Comey's Prepared Remarks

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 09:18:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here is James Comey's prepared testimony on Trump and Russia. The New York Times has this description.

Trump says Comey's statement vindicates him because it confirms he assured Trump he wasn't personally under investigation.

I don't think that's the issue. The issue is whether he interfered or attempted to interfere in a criminal investigation. There's enough in Comey's statement to show he attempted to interfere with the investigation into Mike Flynn. Comey makes it clear he understood Trump to be requesting the FBI drop the investigation. Is it a smoking gun? No. But it is another loose brick in the wall of the House of Trump, the foundation of which crumbles a bit more every day. [More...]

More troubling than Comey to me is that his two National Security picks clammed up before Congress today. National Intelligence Director (a former Republican senator) Dan Coats and NSA Director Michael Rogers refused to discuss his conversations with Trump.

Asked by Maine independent Sen. Angus King why he would not answer a direct question about the alleged Trump conversation, Rogers said simply, "I feel it is inappropriate, Senator."

... Similarly, Coats said: "I do not believe it is appropriate for me" to comment on what the president said. Pressed by King for the legal basis for his refusal, Coats said: "I'm not sure I have a legal basis. But I am more than willing to sit before this committee during its investigative process in a closed session and answer your questions."

Here's the backstory on when Trump reportedly asked them to intervene with Comey.

The events involving Coats show the president went further than just asking intelligence officials to deny publicly the existence of any evidence showing collusion during the 2016 election, as The Washington Post reported in May. The interaction with Coats indicates that Trump aimed to enlist top officials to have Comey curtail the bureau’s probe.

Why weren't they held in contempt? They admitted they had not legal basis to refuse to answer.

< Trump Picks Chris Wray to Lead the FBI | ISIS Attacks In Iran Kills 12, Iran Responds to "Fumbling Firecrackers" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Comey's Prepared Remarks | 54 comments (54 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

no republicans (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 07:03:45 AM EST

would come on tv this morning.

Hahaha (none / 0) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:00:21 AM EST

You ready? I got my coffee. We have even gotten out of bed, only to crank up the espresso. Our pillows are plumped. Comey's Chevy has left the driveway.


screw coffee (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:03:07 AM EST

vodka and kush


: I'm jealous! (none / 0) (#35)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:07:15 AM EST

When I get DC I'm getting some medical. I don't sleep for crap, and taking so much Lunesta is creeping me out. I had a glass of wine at 10:30 am though yesterday :) I gotta finish up this packing stuff and the news is obnoxious and crazy :)

: Preet Bharara (none / 0) (#37)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:18:08 AM EST

Has Reserved Seating at the Comey testimony.

wow (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 09:37:23 AM EST

he made notes

"because he was afraid he might lie about it"

boom

: His candor is stunning (none / 0) (#47)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 09:59:12 AM EST

He called one of his responses to Trump cowardly.

Typeo (none / 0) (#1)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 09:34:34 PM EST

the foundation pf which crumbles a bit more every

I wonder if refusing to answer without saying why could be something we were told to watch for that would indicate Mueller is working hard to build an obstruction case and has asked people to not talk about what Trump did and did not ask them to do.

Ken Dilanian had been saying for a while this would be something to watch for. They really only said they would not speak in a public hearing.

Exactly what Dilanian said to expect.

I have no idea. Just asking. It's is very weird they simply said we won't talk about it and won't tell you why.

Isn't Volunteering to Answer Questions in Private (none / 0) (#2)
by RickyJim on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 09:49:27 PM EST

a sufficient act to prevent a contempt citation?

: The person being questioned (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Repack Rider on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:43:30 AM EST

...does not set the terms of the congressional questioning, as Mr. King so ably pointed out. He asked for the legal foundation for the request, and he was told there wasn't one.
But they had "feelings" that needed to be protected. NOT THE COUNTRY.

Isn't Volunteering to Answer Questions in Private a sufficient act to prevent a contempt citation?

I think that was Trump's doing (none / 0) (#3)
by Lora on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 09:50:44 PM EST

This is what he thinks are cards up his sleeve. If they don't talk, there is no evidence.

: They have subordinates that recorded Trump's (none / 0) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:14:34 PM EST

Request to hamper the Russia investigation. One of Rogers subordinates leaked to WaPo what happened and created documentation too.
If we all want to know why we've been in the dark about Russian attacks and when were they going to tell us, guess who runs the IC cyber command too? Rogers

Coverage of this (none / 0) (#4)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 09:56:02 PM EST

Is weird.

O'Donnell has two heads on. One says it was "ambiguous" if they would answer in a closed hearing. It was not. They both said very clearly they would.

The other says "Muller did not tell them to not answer". I have no idea how he would know that and he did not say. But I'm pretty sure Mueller would not tell him if he did.

That's not true (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by mm on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 05:34:11 AM EST

They both said very clearly they would.

Neither one committed unconditionally. They both said they would have to go back to WH Counsel to find out if the president wanted to assert executive privilege.

