Trump lawyer says James Comey made ‘unauthorized disclosures’ of privileged talks

a reply to: Flatfish

I am surprised you can breath with all that sand in your face / nose / mouth. If willful ignorance works for you then so be it.

Comey fallout: Similarities in Times article, testimony could bolster Trump claims

Lawyers for President Trump shot down ex-FBI Director James Comey's claim that a tweet from the commander-in-chief prompted him to leak a memo detailing a private conversation with Trump – and a close examination of a pre-tweet New York Times story may bolster their claim.

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Comey said he was spurred to orchestrate the release of the detailed memo he wrote about a one-on-one talk with Trump after the president tweeted May 12: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

“I woke up in the middle of the night ... because it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation,” Comey told senators. “And my judgment was, I needed to get that out into the public square. And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter … because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”

The admission itself was dramatic, and drew the scorn of Trump allies. Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, read a statement blasting Comey for admitting “he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications.”

Kasowitz, however, also said Comey’s testimony was incorrect.

“The public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey’s excuse,” the statement from Kasowitz said.

There are in fact striking similarities between that pre-tweet article and Comey's written testimony, suggesting the memo's contents may have been leaked -- by somebody -- before Trump vented on Twitter.

Click link for article...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Flatfish

I am surprised you can breath with all that sand in your face / nose / mouth. If willful ignorance works for you then so be it.

It's a little ironic that you would use the "head in the sand" analogy to describe willful ignorance to me, someone who has literally raised, bred & hatched both, African Black and Red Neck Ostrich professionally.

FYI.....Ostrich don't really stick their heads in the sand, that's an old wives' tale. When threatened, they do one of three things. They run, they stand & fight or.....they lay down and spread out flat on the ground in what I assume is an attempt to hide.

But just for the record, I'm not the one hiding from the truth here.

The truth that Donald Trump is not just ignorant, but literally stupid beyond belief and is in way over his head. He is also mentally unstable.

Unless Comey is flat out lying, Trump has obviously committed obstruction of justice and it's just a matter of time before Mueller puts all the pertinent pieces together and presents his findings.

When he does, I'm sure you'll just revert to some video from InfoWars where Alex Jones, (the ultimate right wing authority) is declaring that Mueller and the FBI are just part of some deep state group spreading lies against poor old Donald.

Comey went under oath and sounded pretty credible to me and he's more than willing, (he actually welcomes) to listen to any taped recordings of the conversations that Trump may produce.

Trump on the other hand, (who is probably the world's most documented liar) first bluffs about having tapes and has yet to testify under oath or present any substantiating evidence to support his version of events, tapes, notes, contemporaneous memos or otherwise, wants to stand back and call everyone else liars?

Give me a break!

If anyone is committing willful ignorance by sticking their head in the sand to shield themselves from the truth, that would be you and the other Trumpettes who refuse to see the truth about this idiot you put in the White House.

a reply to: Xcathdra

From the article:

During his Thursday testimony, Comey said the only people he told about his recollections of the Trump encounters were the “deputy director, my chief of staff, general counsel, deputy director’s chief counsel and then, more often than not, the number three person at the FBI, the associate deputy director. And quite often, head of the national security branch.”

That's a short enough list of suspects to get to the bottom of things fairly quickly.

These same people could no doubt fill in quite a few holes in other leak investigations as well.

*Ahem*

Finally, Kasowitz condemns Comey for "leaks." A leak is not any conversation. It specifically means the release of secret or classified information. 1) None of this material was classified, as Comey carefully and clearly explained. Kasowitz was not paying attention and/or does not understand the meaning of the word "leak." 2) Comey is a private citizen, and he has no duty to conceal nonclassified conversation now. He also was sharing the information with a private citizen. 3) So Kasowitz's letter is really an attack on private free speech by stretching the word leak to cover any conversation by a former government official about nonclassified information and events.

Trump's lawyer: Comey violated executive privilege. 10 legal experts: No, he didn't.

This ENTIRE thing is just more DISTRACTION by the Trump administration.

And IF these memo's are "lies" ... WHY is Trump so TERRIFIED of them? Why the vigorous attacks?

Hm...

a reply to: Xcathdra

The NY Times May 11 article didn't have one word mentioning any leaked memos as their source for this story.

The NY Times actually stated that their sources were anonymous Comey associates who Comey contemporaneously shared the contents of the dinner conversations with.

During his sworn testimony yesterday, Comey openly stated on more than one occasion, that he had shared those conversations with 6 associates within the FBI and IC when they happened, so what's the big deal and how does the May 11 article show that Comey perjured himself?

