I'm seeing a trend of people that are slightly confused and underwhelmed by the recent news stories, so I wanted to take a brief second to explain a few things.
This is exactly how investigations play out; you usually just don't see it happen in real-time. They aren't usually fast, they aren't usually pretty. There are lots of twists and turns - which is the reason that most people in DOJ were concerned about Comey telling POTUS that he wasn't under investigation at the time. Once you get in there and start looking under rocks, you never know what you're going to find. That is exactly what you're seeing. I said on Twitter that the circle is closing, and that's important. Look at how close the confirmed investigations are getting to the Oval Office. Investigations hardly ever start off with the biggest fish; they're kind of like a counter-insurgency operation in the military, finding a low to mid-level operative, collecting information and working your way up. The pace of this investigation is actually staggering if you think about it. He's been in office for 6 months, and we have confirmed investigations into Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Carter Page, Boris Epshteyn. We have allegations that Bannon, Flynn, Conway and Clovis have been identified in a recruiting document used by a GOP strategist that wanted Clinton emails from hackers. If Mueller can verify that bit of information, that is far more than attempted-collusion - that is full-blown collusion. Full stop. No getting around it. We know there's a case for obstruction based on the Comey firing and his response. We know that the FBI is looking into financials and breaking up Russian money laundering campaigns at what seems to be record pace. We know that FinCEN has turned thousands of pages over to the Senate Intelligence Committee. It's getting good. I would recommend keeping popcorn handy.
The drip-drip-drip has been quieter lately, and that is to be expected with the appointment of Mueller and the special counsel. The information is still out there, and as I and many others have said on Twitter, a haymaker is expected soon. I know that sometimes if you look at it individually, a story can seem underwhelming. When you look at it in the totality of circumstances, it's beginning to paint a very clear picture of misdeeds and illegality. The only questions that should remain are: 1. How much longer until the KO punch? 2. How deep does this thing go?
Friday, June 30, 2017
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Weekly Rundown (Hint: This is a Disaster)
Stop me if you've heard this before, but this was another terrible week for the Trump presidency.
I really don't even know where to start, but I feel like CNN's bombshell reporting this morning is as good a place as any: CNN sources are confirming the NYT story that Trump personally asked DNI Coats and DIRNSA Rogers to publicly knock down the Russia collusion story. We knew this was most likely the case when Coats and Rogers both refused to answer that exact question in open-session during their Senate hearing. They answered openly in closed-session, and being Washington, accounts of that testimony are beginning to leak. Both men said that they found the conversation unusual and uncomfortable, and neither complied with the request. Aside from the firing of James Comey and the confirmation on the Lester Holt interview, this is the strongest public evidence that we've seen for an obstruction of justice case. He knowingly cleared the room to proposition Comey, then he personally picked up the phone and called two of the most powerful intel chiefs in the country and asked THEM to step out of the shadows and "remove the cloud". Mr. President, you put that cloud there - it's going to follow your presidency at LEAST until Mueller's investigation is complete.
I really don't even know where to start, but I feel like CNN's bombshell reporting this morning is as good a place as any: CNN sources are confirming the NYT story that Trump personally asked DNI Coats and DIRNSA Rogers to publicly knock down the Russia collusion story. We knew this was most likely the case when Coats and Rogers both refused to answer that exact question in open-session during their Senate hearing. They answered openly in closed-session, and being Washington, accounts of that testimony are beginning to leak. Both men said that they found the conversation unusual and uncomfortable, and neither complied with the request. Aside from the firing of James Comey and the confirmation on the Lester Holt interview, this is the strongest public evidence that we've seen for an obstruction of justice case. He knowingly cleared the room to proposition Comey, then he personally picked up the phone and called two of the most powerful intel chiefs in the country and asked THEM to step out of the shadows and "remove the cloud". Mr. President, you put that cloud there - it's going to follow your presidency at LEAST until Mueller's investigation is complete.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
How a Republican Joined The Resistance
A little background into me: I have a double major in journalism and political science, with a focus on international relations. While journalism isn't my current job by any stretch of the imagination, I fundamentally believe that it remains the most important pillar of our democracy.
I've been a Republican all my life. When Trump secured the Republican nomination, I, like most of the country thought the election was going to be a complete blowout in favor of Hillary Clinton. I watched the debates, followed the news, the rallies, etc. I was repulsed by the Access Hollywood tape. Don't get me wrong: I'm not perfect by any means, I've said things in private that could probably be considered 'locker-room talk', but that was so far overboard that I still can't even adequately express my disgust. I had also began to hear the rumors of the Trump tower / Alfa Bank connection, but I didn't give them much credence in the beginning. I told my wife on several occasions during election season that I didn't see how Trump could possibly win the election, even with the Clinton email scandal and the FBI investigation; his utter lack of policy of any kind and juvenile debate antics would surely fall on deaf ears with the American people, right? Boy, was I wrong.
I've been a Republican all my life. When Trump secured the Republican nomination, I, like most of the country thought the election was going to be a complete blowout in favor of Hillary Clinton. I watched the debates, followed the news, the rallies, etc. I was repulsed by the Access Hollywood tape. Don't get me wrong: I'm not perfect by any means, I've said things in private that could probably be considered 'locker-room talk', but that was so far overboard that I still can't even adequately express my disgust. I had also began to hear the rumors of the Trump tower / Alfa Bank connection, but I didn't give them much credence in the beginning. I told my wife on several occasions during election season that I didn't see how Trump could possibly win the election, even with the Clinton email scandal and the FBI investigation; his utter lack of policy of any kind and juvenile debate antics would surely fall on deaf ears with the American people, right? Boy, was I wrong.
Friday, June 9, 2017
Trump's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Whew.
