give to the media. He also says some of the notes he made were made on a business laptop, making them classified (I believe - at least he says some of his notes were classified) but those were not the notes he gave to the friend.

As I said previously, James Comey is smarter than tRump and "friends".  The classified notes he gave to the Senate Intel Committee and Robert Mueller, as required of him.

UPDATE 7/11:  Faux News issued a correction.  Will tRump?  Rhetorical question.

Put Him Back in the Bunny Suit Where He Belongs

White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Friday denied that President Donald Trump tried to intimidate James Comey by tweeting about “tapes” of their conversations—which the President has since said he doesn’t actually possess—even as he claimed the tweet forced the former FBI director to “tell the truth.”

  TPM

Oh, yeah. Trump has Comey quaking in his boots.

“I think the President made it very clear that he wanted the truth to come out. He wanted everyone to be honest about this and he wanted to get to the bottom of it and I think he succeeded in doing that.”

[...]

“The reality is that he wanted to make sure the truth came out and by talking about something like tapes it made people have to—made Comey in particular think to himself, ‘I’d better be honest, I’d better tell the truth about the circumstances regarding the situation,’” Spicer said.

Because, otherwise, Comey would have lied his ass off? What could he have said that would have made Trump look worse?

Pathetic little men, Spicer and Trump both.

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

Leaky, Leaky

The Post is reporting that President Trump is now personally under investigation by the special counsel for possible obstruction of justice, and this morning, Trump is in full meltdown-martyr mode over it. In a couple of tweets, he lashed out wildly at an unnamed “they,” who (raged Trump) failed to get him on collusion charges and are now trying to get him on “obstruction,” which he railed at as the “single greatest witch hunt in American history,” one that is “led by very bad and conflicted people.”

[...]

Trump’s claims of persecution should be taken as more than mere deflection or an effort to stoke his supporters’ grievances. They hint that Trump could still try to remove Mueller, a possibility that must be taken more seriously now that Trump is a target.

  WaPo

He may have to fire Sessions and Rosenstein to get to Mueller.

Trump’s own words, in multiple settings, are potentially key pieces of evidence against him. Trump publicly admitted he fired Comey because of unhappiness with the Russia investigation. Comey testified that Trump’s demand for “loyalty” came in the context of a conversation about whether Comey would continue to serve as FBI director at his pleasure.

Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing.

  WaPo

A little something we call cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller’s office has taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate that his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.

[...]

Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week.

[...]

It is doubtful that the White House could ultimately use executive privilege to try to block them from speaking to Mueller’s investigators. Experts point out that the Supreme Court ruled during the Watergate scandal that officials cannot use privilege to withhold evidence in criminal prosecutions.

[...]

Mueller is overseeing a host of investigations involving people who are or were in Trump’s orbit, people familiar with the probe said. The investigation is examining possible contacts with Russian operatives as well as any suspicious financial activity related to those individuals.

Damn. He fucked himself up good.

The Justice Department has long held that it would not be appropriate to indict a sitting president. Instead, experts say, the onus would be on Congress to review any findings of criminal misconduct and then decide whether to initiate impeachment proceedings.

That takes all the satisfaction out of it. Why is it not appropriate to indict a criminal? If indeed that's what he is.

Coats told associates that Trump had asked him whether Coats could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials.

[...]

A day or two after the March 22 meeting, Trump telephoned Coats and Rogers to separately ask them to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the president’s requests, officials said.

It is unclear whether Ledgett had direct contact with Trump or other top officials about the Russia probe, but he wrote an internal NSA memo documenting the president’s phone call with Rogers, according to officials.

Apparently nobody trusts the man.

[T]he team Robert Mueller is building provides clues about which way the investigation is heading.

One is a veteran of the Watergate investigation, and Donald Trump – like Richard Nixon – was reported on Wednesday to now be under investigation for obstruction of justice. Other team members have specialities that could point toward where Mueller is looking after taking over control of the investigation from the FBI: money laundering, financial fraud and Russian organised crime.

  Guardian

There it is. That's what they're trying to hide.