That's just Trump and his crappy overpriced lawyer attempting to twist the truth.....again.

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: Xcathdra

InfoWars? Really? That's your bastion of truth?

IMO, Anyone who utilizes Alex Jones and/or InfoWars to defend their position as one of truth, is grasping at straws and hardly worthy or capable of intelligent debate.

On the other hand, Alex Jones is just as unhinged as Donald Trump so your attraction to his delusional insanity is to be somewhat expected.

And you used Rachel Maddow???? LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

a reply to: GuidedKill

Well, SHE dosen't HYPE overpriced vitamins and CLAIM that the water will MAKE "the frogs gay"...

a reply to: DanteGaland

Without a doubt, President Trump is an expert marksman when it comes to shooting his own feet, but it's not clear that Mr. Comey's activities were indisputably legal, because the extent of his activities has not been disclosed.

Until that has been conclusively determined, I think it would be premature to pass judgment either way.

Somehow I don't think that anything said by "public servants" is completely privileged information, unless of course you are willing to admit and accept that your government is just another big-business.

As long as the livestock accept their elected leaders withholding information from them, well I guess we all just remain ignorant to what really goes on...

...Seems to be some kind of disease spreading across the entire globe, they let you have your stupid "giant frickin sales-pitch" internet and you think you actually know what the fack is going on...

I don't give a fack whether Comey or Trump broke any silly frickin laws about confidentialtity.

I just want all of the information I can get regarding whats going on, and anyone who wouldn't is...

...Well...

a reply to: Majic

Yes, BUT:

But here’s the problem: The conversations between Trump and Comey were not classified. Moreover, because the president himself has publicly referred to the conversations in question, he has already waived any claim for executive privilege.

And ALSO:

Violating executive privilege isn't a crime. And it is important to distinguish between a putative rule of evidence and an affirmative defense. Executive privilege is not a defense. So even if Comey violated executive privilege it wouldn't change the fact that Trump obstructed justice, or acted corruptly, in firing Comey to stymie a federal investigation into his campaign or administration.

People forget!

It’s not true that any and all conversations with the president are protected under executive privilege — not even if it's limited to private conversations with the president. It depends on the content and the context. If Trump and Comey talk about baseball, that's not privileged.

Same Link

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

If we were being told the whole truth by honest people who identified themselves, that would be wonderful. Instead, what we've been getting is anonymous gossip selectively disclosed for the express purpose of manipulating us.

Unmasking the people doing that is the first step toward finding out what's really going on, and until that happens, we're actually worse off than if we were simply being kept in the dark.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: Xcathdra

InfoWars? Really? That's your bastion of truth?

IMO, Anyone who utilizes Alex Jones and/or InfoWars to defend their position as one of truth, is grasping at straws and hardly worthy or capable of intelligent debate.

On the other hand, Alex Jones is just as unhinged as Donald Trump so your attraction to his delusional insanity is to be somewhat expected.

And you used Rachel Maddow???? LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

Look truth be told, I can just barely stand listening to her because of the way she keeps repeating things she's already stated.

And I agree that she reports with a bias, but then who doesn't?

That being said, she's not delusional or mentally unstable like Alex Jones and more often than not, her stories are pretty much accurate.

Trump could clear it up by producing the tapes.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Executive privilege isn't the only issue. In fact, it's a non-issue as the article points out.

What's not clear is whether federal law may have been violated, and whether James Comey's testimony has been accurate and complete.

Indeed, it has raised several questions that need to be answered before that can be determined, with the most important being who did what, and when.

originally posted by: MOMof3
Trump could clear it up by producing the tapes.

Did you catch how HE said "Better HOPE there aren't any tapes!"

That sounds like a MOB BOSS trying to strong-arm someone!

originally posted by: MOMof3
Trump could clear it up by producing the tapes.

Except he doesn't really have any, it was all a big bluff. He was hoping it would scare Comey away.

Even if he had tapes, he probably wouldn't be able to remember where they were at because he has the attention span of an earthworm.

originally posted by: MOMof3
Trump could clear it up by producing the tapes.

Trump might be miles ahead on this game.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Yet another example of Trump's singular talent for self-sabotage.

Aside from the boorishness of the threat, by referring to them in this manner, President Trump has likely opened the door to having any such tapes being subpoenaed by Congress and Special Counsel Mueller.

I strongly doubt that works to his advantage.

a reply to: Flatfish

You big meanie !. I at least publicly share that my opinion of his attention span is that of a goldfish...