It's not even the "news hour" yet and Trump has already had one of the worst days of his presidency. It's amazing how many times we've said that in 5 months, but here we are. I'm not sure that everyone grasped the totality of the Comey testimony. I know for sure that Trump's lawyer didn't. Ok, he did, but he's doing a halfway decent job pretending like this was somehow vindication for POTUS. Anyway, the testimony was full of Washington speak and nuance, so I'm going to try to break down some of it here. Summary: There is absolutely no lens from which this testimony can be taken in a good way for the President.
Edit: Friday (6/9/2017) now. I meant to finish this yesterday, but didn't get to it. I'm actually thankful after the press conference POTUS just gave. Wow. Anyway, lets start with the testimony.
Warner: What was it about that meeting that lead you to determine that you needed to start putting down a written record?
COMEY: A combination of things. I think the circumstances, the subject matter, and the person I was interacting with. Circumstances, first, I was alone with the president of the United States, or the president-elect, soon to be president. The subject matter I was talking about matters that touch on the FBI's core responsibility, and that relate to the president, president-elect personally, and then the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document.
This was the first, "OMG" moment of the hearing to me, aside from in Comey's opening statement directly telling the American people that the President lied to them. Here, you have a former FBI director and highly, highly respected CAREER government official saying that he didn't think highly enough of the President Elect of the United States' character to have confidence that he would accurately recount the nature of their meeting. That is striking.
BURR (as part of his opening statement): Our experienced staff is interviewing all relevant parties and some of the most sensitive intelligence in our country's possession. We will establish the facts separate from rampant speculation and lay them out for the American people to make their own judgment.
This was immediately apparent to me, but I thought that maybe some people not well-versed in Washington speak might not have caught it. He's talking about Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) or intercepts as they're commonly referred to in the press. This is big, because that means they are potentially reviewing any phone call that any person associated with the Trump campaign ever made to Russia.
WYDEN: Let me turn to the attorney general. In your statement, you said that you and the FBI leadership team decided not to discuss the president's actions with Attorney General Sessions, even though he had not recused himself. What was it about the attorney general's interactions with the Russians or his behavior with regard to the investigation that would have led the entire leadership of the FBI to make this decision?
COMEY: Our judgment, as I recall, is that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic
Comey discussed this in further detail in the classified portion of the hearing, and naturally, it leaked immediately. The thing that he couldn't discuss in open session was Sessions' previously unreported 3rd meeting with Kislyak, as reported by CNN. So that confirms that. And that Sessions lied. Again. Taken in context with his faux-recusal, I would be surprised to see him in the AG role for much longer.
KING: In his press conference May 18th, the president responded, quote, no, no, when asked about asking you to stop the investigation into general Flynn. Is that a true statement?
COMEY: I don't believe it is.
KING: In regard to him being personally under investigation, does that mean that the dossier is not being reviewed or investigated or followed up on in any way?
COMEY: I obviously can't comment either way. I talk in an open setting about the investigation as it was when I was head of the FBI. It is Bob Mueller's responsibility now. I don't know.
This was big for 2 reasons:
1. This was one of the most direct accusations by Comey that Trump knowingly obstructed justice, and subsequently lied about it. In his written statement and his testimony, Comey laid out a very compelling argument for obstruction of justice.
2. This is Washington-speak for, "he might not have been under investigation then, but he absolutely is now."
I have more hearing quotes that I would like to touch on, but I will save those for another post. There's a point that I really feel is obvious that most people (especially the MSM) aren't making at the moment:
It is now apparent that this White House's credibility crisis is about to be on full display as Trump seems to be prepping for an integrity battle with James Comey. What could ever go wrong? If there is nothing to the whole Russia thing, why has every prominent person that's been investigating it been fired by this President?
1. Preet Bharara
2. Sally Yates
3. James Comey
Why the mob-boss-esque meeting with Comey in the Oval Office after he already knew Comey wanted to stay on? The thing that I find most entertaining about all of this, is once again, this is a disaster all of Trump's own making. Comey was fully prepared to go quietly and accept his termination, until Trump defamed him and the FBI / suggested their were tapes. Turns out, you can't bluff a master.
Speaking of bluffing a master, I feel like Trump is playing directly into Comey's hand if he indeed files a complaint in regards to the "leaks" that aren't actually leaks. Comey knows that he was well within his legal authority to pass out HIS notes on a subject that Trump has spoken, written and tweeted about on several occasions. For the exact reason that Trump was unable to assert executive privilege over Comey's testimony, he has no authority to do it with the memos. It's worth pointing out that if Trump and his attorney DO file that complaint, they are all but validating the content of the memos. If it is all false information, what, exactly did you want to assert privilege over, Mr. President? Finally, if it comes back to a literal back and forth between Comey and POTUS (as seems likely after that wild press conference where Trump said he would be willing to give his side of the story under oath) do you really want the former director of the FBI, who has already pointedly called you a liar to the American people, giving a no-holds barred testimony against you? Your move, rookie.
Side note: Mueller added Michael Dreeben to the Russia probe today. This is HUGE. Dreeben is deputy Solicitor General, a hard hitting criminal law expert. It sounds like Mueller wants some extra advice on complex criminal law matters.. obstruction of justice, anyone?
It's not even the "news hour" yet and Trump has already had one of the worst days of his presidency. It's amazing how many times we've said that in 5 months, but here we are. I'm not sure that everyone grasped the totality of the Comey testimony. I know for sure that Trump's lawyer didn't. Ok, he did, but he's doing a halfway decent job pretending like this was somehow vindication for POTUS. Anyway, the testimony was full of Washington speak and nuance, so I'm going to try to break down some of it here. Summary: There is absolutely no lens from which this testimony can be taken in a good way for the President.