Sessions to Testify Today

The US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is likely to step into a legal minefield on Tuesday when he answers questions under oath before the Senate intelligence committee about his contacts with Russian officials and his role in the firing of the FBI director, James Comey.

  Guardian

This one is going to be harder to watch than Comey's because Sessions is such a weasel.

What Sessions tells the committee could in turn affect the legal jeopardy of Donald Trump, who has also said he is willing to speak about his interactions with Comey under oath, although he did not indicate in what forum.

Trump says a lot of things. I wouldn't put any stock in any of it.

“Recommending Director Comey’s firing would seem to be a violation of his recusal, and Attorney General Sessions needs to answer for that,” the Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, said in a statement after Sessions’ Senate appearance was confirmed on Monday.

[...]

After Comey’s appearance on Thursday, the justice department put out a statement contradicting the ousted FBI director’s account of an appeal he made to Sessions to make sure he was not left alone with the Trump.

[...]

Comey said Sessions did not respond to that appeal. The justice department described the conversation very differently. “Mr Comey said, following a morning threat briefing, that he wanted to ensure he and his FBI staff were following proper communications protocol with the White House,” the statement said.

It insisted that the “attorney general was not silent; he responded to this comment by saying that the FBI and department of justice needed to be careful about following appropriate policies regarding contacts with the White House”.

If Sessions repeats this version of events on Tuesday, he will be testing his credibility against Comey’s.

That's a pretty tall order, judging by the Senate Intel Committee's near unanimous remarks to Comey about his appreciated integrity. Not to mention...

Ryan Goodman, a former Pentagon special counsel, argues that it was a test the attorney general was likely to fail, having previously made statements in the Senate that were proved untrue.

No shit. The other issue they'll be grilling him on is his lying about whether he'd had contact with the Russians at his confirmation hearing.

And here's an important legal matter (although this is not a court): does Sessions have contemporaneous notes? Does Comey? We know he made notes about his conversations with Trump. Did he also make them in this case?

At a hearing last week in which intelligence officials sought to evade questions, [the committee’s chairman, Senator Richard] Burr warned them to go back and consult with the White House about their legal position. “At no time should you be in a position to come to Congress without an answer,” the Republican senator said.

But Sessions is a Congressman. Will they hold him to the same standard? At least the Committee has had the benefit of a closed door session with Comey after the public one, where he will have answered more completely some of their questions, including his interaction with Sessions and probably what the FBI has discovered about Sessions' meetings with the Russians.

It appears that Comey and Jeff Sessions have directly opposing positions on how the Attorney General responded when Comey says he implored Sessions to prevent the president from directly communicating with him as FBI director. It is increasingly common these days for the administration to include a falsehood in an official statement. Repeating that falsehood under oath before Congress is an entirely different matter. It’s a federal crime. And these proceedings have a special counsel looking over them.

  Just Security

I'm very curious to see what happens here. I'm expecting Sessions to refuse to answer many, if not most, of the questions put to him this afternoon. But...stranger things have happened in the past four months.

How the Attorney General responded to Comey presents an even sharper issue for perjury. This does not come down to a different spin, nor a fact included in one account that is omitted in another. It comes down to a complete contradiction, in which one side’s statement clearly must be true and the other’s must be false.

[...]

If he repeats a claim that is contained in the Department of Justice’s “Statement on Testimony of Former FBI Director James Comey,” it is very likely that Sessions will commit perjury or a felony false statement or misrepresentation (which does not require being under oath).

[...]

The Justice Department’s statement reads:

“Mr. Comey said, following a morning threat briefing, that he wanted to ensure he and his FBI staff were following proper communications protocol with the White House.”

The Justice Department leaves out any reference to Comey’s stating that what the president had done was wrong and should never occur again. It also seems fair to read the Justice Department’s statement as saying that Comey was simply asking what he and his staff should do internally—as though the burden rested on them—and not asking the Attorney General to act to prevent a recurrence of such communications or to run interference with the President.

[...]