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, asked Coats and Rogers whether they would commit to answer questions about their conversations with Trump during a closed session with the committee.
Coats and Rogers said they would have to talk to the White House counsel's office to ensure that the president will not invoke executive privilege to bar their testimony. Rogers said he hoped he would be able to answer the senators' questions during a classified briefing in the future.

I don't understand they think it is their place to keep checking with WH on executive privilege. If the WH hasn't asserted it, that should be the end.


your are the third credible (none / 0) (#29)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 06:49:24 AM EST

commenter to say that. and the first with a link. so, if you say so. that must have happened when i was out of the room. i did not see that. i did hear both of them say versions "i will be happy to speak in a closed session."

i dont really care enough to go back through the video. better things to do today. but i do wonder if this part about "asking" was specificaly about Trump asking them to insert themselves to help stop the investigation. because thats not what i heard.


and yes (none / 0) (#30)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 06:58:19 AM EST

i dont understand either. no one seems to understand why they would do such a strange thing. which makes me think there might be reasons we dont yet know. its hard for me to believe they would think they could just do this and it would fly. Coats is a former senator. and he particularly seems apologetic about it . particularly with the "I dont really have a legal justification" answer.

not that i think Coats is some kind of paragon but his previous answers have not been so vague.

there was the amazing 10 second pregnant pause when he was asked if he had discussed the incidents with Rogers a while back.


ok (none / 0) (#32)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 07:48:23 AM EST

they just played that quote from Coats i mentioned the full quote --

i rewound to get it word for word

"im not sure i have a legal basis, but, im, im, more that willing to sit before this committee during its investigative process in a closed session and answer your questions"

i may find a transcript an look for the similar Rogers quote.


and this is from WaPo (none / 0) (#36)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:08:00 AM EST

Coats said he didn't have a specific legal justification for declining to answer such questions, but suggested he might be able to do so during a closed briefing. Asked if he would be forthcoming in such a setting, Coats said he intended to be but did not know yet whether the White House would block such discussion by asserting that executive privilege covers his conversations with the president.

now, that just seems like a truthful answer to me. and not as sinister as is being implied.

'in intend to in private but the President might try to exert executive priviledge'

just seems like the truth to me. he has no control over what Trump does if if Trump does try EP he would by law have to let that be settled by others.

i dont trust these people any more than anyone else but i think deep breaths are not a bad idea. we are at the very very beginning of this.


Both Coats and Rogers said there (none / 0) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:21:37 AM EST

Was no Executive Privilege being exercised by the President. They asked the White House for guidance and claim nobody got back to them.


thats right. i heard that. (none / 0) (#39)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:25:20 AM EST

so why did they do what they did? i think we dont know. and projecting the why we imagine might be fun but doesnt really get us any place.


Well they told people there was no pressure (none / 0) (#40)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:30:59 AM EST

But refused to answer if Trump spoke to them about hampering the Russia investigation. They opened the door to talking about it, then slammed the door shut. Seemed blatantly to protect Trump to me.


of course it did. (none / 0) (#41)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:32:58 AM EST

whichn is exactly i refuse to believe, right now, that was the only reason.

first, it wont work. Coats at least certainly knows that.


Coats began to look nervous at the end (none / 0) (#42)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:36:05 AM EST

Rogers didn't flinch. Rosenstein was visibly shaken by what they pulled.


: i agree with all of that (none / 0) (#43)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:37:24 AM EST

all reasons i think there are a lot of thing we dont yet know. but i totally believe we will know.

: McCabe looked nervous too (none / 0) (#44)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 08:39:08 AM EST

it was confusing (none / 0) (#46)
by mm on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 09:49:55 AM EST

and I believe intentionally so. Both tried to imply they would be happy to answer in a closed session, even mumbling that this involved "classified" material. But when Sen. King pressed Rogers at the end, "will you commit to answering in closed session?", Rogers would not commit explaining he would go back to WH Counsel to ask if they would invoke executive privilege. Then King turned to Coats and asked him and Coats deferred to Rogers' answer.

That is my recollection. I haven't been able to find a transcript yet.

I think Rogers and Coats (none / 0) (#6)
by MKS on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:17:08 PM EST

had said they had not talked to Mueller....

Just weird evasiveness.....spoke volumes. It must be really bad if they won't answer.


Cheeto is realluy spooked by this (none / 0) (#7)
by MKS on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:18:47 PM EST

If there were truly no there there, why all the weirdness?

I assume that Cheeto is really worried about something coming out. The Steel dossier would be a good bet.


I think it's a lot more than that (none / 0) (#9)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:22:13 PM EST

Donalds life is being investigated now. They are going back years. The mind boggles at what they could find.


I have a auestion (none / 0) (#11)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:27:59 PM EST

A lot of talk about how the president can't be charged with a crime.

What if it's a crime he committed before he was president?

Is it that he cant be charged or that he can't be charged with a crime committed AS president?