Edit: Friday (6/9/2017) now. I meant to finish this yesterday, but didn't get to it. I'm actually thankful after the press conference POTUS just gave. Wow. Anyway, lets start with the testimony.
Warner: What was it about that meeting that lead you to determine that you needed to start putting down a written record?
COMEY: A combination of things. I think the circumstances, the subject matter, and the person I was interacting with. Circumstances, first, I was alone with the president of the United States, or the president-elect, soon to be president. The subject matter I was talking about matters that touch on the FBI's core responsibility, and that relate to the president, president-elect personally, and then the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document.
This was the first, "OMG" moment of the hearing to me, aside from in Comey's opening statement directly telling the American people that the President lied to them. Here, you have a former FBI director and highly, highly respected CAREER government official saying that he didn't think highly enough of the President Elect of the United States' character to have confidence that he would accurately recount the nature of their meeting. That is striking.
BURR (as part of his opening statement): Our experienced staff is interviewing all relevant parties and some of the most sensitive intelligence in our country's possession. We will establish the facts separate from rampant speculation and lay them out for the American people to make their own judgment.
This was immediately apparent to me, but I thought that maybe some people not well-versed in Washington speak might not have caught it. He's talking about Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) or intercepts as they're commonly referred to in the press. This is big, because that means they are potentially reviewing any phone call that any person associated with the Trump campaign ever made to Russia.
WYDEN: Let me turn to the attorney general. In your statement, you said that you and the FBI leadership team decided not to discuss the president's actions with Attorney General Sessions, even though he had not recused himself. What was it about the attorney general's interactions with the Russians or his behavior with regard to the investigation that would have led the entire leadership of the FBI to make this decision?
COMEY: Our judgment, as I recall, is that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic
Comey discussed this in further detail in the classified portion of the hearing, and naturally, it leaked immediately. The thing that he couldn't discuss in open session was Sessions' previously unreported 3rd meeting with Kislyak, as reported by CNN. So that confirms that. And that Sessions lied. Again. Taken in context with his faux-recusal, I would be surprised to see him in the AG role for much longer.
KING: In his press conference May 18th, the president responded, quote, no, no, when asked about asking you to stop the investigation into general Flynn. Is that a true statement?
COMEY: I don't believe it is.
KING: In regard to him being personally under investigation, does that mean that the dossier is not being reviewed or investigated or followed up on in any way?
COMEY: I obviously can't comment either way. I talk in an open setting about the investigation as it was when I was head of the FBI. It is Bob Mueller's responsibility now. I don't know.
This was big for 2 reasons:
1. This was one of the most direct accusations by Comey that Trump knowingly obstructed justice, and subsequently lied about it. In his written statement and his testimony, Comey laid out a very compelling argument for obstruction of justice.
2. This is Washington-speak for, "he might not have been under investigation then, but he absolutely is now."
I have more hearing quotes that I would like to touch on, but I will save those for another post. There's a point that I really feel is obvious that most people (especially the MSM) aren't making at the moment:
It is now apparent that this White House's credibility crisis is about to be on full display as Trump seems to be prepping for an integrity battle with James Comey. What could ever go wrong? If there is nothing to the whole Russia thing, why has every prominent person that's been investigating it been fired by this President?
1. Preet Bharara
2. Sally Yates
3. James Comey
Why the mob-boss-esque meeting with Comey in the Oval Office after he already knew Comey wanted to stay on? The thing that I find most entertaining about all of this, is once again, this is a disaster all of Trump's own making. Comey was fully prepared to go quietly and accept his termination, until Trump defamed him and the FBI / suggested their were tapes. Turns out, you can't bluff a master.
Speaking of bluffing a master, I feel like Trump is playing directly into Comey's hand if he indeed files a complaint in regards to the "leaks" that aren't actually leaks. Comey knows that he was well within his legal authority to pass out HIS notes on a subject that Trump has spoken, written and tweeted about on several occasions. For the exact reason that Trump was unable to assert executive privilege over Comey's testimony, he has no authority to do it with the memos. It's worth pointing out that if Trump and his attorney DO file that complaint, they are all but validating the content of the memos. If it is all false information, what, exactly did you want to assert privilege over, Mr. President? Finally, if it comes back to a literal back and forth between Comey and POTUS (as seems likely after that wild press conference where Trump said he would be willing to give his side of the story under oath) do you really want the former director of the FBI, who has already pointedly called you a liar to the American people, giving a no-holds barred testimony against you? Your move, rookie.
Side note: Mueller added Michael Dreeben to the Russia probe today. This is HUGE. Dreeben is deputy Solicitor General, a hard hitting criminal law expert. It sounds like Mueller wants some extra advice on complex criminal law matters.. obstruction of justice, anyone?
Thursday, June 8, 2017
Marc Kasowitz Statement On Comey's Testimony (6/8/17)
I am Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal lawyer.
Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today’s hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference. He also admitted that there is no evidence that a single vote changed as a result of any Russian interference.
Mr Comey’s testimony also makes clear that the President never sought to impede the investigation into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election, and in fact, according to Mr. Comey, the President told Mr. Comey “it would be good to find out” in that investigation if there were “some ‘satellite’ associates of his who did something wrong.” And he did not exclude anyone from that statement.
Consistent with that statement, 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.” As he publicly stated the next day, he did say to Mr. Comey, “General Flynn is a good guy, he has been through a lot” and also “asked how is General Flynn is doing.” Admiral Rogers testified that the President never “directed [him] to do anything . . . illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate” and never “pressured [him] to do so.” Director Coates said the same thing. The President likewise never pressured Mr. Comey.
The President also never told Mr. Comey, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty” in form or substance. Of course, the Office of the President is entitled to expect loyalty from those who are serving in an administration, and, from before this President took office to this day, 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 information and privileged communications. Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.
Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President. The leaks of this privileged information began no later than March 2017 when friends of Mr. Comey have stated he disclosed to them the conversations he had with the President during their January 27, 2017 dinner and February 14, 2017 White House meeting.
Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he leaked to friends his purported memos of these privileged conversations, one of which he testified was classified. He also testified that immediately after he was terminated he authorized his friends to leak the contents of these memos to the press in order to “prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”
Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, 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 for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory. We will leave it the appropriate authorities to determine whether this leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated. .
In sum, it is now established that there the President was not being investigated for colluding with the or attempting to obstruct that investigation. As the Committee pointed out today, these important facts for the country to know are virtually the only facts that have not leaked during the long course of these events.
Full text from Washington Post.
Comey 6/8/2017 Senate Intel Committee Testimony Transcript
Text from Politico. Will be updated throughout the day. New post coming to expand on what I thought was really important.
SEN. RICHARD BURR: I call this hearing to order. Director Comey, I appreciate your willingness to appear before the committee today, and more importantly I thank you for your dedicated service and leadership to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Your appearance today speaks to the trust we have built over the years and I'm looking forward to a very open and candid discussion today. I'd like to remind my colleagues that we will reconvene in closed session at 1:00 P.M. today, and I ask that you reserve for that venue any questions that might get into classified information. The director has been very gracious with his time, the vice chairman and I worked out a very specific timeline for his commitment to be on the hill, so we will do everything we can to meet that agreement.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence exists to certify for the other 85 members of the United States Senate and the American people that the intelligence community is operating lawfully, and has the necessary authorities and tools to accomplish its mission, and keep America safe. Part of our mission, beyond the oversight we continue to provide to the intelligence community and its activities, is to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The committee's work continues. This hearing represents part of that effort. Jim, allegations have been swirling in the press for the last several weeks and today is your opportunity to set the record straight. Yesterday, I read with interest your statement for the record, and I think it provides some helpful details surrounding your interactions with the president. It clearly lays out your understanding of those discussions, actions you took following each conversation and your state of mind.
I very much appreciate your candor, and I think it provides helpful details surrounding your interactions with the president. It clearly lays out your understanding of those discussions, actions you took following each conversation and your state of mind.
I very much appreciate your candor, and I think it's helpful as we work through to determine the ultimate truth behind possible Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Your statement also provides texture and context to your interactions with the president, from your vantage point, and outlines a strained relationship. The American people need to hear your side of the story, just as they need to hear the president's descriptions of events. These interactions also highlight the importance of the committee's ongoing investigation. Our experienced staff is interviewing all relevant parties and some of the most sensitive intelligence in our country's possession. We will establish the facts separate from rampant speculation and lay them out for the American people to make their own judgment.
My colleague, Senator Warner and I, have worked to stay in lock step on this investigation. We've had our differences on approach, at times, but I've constantly stressed that we need to be a team, and I think Senator Warner agrees with me. We must keep these questions above politics and partisanship. It's too important to be tainted by anyone trying to score political points. With that, again, I welcome you director, and I turn to the vice chairman for any comments he might have.
SEN. MARK WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and let me start by again absolutely thanking all the members of the committee for the seriousness in which they've taken on this task. Mr. Comey, thank you for agreeing to come testify as part of this committee's investigation into Russia. I realize this hearing has been obviously the focus of a lot of Washington, in the last few days. But the truth is, many Americans who may be tuning in today probably haven't focused on every twist and turn of the investigation. So I'd like to briefly describe, at least from this senator's standpoint, what we already know, and what we're still investigating. To be clear, this investigation is not about relitigating the election. It's not about who won or lost. And it sure as heck is not about Democrats versus Republicans. We are here because a foreign adversary attacked us right here at home, plain and simple. Not by guns or missiles, but by foreign operatives seeking to hijack our most important democratic process, our presidential election. Russian spies engaged in a series of online cyber raids, and a broad campaign of disinformation, all ultimately aimed at sowing chaos to undermine public faith in our process, in our leadership, and ultimately in ourselves.
And that's not just this senator's opinion. It is the unanimous determination of the entire U.S. intelligence community. So we must find out the full story, what the Russians did, and candidly as some other colleagues mentioned, why they were so successful, and more importantly we must determine the necessary steps to take to protect our democracy and ensure they can't do it again. The chairman mentioned elections in 2018 and 2020, in my home state of Virginia, we have elections this year in 2017. Simply put, we cannot let anything or anyone prevent us from getting to the bottom of this. Now Mr. Comey, let me say at the outset, we haven't always agreed on every issue. In fact I've occasionally questioned some of the actions you've taken, but I've never had any reason to question your integrity, your expertise, or your intelligence. You've been a straight shooter with this committee and have been willing to speak truth to power, even at the risk of your own career, which makes the way in which you were fired by the president ultimately shocking. Recall we began this entire process with the president and his staff first denying that the Russians were ever involved and then falsely claiming that no one from his team was ever in touch with any Russians. We know that's just not the truth. Numerous Trump associates had undisclosed contacts with Russians before and after the election, including the president's attorney general, his former national security adviser and his current senior adviser, Mr. Kushner. That doesn't even begin to count the host of additional campaign associates and advisers who have also been caught up in this massive web.