The Justice Department’s Statement has other indicia that it lacks truthfulness. The Justice Department’s spin on what Comey said to Sessions is hard to imagine since the President’s actions in removing everyone from the Oval Office to meet with Comey alone violated important protocols and Comey was obviously very upset by it in bringing it to the attention of the Attorney General; indeed, the Justice Department’s very description of the conversation—both sides of it—is hard to believe given the extraordinary event Sessions himself witnessed just the day before [Trump asking everyone to leave him and Comey alone].

[...]

It is difficult to prosecute someone for perjury because doing so requires proving the individual acted willfully, or believing their own statement was untrue. Similarly, felony false statements require the individual “knowingly and willfully” made the false statement. As an aside, it bears noting that the impeachment clause is not only for the commission of crimes (it can be broader than the elements of any federal offense), it does not involve criminal standards of proof, and it is not a remedy only for presidents’ wrongdoing (an attorney general can be impeached too).

[...]

Sessions’ own actions are important to the congressional investigations especially if he acted with willful disregard in response to the acts of the President and because he himself is potentially implicated in the obstruction of justice.

[...]

So, on Tuesday, it boils down to whether a lawmaker simply asks something like, “Mr. Sessions — under oath and at risk of committing perjury – do you stand by the Statement of the Justice Department concerning your interactions with Mr. Comey on February 15?”

We shall watch for that.  Will Sessions have a personal lawyer with him?  A DOJ lawyer?  Is that allowed for people giving testimony in these cases?

The author of the above-quoted article, Ryan Goodman, has another article in which he lays out five sets of questions he believes are important to be asked of Sessions this afternoon. Read them here.

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

Yes, We Know

Trump is a pathological liar.

A decade ago, my lawyers questioned Trump under oath during a deposition in a libel case he filed against me for a biography I wrote, “TrumpNation.” (Trump lost the case in 2011.) Trump had to acknowledge 30 times during that deposition that he had lied over the years about a wide range of issues: his ownership stake in a large Manhattan real estate development; the cost of a membership to one of his golf clubs; the size of the Trump Organization; his wealth; the rate for his speaking appearances; how many condos he had sold; the debt he owed, and whether he borrowed money from his family to stave off personal bankruptcy.

Trump also lied during the deposition about his business relationships with organized crime figures.

  Timothy L. O'Brien @ Bloomberg

Bingo.

When Trump entered the Atlantic City casino market in the late 1970s, two of his partners were men he knew to have organized crime ties: Kenneth Shapiro, who was a bag man for the Philadelphia mob, and Daniel Sullivan, who was a Mafia associate and a labor negotiator.

[...]

"They were tough guys," Trump told me. "In fact, they say that Dan Sullivan was the guy that killed Jimmy Hoffa." Sullivan "probably wasn't an honest guy," Trump added, and Shapiro "was like a third-rate, local real estate Mafia."

Trump’s propensity for lying was also on display throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. He said that he had opposed the Iraq War when he hadn’t; he lied about his stances on climate change and the national debt; he lied about various insults he had hurled at women; he lied about who had endorsed him; he lied about how much money his father had given him over the years, and on, and on.

[...]

Trump’s own lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, has had problems getting his facts straight, too. (Kasowitz represented Trump when the president sued me in 2006.) In a press release littered with errors and a misspelled title for Trump (“Predisent”), Kasowitz accused Comey last week of trying to undermine the White House by leaking information about his conversations with the president.

Kasowitz also said that Comey lied when testifying that he shared information about his conversations with the president only after Trump tweeted that he might have made tapes of the same conversations. Yet, Kasowitz claimed, the New York Times had published an article about the Comey-Trump conversations prior to Trump’s tweet. Kasowitz was wrong, however. The Times' first article about the conversations appeared on May 16, four days after Trump tweeted.

[...]

Trump revived speculation about hidden White House tapes again on Friday, suggesting in the Rose Garden that he will advise the world about whether they exist in the “very near future.”

As I noted last month, I don’t think any tapes exist. Trump told me and other reporters over the years that he had a taping system in his Trump Tower office that he used to record journalists meeting with him. But when he testified under oath in the deposition for his suit against me, Trump acknowledged that he was “not equipped to tape-record.”

[...]