Armando says on Twitter (none / 0) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:50:59 PM EST

That there is no precedent or statutes for not being able to charge a President with Obstruction of Justice. He says it's not definitive.


Here's his tweet (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:53:29 PM EST

There is no constitutional text or case law on this issue. Silly to make such a pronouncement.


What pronouncement? (none / 0) (#14)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:55:02 PM EST

Dershowitz claiming a President can't (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:56:58 PM EST

Be charged with Obstruction of Justice.


I've heard lots of (none / 0) (#17)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:59:58 PM EST

People dis use how he would have to be impeached because he can't be charged but far be it from me to argue with armando


: A quick google (none / 0) (#20)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 11:04:13 PM EST

Gave me
Can the president be arrested

Technically, no. If the president commits a crime he will be charged. If he is convicted, he'll be impeached and the vice president will take office. From there, the president will be tried again, this time he will get a sentencing with it. While in office the President has a security detail called the Secret Service that isolates a President from ANY threat that may come their way. If any law enforcement official dared to approach them, they could easily keep him safe from the lawman and any legal action he may want to take against the president.

You lost me (none / 0) (#16)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:58:01 PM EST

If you're talking about my question I was not talking about obstruction necessarily. But any one of dozens of crimes Trumps may have committed over the years


While a President is serving he/she can't (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 11:01:47 PM EST

Be criminally charged until impeached. Nixon left before impeachment but didn't Ford pardon him? Because he could be charged once he left office?


What about (none / 0) (#23)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 11:09:27 PM EST

Armando?


: I think we will have to wait for him (none / 0) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 11:19:55 PM EST

To flesh that out.
When he makes such claims I usually wait for his full explanation. I remember at DK all the diaries about the illegal Iraq War and he kept having to explain over and over again how it wasn't illegal no matter how much we all wanted it to be. Immoral yes, but not illegal. So I take his pronouncements seriously. Hopefully he'll clue us all in.

A link from (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 11:06:38 PM EST

Quora


We are in (none / 0) (#28)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 06:36:25 AM EST

so much new territory regarding the constitution it seems no one knows.


Technically (none / 0) (#8)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:20:24 PM EST

They said they would not answer in a public hearing. If they are not held in contempt it could be because when they get the answer in private they understand why they would not give it in public.

Or not. Who the hell knows.


I think they are both in bed (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 10:27:14 PM EST

Protecting Trump. Rogers testimony and his rudeness shouted slimy military. I couldn't believe it at one point. He sounded just like McMaster shouting "wholly appropriate"! Listening to Maddow tonight, then reading more about Rogers, he's in bed with Trump thinking Trump is going to take him bigly into history. The bubble a military mind can live in if it chooses to is astounding sometimes. Along with McMaster and Kelly. Ungodly embarassments.

Why didn't Obama fire Rogers? THAT was a terrible error on Obama's part. Ash Carter and Clapper both wanted him fired. And I think Clapper knows Rogers has been blocking the public finding out how bad the Russian cyber intrusions were.


: Well, Trump IS going to ... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 11:04:34 PM EST

... "take him bigly into history" -- just not the way Rogers initially envisioned it happening.

At this point, I don't know how ... (none / 0) (#19)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 11:01:53 PM EST

... any rational person can argue with a straight face that there's nothing to the Trump-Russia story. Why go to such extraordinary lengths to shut down a federal investigation, if there's really nothing to see here?

: Now (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 11:12:28 PM EST

I want to hear that story that Flynn has to tell. Before today, not so much. I can only juggle so many full douche bags at one time. I'm finally ready for that bursting Flynn douche bag.
Apologies for sullying actual douche bags.

God damn it Bill!!!!! (none / 0) (#48)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 11:22:53 AM EST

McCain sounds demented. (none / 0) (#49)
by Chuck0 on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 11:35:16 AM EST

John McCain sounds completely confused about the matter at hand. He seems to think the email server is somehow linked to Trump's collusion with the Russians.

Comey completely cleared Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#50)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 11:44:50 AM EST

Cleared her. Said they found no case. Cornyn almost had an effing stroke, apparently McCain did.


It Was Painful to Listen to (none / 0) (#51)
by RickyJim on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 11:45:14 AM EST

And from my own personal experience, quite ominous.


People on (none / 0) (#52)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 11:55:23 AM EST

twitter are seriously wondering if he had a stroke because he's not making sense.


: To be honest, that was also my reaction. (none / 0) (#53)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 12:59:58 PM EST

I had mostly been listening and not watching, but McCain's confusing speech caught my attention. He looked like he was confused and at one point, physically struggling to maintain his train of thought. Were I on his staff, I'd be very concerned about what I just saw and would be keeping an eye on him.

: Exactly what I said (none / 0) (#54)
by Towanda on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 03:03:31 PM EST

to Spouse Towanda: Has McCain had a stroke?
(Both of us have had TIA's aka ministrokes.)