We saw Mr. Trump's campaign manager, Mr. Manafort, forced to step down over ties to Russian back entities. The national security adviser, General Flynn, had to resign over his lies about engagements with the Russians, and we saw the candidate himself express an odd and unexplained affection for the Russian dictator while calling for the hacking of his opponent. There's a lot to investigate. Enough, in fact, that director Comey publicly acknowledged that he was leading an investigation into those links between Mr. Trump's campaign and the Russian government. As the director of the FBI, Mr. Comey was ultimately responsible for conducting that investigation, which might explain why you're sitting now as a private citizen. What we do know was at the same time that this investigation was proceeding, the president himself appears to have been engaged in an effort to influence or at least co-opt the director of the FBI. The testimony Mr. Comey submitted for today's hearing is very disturbing. For example, on January 27th, after summoning Director Comey to dinner, the president appears to have threatened director's job while telling him "I need loyalty. I expect loyalty." At a later meeting, on February 14th, the president asked the attorney general to leave the Oval Office, so that he could privately ask Director Comey again "To see way clear to letting Flynn go." That is a statement that Director Comey interpreted as a request that he drop the investigation connected to general Flynn's false statements.
Think about it. The president of the United States asking the FBI Director to drop an ongoing investigation. And after that, the president called the FBI Director on two additional occasions, March 30th and April 11th and asked him again "To lift the cloud on the Russian investigation." Now, Director Comey denied each of these improper requests. The loyalty pledge, the admonition to drop the Flynn investigation, the request to lift the cloud on the Russian investigation. Of course, after his refusals, Director Comey was fired. The initial explanation for the firing didn't pass any smell test. So now Director Comey was fired because he didn't treat Hillary Clinton appropriately.
Of course that explanation lasted about a day, because the president himself then made very clear that he was thinking about Russia when he decided to fire Director Comey. Shockingly, reports suggest that the president admitted as much in an Oval Office meeting with the Russians the day after director Comey was fired. Disparaging our country's top law enforcement official as a “nutjob,” the president allegedly suggested that his firing relieved great pressure on his feelings about Russia. This is not happening in isolation. At the same time, the president was engaged in these efforts with Director Comey, he was also at least allegedly asking senior leaders of the intelligence community to downplay the Russia investigation or to intervene with the director. Yesterday we had DNI Director Coats and NSA Director Admiral Rogers, who were offered a number of opportunities to flatly deny those press reports. They expressed their opinions, but they did not take that opportunity to deny those reports. They did not take advantage of that opportunity. My belief, that's not how the President of the United States should behave. Regardless of the outcome of our investigation into the Russia links, Director Comey's firing and his testimony raise separate and troubling questions that we must get to the bottom of. Again, as I said at the outset, I've seen firsthand how seriously every member of this committee is taking his work. I'm proud of the committee's efforts so far. Let me be clear. This is not a witch hunt. This is not fake news. It is an effort to protect our I can from a new threat that quite honestly will not go away any time soon.
So Mr. Comey, your testimony here today will help us move towards that goal. I look forward to that testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Thank you, vice chairman. Director has discussed when you agreed to appear before the committee it would be under oath. I'd ask you to please stand. Raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god?
FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY: I do.
BURR: Please be seated. Director Comey you're now under oath. And I would just note to members, you will be recognized by seniority for a period up to seven minutes, and again, it is the intent to move to a closed session no later than 1:00 P.M. With that director Comey, you are recognized, you have the floor for as long as you might need.
COMEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Warner, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify today. I've submitted my statement for the record, and I'm not going to repeat it here this morning. I thought I would just offer some very brief introductory remarks and I would welcome your questions. When I was appointed FBI Director in 2013, I understood that I served at the pleasure of the president. Even though I was appointed to a 10-year term, which Congress created in order to underscore the importance of the FBI being outside of politics and independent, I understood that I could be fired by a president for any reason or for no reason at all. And on May the ninth, when I learned that I had been fired, for that reason I immediately came home as a private citizen. But then the explanations, the shifting explanations, confused me and increasingly concerned me. They confused me because the president and I had had multiple conversations about my job, both before and after he took office, and he had repeatedly told me I was doing a great job, and he hoped I would stay. And I had repeatedly assured him that I did intend to stay and serve out the years of my term. He told me repeatedly that he had talked to lots of people about me, including our current Attorney General, and had learned that I was doing a great job, and that I was extremely well-liked by the FBI workforce.
So it confused me when I saw on television the president saying that he actually fired me because of the Russia investigation, and learned again from the media that he was telling privately other parties that my firing had relieved great pressure on the Russian investigation. I was also confused by the initial explanation that was offered publicly that I was fired because of the decisions I had made during the election year. That didn't make sense to me for a whole bunch of reasons, including the time and all the water that had gone under the bridge since those hard decisions that had to be made. That didn't make any sense to me. And although the law required no reason at all to fire an FBI director, the administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple. And I am so sorry that the FBI workforce had to hear them, and I'm so sorry that the American people were told them.
I worked every day at the FBI to help make that great organization better, and I say help, because I did nothing alone at the FBI. There no indispensable people at the FBI. The organization's great strength is that its values and abilities run deep and wide. The FBI will be fine without me. The FBI's mission will be relentlessly pursued by its people, and that mission is to protect the American people and uphold the constitution of the United States. I will deeply miss being part of that mission, but this organization and its mission will go on long beyond me and long beyond any particular administration. I have a message before I close for my former colleagues of the FBI but first I want the American people to know this truth. The FBI is honest. The FBI is strong. And the FBI is and always will be independent. And now to my former colleagues, if I may. I am so sorry that I didn't get the chance to say goodbye to you properly. It was the nor of my life to serve beside you, to be part of the FBI family, and I will miss it for the rest of my life. Thank you for standing watch. Thank you for doing so much good for this country. Do that good as long as ever you can. And senators, I look forward to your questions.
SEN. RICHARD BURR: I call this hearing to order. Director Comey, I appreciate your willingness to appear before the committee today, and more importantly I thank you for your dedicated service and leadership to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Your appearance today speaks to the trust we have built over the years and I'm looking forward to a very open and candid discussion today. I'd like to remind my colleagues that we will reconvene in closed session at 1:00 P.M. today, and I ask that you reserve for that venue any questions that might get into classified information. The director has been very gracious with his time, the vice chairman and I worked out a very specific timeline for his commitment to be on the hill, so we will do everything we can to meet that agreement.
