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

I bet the tapes get edited:

"Mr. Comey, I hope you will s̶t̶o̶p̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶v̶e̶s̶t̶i̶g̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ RUN A GREAT INVESTIGATION, and l̶e̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶g̶o̶ KEEP GOING. Can I get t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶ ̶l̶o̶y̶a̶l̶t̶y̶ YOU SOME MORE ICE CREAM?"

originally posted by: DanteGaland
I bet the tapes get edited:

"Mr. Comey, I hope you will s̶t̶o̶p̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶v̶e̶s̶t̶i̶g̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ RUN A GREAT INVESTIGATION, and l̶e̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶g̶o̶ KEEP GOING. Can I get t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶ ̶l̶o̶y̶a̶l̶t̶y̶ YOU SOME MORE ICE CREAM?"

Sooo Clever.

a reply to: Flatfish

Go back and read the article as that issue is addressed.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Flatfish

Go back and read the article as that issue is addressed.

And you keep making these blatantly false statements.

Maybe you should re-read the article.

The article clearly states; "The Comey memos are never explicitly mentioned in the May 11 The NY Times story: however, details that appear to have been written in the memos were. Not until a May 16 story, which Comey indicated Thursday was the first story his friend leaked at his request, was there a public mention of the Comey memos."

Just like I said in the beginning, Trump & his lawyer are attempting to twist the truth.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
I bet the tapes get edited:

"Mr. Comey, I hope you will s̶t̶o̶p̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶v̶e̶s̶t̶i̶g̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ RUN A GREAT INVESTIGATION, and l̶e̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶g̶o̶ KEEP GOING. Can I get t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶ ̶l̶o̶y̶a̶l̶t̶y̶ YOU SOME MORE ICE CREAM?"

There was a serious trust issues with Comey being the director of the FBI and the President wanted to know where he stood. As much as Comey says he is non-partisan his actions and feelings do not show that. Lots of leaks coming out of the FBI turned in to incorrect news stories (Comey words more or less) and the President wanted to know if he could trust him, have faith that Comey would not try and undermine his position.

On the first meeting Comey walked into it with the view that the president was a liar and he had to take notes etc. and saw asking for loyalty over Obama/Clinton as a serious issue, but when Lynch TOLD him to change the narrative on Hillary that was OK and no notes needed...lol really?

Why didn't Comey just ask him to further define what does he mean by loyalty, seems weird with a couple of hours of conversation Comey could not engage with the President on trust issues and work on fixing that.

I can see why the President fired him, and I can also see why a dozen of Democratic Senators openly announced they wanted him fired a few short months ago too.

a reply to: whywhynot

It is sad comey didn't think about what he said. He comits a crime than admits it. I think it was obvious with his testimony he also allowed obstruction of justice in the Clinton investigation. All the while trying not to clear Trump and saying he didn't want to interfere. But he holds a press conference to announce Hillary innocence.

Then explains how guilty she was but she shouldn't be prosecuted because he believes she shoudnt. Wow you cant make up these kind if contradictions.

a reply to: Flatfish

Only seeing what you want while ignoring the rest I see. Read the article, specifically the part about the consistent between the May 11th article and the actual memo.

If you make it that far please explain to us how the wording is consistent. Then explain to us how a 3rd party is going to remember exact verbiage without having the memo in front of them.

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.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Flatfish

Only seeing what you want while ignoring the rest I see. Read the article, specifically the part about the consistent between the May 11th article and the actual memo.

If you make it that far please explain to us how the wording is consistent. Then explain to us how a 3rd party is going to remember exact verbiage without having the memo in front of them.

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.

They're consistent and similar, (not exact verbiage) because they're both recantations of the exact same story.

On top of that, how do you know that the associates who Comey contemporaneously shared the story with didn't take notes of their own?

Secondly, could you please explain how so many millions of people manage to tell the story of the three little pigs in such a consistent and similar manner without reading it from written memos? How about Goldilocks & the three bears, without memos?

It's nowhere near as impossible as you would have us believe.

I'm not refusing to see something that's there, you're insisting that something is there when it isn't.

Partial Truths

originally posted by: Flatfish
On top of that, how do you know that the associates who Comey contemporaneously shared the story with didn't take notes of their own?

That's the problem: James Comey's testimony didn't address that question, and it's important to have a complete and truthful answer.

Full Transcript and Video: James Comey’s Testimony on Capitol Hill

COLLINS: And finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the Department of Justice?

COMEY: Yes.

COLLINS: And to whom did you show copies?

COMEY: I asked — the president tweeted on Friday, after I got fired, that I better hope there’s not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might be a tape.

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. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.

COLLINS: And was that Mr. Wittes?

COMEY: No, no.

COLLINS: Who was that?

COMEY: A good friend of mine who’s a professor at Columbia Law School.

COLLINS: Thank you.

The question of who Comey showed the memos to is important, because the reasons why two different associates decided on their own to speak to the Times prior to May 12, 2017 have not been clarified. If it was at Comey's bidding, then his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee may have been incomplete and incorrect.

If they did not act in conjunction with Comey, then their motives need to be conclusively established, because they bear directly on the events leading to his testimony.

In all cases, the identities of the associates need to be determined, because they are, by Comey's own testimony, either federal employees who are accountable under law for their actions, or individuals outside of the Department of Justice and relevant to Senator Collins' questions.

And in all cases, their actions are material to at least one Senate investigation, the Special Counsel's investigation -- and likely other investigations as well.