The difference now, of course, is that Trump is president. And in James Comey he’s collided with a seasoned, wily law enforcement official who opened the investigative door for Robert Mueller and cleared a path for him to bring the full force of the law to bear on the White House.

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

Trump Lies

The AP has published a fact-check. Take a look.

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


Often, he lies.  Sometimes he just doesn't know what he's saying.  He simply likes big numbers.

Ready to Rumble

With not much of a leg to stand on.

“The President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that that Mr. Comey ‘let Flynn go,’” Trump’s outside attorney, Mark Kasowitz, said Thursday.

A feisty Trump declined to say Comey lied under oath in a Friday press conference with the president of Romania. But he insisted he did not utter the words Comey said he did.

“There would be nothing wrong if I did say it, according to everybody that I read today, but I did not say that,” Trump said, later adding that he was “100 percent” willing to testify under oath about his conversations with Comey.

  TPM

Reminds me of the defense in a lawsuit I once heard about while working at a law firm in San Francisco. The plaintiff claimed to have been bitten by a neighbor's dog that everyone knew was dangerous. The defense pleading read: 1) My client doesn't own a dog. 2) If my client owns a dog, he didn't know it was dangerous.

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

Leaky, Leaky

Another US attorney said Trump tried to do a Comey number on him. (Click the graphic for the video.)

Now. Trump also fired Bharara. That was back in March. So I find this bit from a March 11 CNN article quite interesting:

[T]he reason Bharara's sudden dismissal came as a surprise is that the high-profile US attorney had been told after a meeting with Trump in November that he could stay on and felt blindsided by the request for his resignation on Friday, sources told CNN.

[...]

According to a source familiar with the meeting between Trump and Bharara in November 2016 at Trump Tower, the President-elect asked Bharara to stay on the job and they shook hands. Trump then directed Bharara to go out to the cameras and tell them, "I asked you to stay."

  CNN

Same as Comey. But, also, look at this, and remember the timing.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente called Bharara on Saturday to ask if it was true that he was refusing to resign, and Bharara told him yes.

Boente then called Bharara back and said Trump was firing him, the source said.

This was after the President, through his assistant, tried to call Bharara on Thursday and left a voice mail, a source familiar with the call told CNN.

Bharara notified Attorney General Jeff Sessions' chief of staff about the call, saying he wasn't going to talk to Trump, the source said; there are rules against sitting US attorneys talking to the President. Bharara then called Trump's assistant and explained he couldn't talk to the President because of the protocols, the source said.

Comey had also complained to Sessions about Trump's personal calls, but Paul Ryan is trying to tell us it was just because Trump "is new at this." If both of those men complained to Sessions, did Sessions simply not inform Trump that he was going about things the wrong way? And surely, Trump's assistant told him what Bharara said about that. So, did Trump know what he was doing was improper and say, "fuck it - I'm the president- I can do what I want"?  Yeah, that's what I think, too.

So, why did Trump fire Bharara?

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer also said at the time that Trump called him before the meeting to ask what he thought about Bharara continuing in his role as US attorney.

"I told him I thought Preet was great, and I would be all for keeping him on the job and fully support it. ... He's been one of the best US attorneys New York has ever seen," Schumer said.

[...]

Trump "assured him" he wanted Bharara to continue to serve as US attorney.

[...]

A source close to the President told CNN that Trump informed Bharara that he wanted to keep him on as a gesture to Schumer -- then the incoming minority leader -- whom Trump had previously supported for years. Since November, however, Schumer has led the Democratic opposition in the Senate, which the White House views as obstructionist and running counter to the President's agenda.

The Trump doctrine. Simple spite. Or more sinister?

Remember, he also fired Sally Yates because she refused to support his Muslim ban.

These things are going to weigh against him when it comes to whether or not he is guilty of obstructing justice in the Comey case. That is, if Robert Mueller is indeed the excellent and impartial prosecutor people think he is.

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

Ari Fleischer - Yes, THAT Ari Fleischer - Advises the Trump to STFU

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

He's New at This

When Paul Ryan excused Donald Trump's inappropriate conversations with James Comey by saying "he's new at this", all I could think was: So when he's had some more time under his belt, he'll be doing worse things?