Story Continued Below
I very much appreciate your candor, and I think it provides helpful details surrounding your interactions with the president. It clearly lays out your understanding of those discussions, actions you took following each conversation and your state of mind.
I very much appreciate your candor, and I think it's helpful as we work through to determine the ultimate truth behind possible Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Your statement also provides texture and context to your interactions with the president, from your vantage point, and outlines a strained relationship. The American people need to hear your side of the story, just as they need to hear the president's descriptions of events. These interactions also highlight the importance of the committee's ongoing investigation. Our experienced staff is interviewing all relevant parties and some of the most sensitive intelligence in our country's possession. We will establish the facts separate from rampant speculation and lay them out for the American people to make their own judgment.
My colleague, Senator Warner and I, have worked to stay in lock step on this investigation. We've had our differences on approach, at times, but I've constantly stressed that we need to be a team, and I think Senator Warner agrees with me. We must keep these questions above politics and partisanship. It's too important to be tainted by anyone trying to score political points. With that, again, I welcome you director, and I turn to the vice chairman for any comments he might have.
SEN. MARK WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and let me start by again absolutely thanking all the members of the committee for the seriousness in which they've taken on this task. Mr. Comey, thank you for agreeing to come testify as part of this committee's investigation into Russia. I realize this hearing has been obviously the focus of a lot of Washington, in the last few days. But the truth is, many Americans who may be tuning in today probably haven't focused on every twist and turn of the investigation. So I'd like to briefly describe, at least from this senator's standpoint, what we already know, and what we're still investigating. To be clear, this investigation is not about relitigating the election. It's not about who won or lost. And it sure as heck is not about Democrats versus Republicans. We are here because a foreign adversary attacked us right here at home, plain and simple. Not by guns or missiles, but by foreign operatives seeking to hijack our most important democratic process, our presidential election. Russian spies engaged in a series of online cyber raids, and a broad campaign of disinformation, all ultimately aimed at sowing chaos to undermine public faith in our process, in our leadership, and ultimately in ourselves.
And that's not just this senator's opinion. It is the unanimous determination of the entire U.S. intelligence community. So we must find out the full story, what the Russians did, and candidly as some other colleagues mentioned, why they were so successful, and more importantly we must determine the necessary steps to take to protect our democracy and ensure they can't do it again. The chairman mentioned elections in 2018 and 2020, in my home state of Virginia, we have elections this year in 2017. Simply put, we cannot let anything or anyone prevent us from getting to the bottom of this. Now Mr. Comey, let me say at the outset, we haven't always agreed on every issue. In fact I've occasionally questioned some of the actions you've taken, but I've never had any reason to question your integrity, your expertise, or your intelligence. You've been a straight shooter with this committee and have been willing to speak truth to power, even at the risk of your own career, which makes the way in which you were fired by the president ultimately shocking. Recall we began this entire process with the president and his staff first denying that the Russians were ever involved and then falsely claiming that no one from his team was ever in touch with any Russians. We know that's just not the truth. Numerous Trump associates had undisclosed contacts with Russians before and after the election, including the president's attorney general, his former national security adviser and his current senior adviser, Mr. Kushner. That doesn't even begin to count the host of additional campaign associates and advisers who have also been caught up in this massive web.
We saw Mr. Trump's campaign manager, Mr. Manafort, forced to step down over ties to Russian back entities. The national security adviser, General Flynn, had to resign over his lies about engagements with the Russians, and we saw the candidate himself express an odd and unexplained affection for the Russian dictator while calling for the hacking of his opponent. There's a lot to investigate. Enough, in fact, that director Comey publicly acknowledged that he was leading an investigation into those links between Mr. Trump's campaign and the Russian government. As the director of the FBI, Mr. Comey was ultimately responsible for conducting that investigation, which might explain why you're sitting now as a private citizen. What we do know was at the same time that this investigation was proceeding, the president himself appears to have been engaged in an effort to influence or at least co-opt the director of the FBI. The testimony Mr. Comey submitted for today's hearing is very disturbing. For example, on January 27th, after summoning Director Comey to dinner, the president appears to have threatened director's job while telling him "I need loyalty. I expect loyalty." At a later meeting, on February 14th, the president asked the attorney general to leave the Oval Office, so that he could privately ask Director Comey again "To see way clear to letting Flynn go." That is a statement that Director Comey interpreted as a request that he drop the investigation connected to general Flynn's false statements.
Think about it. The president of the United States asking the FBI Director to drop an ongoing investigation. And after that, the president called the FBI Director on two additional occasions, March 30th and April 11th and asked him again "To lift the cloud on the Russian investigation." Now, Director Comey denied each of these improper requests. The loyalty pledge, the admonition to drop the Flynn investigation, the request to lift the cloud on the Russian investigation. Of course, after his refusals, Director Comey was fired. The initial explanation for the firing didn't pass any smell test. So now Director Comey was fired because he didn't treat Hillary Clinton appropriately.
Of course that explanation lasted about a day, because the president himself then made very clear that he was thinking about Russia when he decided to fire Director Comey. Shockingly, reports suggest that the president admitted as much in an Oval Office meeting with the Russians the day after director Comey was fired. Disparaging our country's top law enforcement official as a “nutjob,” the president allegedly suggested that his firing relieved great pressure on his feelings about Russia. This is not happening in isolation. At the same time, the president was engaged in these efforts with Director Comey, he was also at least allegedly asking senior leaders of the intelligence community to downplay the Russia investigation or to intervene with the director. Yesterday we had DNI Director Coats and NSA Director Admiral Rogers, who were offered a number of opportunities to flatly deny those press reports. They expressed their opinions, but they did not take that opportunity to deny those reports. They did not take advantage of that opportunity. My belief, that's not how the President of the United States should behave. Regardless of the outcome of our investigation into the Russia links, Director Comey's firing and his testimony raise separate and troubling questions that we must get to the bottom of. Again, as I said at the outset, I've seen firsthand how seriously every member of this committee is taking his work. I'm proud of the committee's efforts so far. Let me be clear. This is not a witch hunt. This is not fake news. It is an effort to protect our I can from a new threat that quite honestly will not go away any time soon.