Calling Comey a Liar, Trump Says He Will Testify Under Oath

Now it's really starting to get interesting, and this development underlines why it is so important to ensure James Comey's testimony is truthful and complete.

If this isn't just more typical Trump bluster, we take him at his word and he does testify under oath, then one of these two men is going to be guilty of perjury.

If it's Comey, then he faces felony prosecution, and if it's Trump, then he faces impeachment for essentially the same charges as President Clinton.

There's no way this wouldn't be "big league".

James Comey's friend was requested to have delivered to

The Senate Intelligence committee today his copy of the
so called "memo"

Wonder if he is cooperating?

Letter demanding the memo below

dailycaller.com...

www.judiciary.senate.gov...(Comey%20Memos)_Redacted.pdf

originally posted by: Majic
Partial Truths

originally posted by: Flatfish
On top of that, how do you know that the associates who Comey contemporaneously shared the story with didn't take notes of their own?

That's the problem: James Comey's testimony didn't address that question, and it's important to have a complete and truthful answer.

Full Transcript and Video: James Comey’s Testimony on Capitol Hill

COLLINS: And finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the Department of Justice?

COMEY: Yes.

COLLINS: And to whom did you show copies?

COMEY: I asked — the president tweeted on Friday, after I got fired, that I better hope there’s not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might be a tape.

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. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.

COLLINS: And was that Mr. Wittes?

COMEY: No, no.

COLLINS: Who was that?

COMEY: A good friend of mine who’s a professor at Columbia Law School.

COLLINS: Thank you.

The question of who Comey showed the memos to is important, because the reasons why two different associates decided on their own to speak to the Times prior to May 12, 2017 have not been clarified. If it was at Comey's bidding, then his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee may have been incomplete and incorrect.

If they did not act in conjunction with Comey, then their motives need to be conclusively established, because they bear directly on the events leading to his testimony.

In all cases, the identities of the associates need to be determined, because they are, by Comey's own testimony, either federal employees who are accountable under law for their actions, or individuals outside of the Department of Justice and relevant to Senator Collins' questions.

And in all cases, their actions are material to at least one Senate investigation, the Special Counsel's investigation -- and likely other investigations as well.

Comey did address the question.

When they ask Comey if he had shared the content of the meetings with anyone else, he listed 6 different individual associates within the FBI and the IC that he contemporaneously shared the conversations with each time there was a meeting that made him feel uncomfortable to the point that he felt the need to document it.

I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking it was probably two of those 6 associates who decided to talk to The NY Times for the May 11 article.

Their motive for doing so is anybody's guess.

It's my understanding that Comey ask those 6 associates not to repeat what he had disclosed to them for as long as he, (Comey) still held the position as director of the FBI.

And.....we all know, Trump took care of that little restriction now didn't he?

If I were one of those associates, sitting on that info, I'd definitely get it out in the public realm.

But then, I'm of the opinion that Trump has indeed crossed the line and obstructed justice and that would be my reason for leaking what I knew.

a reply to: Flatfish

Making it so we don't have to guess is what investigating is all about.

originally posted by: Majic
Calling Comey a Liar, Trump Says He Will Testify Under Oath

Now it's really starting to get interesting, and this development underlines why it is so important to ensure James Comey's testimony is truthful and complete.

If this isn't just more typical Trump bluster, we take him at his word and he does testify under oath, then one of these two men is going to be guilty of perjury.

If it's Comey, then he faces felony prosecution, and if it's Trump, then he faces impeachment for essentially the same charges as President Clinton.

There's no way this wouldn't be "big league".

Trump's lawyer would have to be a colossal idiot to allow his client to testify under oath.

On the other hand, he would also be an idiot if he didn't advise Trump to publicly state that he's 100% willing to testify under oath, repeatedly.

While I'm already on record declaring him an overpaid dips#*t of an attorney, I'm still betting this is all just blustery BS.

When the time comes, Trump is going to say that he really wanted to testify but under the advice of his attorney, he's gonna have to refrain for now. ("For now" really means forever, just like with his tax returns)

Comey was asked over a month ago to deliver his
"memo" to the House Oversight Committee.

He refused, even after under threat of Subpoena.

What is he hiding?

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: Flatfish

Making it so we don't have to guess is what investigating is all about.

Actually, The NY Times flat out stated it in their article.

They said that their source was two associates of Comey's who were familiar with the meetings and conversations.

originally posted by: burntheships
James Comey's friend was requested to have delivered to

The Senate Intelligence committee today his copy of the
so called "memo.

Wonder if he is cooperating?

Letter demanding the memo below

dailycaller.com...

The Letter

A friend of Comey's is a friend of the Clintons

originally posted by: burntheships
Comey was asked over a month ago to deliver his
"memo" to the House Oversight Committee.

He refused, even after under threat of Subpoena.

What is he hiding?

He knows some of the material was "classified at the time".

This will blow higher than Mt. Saint Helens.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: burntheships
Comey was asked over a month ago to deliver his
"memo" to the House Oversight Committee.

He refused, even after under threat of Subpoena.

What is he hiding?

He knows some of the material was "classified at the time".

This will blow higher than Mt. Saint Helens.

If he retained classified information after he was no longer employed, or stored it in an authorized manner, he could be in serious trouble. If he passed it on to others, it is even worse.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: Flatfish

Making it so we don't have to guess is what investigating is all about.

Actually, The NY Times flat out stated it in their article.

They said that their source was two associates of Comey's who were familiar with the meetings and conversations.

I know. I referenced the article, and explained why their identities are important.

Do you know who they are? If not, that's my point.

If so, please share.