US president Donald Trump accused Qatar of "historically" funding "terrorism at a very high level" - an allegation Qatar denies.

The US president has not provided any evidence for his accusation.

[...]

Mutlaq Al Qahtani [Qatar's foreign minister] said the Gulf country hosted the Taliban "by request by the US government" and as part of Qatar's "open-door policy, to facilitate talks, to mediate and to bring peace".

He added that Qatar "was facilitating the talks between the Americans, the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan".

[...]

In a statement on Friday, Qatar said it was leading the region in attacking what it called the roots of "terrorism", including giving young people hope through jobs, educating hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees and funding community programmes to challenge agendas of armed groups.

[...]

He added that the country focuses on "preventive diplomacy, trying to solve conflict, using our good offices, trying to bring people and civilisations with different faiths to mutual understanding, coexistence and tolerance, while also paying a lot of emphasis on unemployment, because we believe unemployment is one of the causes of terrorism or one of the root causes of violent extremism that could lead to terrorism".

  alJazeera

That's so crazy it just might work.

It's not, however, the American way.

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

One Can Only Hope

[T]he president, who broke his Twitter silence less than eight hours [after James Comey's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing testimony], may be in a similar position to Theresa May. He survived for sure, but with a self-inflicted wound that could yet prove mortal.

[...]

What Comey did not say may ultimately prove as telling as what he did. [...] Although he declined to describe Trump’s plea on behalf of Michael Flynn as obstruction of justice, Comey made the first public suggestion that Mueller will investigate the president himself. “That’s a conclusion that I’m sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there and whether that’s an offence,” he said.

[...]

[W]hen the ex-FBI director was asked if the direction of the investigation could include the president, he carefully replied: “As I explained, the concern of one of my senior leader colleagues was, if you’re looking at potential coordination between the campaign and Russia, the person at the head of the campaign is the candidate. So, logically, this person argued, the candidate’s knowledge, understanding, will logically become a part of your inquiry if it proceeds.”

  Guardian

And it will.

Sessions, already rumoured to be at odds with his boss, is due to appear at a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, and Democrats have said they will use it as an opportunity to grill him about Russian contacts.

[...]

Then there was a seemingly trivial but telling detail: Trump’s chronic incuriosity about Russia’s attack on American democracy. Comey could not recall the president asking about it but gave a dire, heartfelt warning of Moscow’s aggressive intentions. David Axelrod, former campaign manager for Barack Obama, tweeted: “Apart from obstruction issue, the most troubling aspect of Comey’s testimony was @POTUS evident lack of interest in Russian cyber attack.”

And with a sense of political theatre, Comey also dangled the Nixonian prospect of secret tape recordings for Mueller to go after. “I’ve seen the tweet about tapes,” he said. “Lordy, I hope there are tapes.”

I don't think there ever were. Trump likes to throw out empty threats. But if there were, there aren't now.

Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant and pollster, reflected: “It was worse than it needed to be [for Trump] but not as bad as it could have been. There’s a line in the Simon and Garfunkel song The Boxer: “A man hears what he wants to hear/ And disregards the rest.”

But courts don't.

“If you’re a Trump fan, you think Comey broke the law by leaking documents. If you’re a Trump foe, you think there’s enough to impeach the president. There’s something here for everyone and that means everyone is hurt. It’s so bad for American democracy.”

[...]

Lisa Kern Griffin, a law professor at Duke University, said: “It is an enormously complex investigation. A case of this type – even without the national security dimensions, the international financial evidence, and the context of electoral politics – would ordinarily take years for federal agents to investigate.

Luckily for us, the FBI has been at it for longer than it's been on the public radar.

“There is some urgency to this, and no doubt the special counsel and his team will move as quickly as possible, but they also have to be especially careful. It will be months or even years before they reach any definitive conclusions.”

Months, would be my guess.

The version I watched of Comey's testimony never showed the desk plaque. Several of the Senators referred to him as Director Comey, but it looks like he was also officially referred to thusly. Is that like "president"? A title for life?

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