So Mr. Comey, your testimony here today will help us move towards that goal. I look forward to that testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Thank you, vice chairman. Director has discussed when you agreed to appear before the committee it would be under oath. I'd ask you to please stand. Raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god?
FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY: I do.
BURR: Please be seated. Director Comey you're now under oath. And I would just note to members, you will be recognized by seniority for a period up to seven minutes, and again, it is the intent to move to a closed session no later than 1:00 P.M. With that director Comey, you are recognized, you have the floor for as long as you might need.
COMEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Warner, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify today. I've submitted my statement for the record, and I'm not going to repeat it here this morning. I thought I would just offer some very brief introductory remarks and I would welcome your questions. When I was appointed FBI Director in 2013, I understood that I served at the pleasure of the president. Even though I was appointed to a 10-year term, which Congress created in order to underscore the importance of the FBI being outside of politics and independent, I understood that I could be fired by a president for any reason or for no reason at all. And on May the ninth, when I learned that I had been fired, for that reason I immediately came home as a private citizen. But then the explanations, the shifting explanations, confused me and increasingly concerned me. They confused me because the president and I had had multiple conversations about my job, both before and after he took office, and he had repeatedly told me I was doing a great job, and he hoped I would stay. And I had repeatedly assured him that I did intend to stay and serve out the years of my term. He told me repeatedly that he had talked to lots of people about me, including our current Attorney General, and had learned that I was doing a great job, and that I was extremely well-liked by the FBI workforce.
So it confused me when I saw on television the president saying that he actually fired me because of the Russia investigation, and learned again from the media that he was telling privately other parties that my firing had relieved great pressure on the Russian investigation. I was also confused by the initial explanation that was offered publicly that I was fired because of the decisions I had made during the election year. That didn't make sense to me for a whole bunch of reasons, including the time and all the water that had gone under the bridge since those hard decisions that had to be made. That didn't make any sense to me. And although the law required no reason at all to fire an FBI director, the administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple. And I am so sorry that the FBI workforce had to hear them, and I'm so sorry that the American people were told them.
I worked every day at the FBI to help make that great organization better, and I say help, because I did nothing alone at the FBI. There no indispensable people at the FBI. The organization's great strength is that its values and abilities run deep and wide. The FBI will be fine without me. The FBI's mission will be relentlessly pursued by its people, and that mission is to protect the American people and uphold the constitution of the United States. I will deeply miss being part of that mission, but this organization and its mission will go on long beyond me and long beyond any particular administration. I have a message before I close for my former colleagues of the FBI but first I want the American people to know this truth. The FBI is honest. The FBI is strong. And the FBI is and always will be independent. And now to my former colleagues, if I may. I am so sorry that I didn't get the chance to say goodbye to you properly. It was the nor of my life to serve beside you, to be part of the FBI family, and I will miss it for the rest of my life. Thank you for standing watch. Thank you for doing so much good for this country. Do that good as long as ever you can. And senators, I look forward to your questions.
Friday, June 2, 2017
Don't Unmask Me, Bro
GOP, cut the bullshit. Please.
In the newest line of, "OMG I MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNMASKED," I give you Lindsey Graham. Per FOX:
"Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Friday told “America’s Newsroom” he’d been informed by an intelligence community source that his identity was requested unmasked – a typically rare and scrutinized ask that usually requires the American be the suspect in a crime, be in danger or be essential to understanding the context of the conversation.
“I have reason to believe that a conversation that I had was picked up – with some foreign leader or some foreign person – and somebody requested that my conversation be unmasked,” Graham said. “I’ve been told that by people in the intelligence community.”
Graham’s claim comes less than a month after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee asking if his name “or the names of other members of Congress, or individuals from our staffs or campaigns, were included in queries or searches of databases of the intelligence community, or if their identities were unmasked in any intelligence reports or products.”
I'd like to repeat what I've said repeatedly on Twitter: Not only is this not news, it's nothing but a Trump / Russia smokescreen. I can't help but notice that Republicans are awfully concerned about their foreign communications. First, I wonder why? Second, I think maybe if they had read the PATRIOT act that they all demanded be passed in 2001, they would know that this is a relatively common practice. I'd like to pause for a moment to explain to people how the 'unmasking' process works, because it seems like no one understands it.
Firstly, in order to be a candidate for unmasking, the communication must have at least one foreign end. So there are three types of communication that are collected under this provision: Foreign to Foreign, American to Foreign and Foreign to American. That's it. Full stop.
IF THE OFFICIAL READING THE INTEL FEELS THAT THEY NEED THE NAME OF THE 'MASKED' AMERICAN IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT, THEY CAN REQUEST IT BE REVEALED BY THE ORIGINATING AGENCY.
This is not a guarantee - it's not a rubber stamp process. The agency that originally collected the intelligence has full discretion over its unmasking. Then, it goes to the individual that requested it. It's not widely disseminated throughout the intelligence community, it's not declassified, etc. The IC is notoriously good at keeping secrets; the only reason that you're seeing the drip, drip, drip that you are now is because this administration is blatantly lying to the American people. Most people think it started with Flynn, but they don't seem to remember that POTUS started this war when he repeatedly disparaged members of our intelligence community. Then he poured gasoline on the fire with the way he handled the Comey firing. It shows absolute ignorance of our collection capability that members of his campaign purportedly engaged in such openly egregious behavior.
It's also worth noting that, as Sally Yates testified, there is often no need to request an unmasking, because the IC has already done it for clarity. Regardless, I hate to use an old cliché, but...
"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"
I'd also like to briefly touch on the reports that the administration is considering invoking executive privilege on Comey's testimony. In what has been a torrent of impressively bad decisions, this would by far be the worst. Again, he says the conversations never happened, what does he have to hide? Not only would asserting executive privilege all but admit guilt, Comey has planned for this. Remember his Dead Man's Switch when he got fired? I don't think we've seen anything yet. This is also ignoring the greater IC in the event that Trump sought to block Comey from testifying - that drip, drip, drip of leaks would become an instant tsunami.
Ignoring the absolute idiocy of that plan, I don't believe that Trump has legal ground to invoke executive privilege. He's discussed it on national television and tweeted about it multiple times, so the information is out in the open and he can't argue that it was a confidential conversation, or that national security would be at risk. Also, if the Comey argument is that Trump sought to halt an investigation via pressure or influence, executive privilege would be void, as it may not be used to cover up government misdeeds.
For what seems to be the 435th time in his young presidency, POTUS seems to have again found himself on rocky legal footing. To be completely clear: This is not sustainable. The special prosecutor is already expanding his investigation to Manafort and possibly Sessions, his travel ban is being set up to be heard by SCOTUS, where most experts predict that it will fail, again because of POTUS' own words being used as evidence of intention, and he's possibly facing several counts of obstruction of justice. Oh, and there's that money laundering thing. I know people feel like this is moving slowly, but if we're making comparisons to Watergate, we're moving lightning-fast.
In the newest line of, "OMG I MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNMASKED," I give you Lindsey Graham. Per FOX:
"Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Friday told “America’s Newsroom” he’d been informed by an intelligence community source that his identity was requested unmasked – a typically rare and scrutinized ask that usually requires the American be the suspect in a crime, be in danger or be essential to understanding the context of the conversation.
“I have reason to believe that a conversation that I had was picked up – with some foreign leader or some foreign person – and somebody requested that my conversation be unmasked,” Graham said. “I’ve been told that by people in the intelligence community.”
Graham’s claim comes less than a month after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee asking if his name “or the names of other members of Congress, or individuals from our staffs or campaigns, were included in queries or searches of databases of the intelligence community, or if their identities were unmasked in any intelligence reports or products.”
I'd like to repeat what I've said repeatedly on Twitter: Not only is this not news, it's nothing but a Trump / Russia smokescreen. I can't help but notice that Republicans are awfully concerned about their foreign communications. First, I wonder why? Second, I think maybe if they had read the PATRIOT act that they all demanded be passed in 2001, they would know that this is a relatively common practice. I'd like to pause for a moment to explain to people how the 'unmasking' process works, because it seems like no one understands it.
Firstly, in order to be a candidate for unmasking, the communication must have at least one foreign end. So there are three types of communication that are collected under this provision: Foreign to Foreign, American to Foreign and Foreign to American. That's it. Full stop.
IF THE OFFICIAL READING THE INTEL FEELS THAT THEY NEED THE NAME OF THE 'MASKED' AMERICAN IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT, THEY CAN REQUEST IT BE REVEALED BY THE ORIGINATING AGENCY.
This is not a guarantee - it's not a rubber stamp process. The agency that originally collected the intelligence has full discretion over its unmasking. Then, it goes to the individual that requested it. It's not widely disseminated throughout the intelligence community, it's not declassified, etc. The IC is notoriously good at keeping secrets; the only reason that you're seeing the drip, drip, drip that you are now is because this administration is blatantly lying to the American people. Most people think it started with Flynn, but they don't seem to remember that POTUS started this war when he repeatedly disparaged members of our intelligence community. Then he poured gasoline on the fire with the way he handled the Comey firing. It shows absolute ignorance of our collection capability that members of his campaign purportedly engaged in such openly egregious behavior.
It's also worth noting that, as Sally Yates testified, there is often no need to request an unmasking, because the IC has already done it for clarity. Regardless, I hate to use an old cliché, but...
"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"
I'd also like to briefly touch on the reports that the administration is considering invoking executive privilege on Comey's testimony. In what has been a torrent of impressively bad decisions, this would by far be the worst. Again, he says the conversations never happened, what does he have to hide? Not only would asserting executive privilege all but admit guilt, Comey has planned for this. Remember his Dead Man's Switch when he got fired? I don't think we've seen anything yet. This is also ignoring the greater IC in the event that Trump sought to block Comey from testifying - that drip, drip, drip of leaks would become an instant tsunami.
Ignoring the absolute idiocy of that plan, I don't believe that Trump has legal ground to invoke executive privilege. He's discussed it on national television and tweeted about it multiple times, so the information is out in the open and he can't argue that it was a confidential conversation, or that national security would be at risk. Also, if the Comey argument is that Trump sought to halt an investigation via pressure or influence, executive privilege would be void, as it may not be used to cover up government misdeeds.
For what seems to be the 435th time in his young presidency, POTUS seems to have again found himself on rocky legal footing. To be completely clear: This is not sustainable. The special prosecutor is already expanding his investigation to Manafort and possibly Sessions, his travel ban is being set up to be heard by SCOTUS, where most experts predict that it will fail, again because of POTUS' own words being used as evidence of intention, and he's possibly facing several counts of obstruction of justice. Oh, and there's that money laundering thing. I know people feel like this is moving slowly, but if we're making comparisons to Watergate, we're moving lightning-fast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)