Comey's Firing

[Guisslapp]

Did he tell the right people though? I'll be honest, it wouldn't shock me if Trump did something like this. It seems like a mistake he would make. If you are honest with yourself though, you have to admit that it's odd that people are willing to tell the press that they have seen the memo and what is in the memo but not show the actual memo. I understand they may not want it published, but is telling a reporter the contents really that different then showing them the memo with an agreement they can't publish it? The only thing I can think of is if the memo contains some other sensitive information that the source doesn't feel can be released.


The media is not pushing the story as: " Source claims Comey memo indicates Trump coersion".

Nope:
Reuters: "Trump asked Comey to shut down Flynn Probe: Source"
CNN: "Memo: Trump asked Comey to end Flynn investigation"

They did include these nuggets in the body:
Reuters: "an associate of Comey, who has seen the memo, said Tuesday"
CNN:"which CNN has not viewed but which was described by the sources"

They don't present this as a possibility though, they present it as fact.

Also McCabe testified before congress and said: there had "been no effort to impede our investigation to date" and that he promised to alert the committee if that changed.

Why would he say this if he had the memo? Why isn't this statement included in any of the stories about the memo that i have seen?
As to why he said what he said I see three possibilities:
1. He didn't get the memo- seems unlikely since he was the deputy director and "sources" within the FBI apparently got it. But possibly it just wasn't directed to him and he wasn't aware of it. Did the memo go to the justice department?
2. He needed to withhold the info to protect the ongoing investigation.- Seems doubtful as he basically lied to congress if that is the case. If he needed to protect the investigation wouldn't he have just said he couldn't talk about it.
3. The memo doesn't exist or doesn't contain what the sources say it contains.


They don't mention McCabes testimony in these stories and how it puts some doubt into the authenticity of the memos. It feels like they are presenting one side of the story to me.

I'm not saying this isn't a story. These claims are certainly newsworthy. I would just feel better if they were presented accurately for what they are.

You are missing the point, I think. To violate the statute, he has to do more than not tell the right people. He has to take affirmative steps to "conceal". Usually, this means he destroyed evidence or made false statements. Recording a memo for someone is his role is practically the opposite. It is making a record of the evidence.

The reason that he wouldn't just put the memo on blast

[Guisslapp]

And the media absolutely is talking about the memo - that is what they are talking about as nauseum if you watch anything other than foxnews.

[detltu]

When you've got a boss like Trump, you wanna leave a paper trail to protect yourself in the event that he turns on you.

Any politician would warrant this response as well. You need a paper trail when it happens so that in a case like this where you are fired, the information is preserved and people can't say your just disgruntled. In the case of some politicians you would probably be worried about being more permanently removed. Hopefully if the memo is accurate, he shared it with people in the justice department or other intelligence officials.

[Guisslapp]

As far as McCabe's testimony. Yeah, he might not have seen the memo or he could have interpreted the question to mean as most did at the time - does Comey's firing impede the investigation. This is how it seemed to me given the question that was asked and the context of that statement in the answer.

McCabe was asked by Sen. Marco Rubio whether “the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?”

McCabe replied that “the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.

Simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women from the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.”

[detltu]

You are missing the point, I think. To violate the statute, he has to do more than not tell the right people. He has to take affirmative steps to "conceal". Usually, this means he destroyed evidence or made false statements. Recording a memo for someone is his role is practically the opposite. It is making a record of the evidence.

The reason that he wouldn't just put the memo on blast

You are arguing a different point. I agree with you that if the memo is accurate, there is no issue with Comey writing the memo and he didn't try to conceal his interaction. I'm wondering if the memo went to the appropriate people.

I agree that I don't see any violation of statute.

[detltu]

And the media absolutely is talking about the memo - that is what they are talking about as nauseum if you watch anything other than foxnews.

I don't watch fox news. I'll ask you as someone with a different viewpoint than me, do you think they are presenting this story in a fair and accurate way?

[Guisslapp]

You are arguing a different point. I agree with you that if the memo is accurate, there is no issue with Comey writing the memo and he didn't try to conceal his interaction. I'm wondering if the memo went to the appropriate people.

I agree that I don't see any violation of statute.

I can't remember where I read it, but I was under the impression the memo was not shared with people responsible for investigating the Russia collision issue. Perhaps he was concerned that it would be prejudicial to that investigation or some other reason like that.

[Guisslapp]

I don't watch fox news. I'll ask you as someone with a different viewpoint than me, do you think they are presenting this story in a fair and accurate way?

I haven't seen what they have said over the past couple of days, but from what I have seen of past reporting is that they usually give every benefit of doubt to the administation and omit facts that undercut their theory of how it's all still rainbows and daisies.

There are not fair and accurate, but that doesn't make them entirely useless. They are more useful when their guy is not in power. The media is most valuable when it serves to hold people accountable. You can count on them to do that (even often unfairly) when democrats are in power. Not so much right now.

[detltu]

I can't remember where I read it, but I was under the impression the memo was not shared with people responsible for investigating the Russia collision issue. Perhaps he was concerned that it would be prejudicial to that investigation or some other reason like that.

It could also be that he is aware of the memo but wanted to confirm it's accuracy before labeling it as an attempt to impede the investigation. As you pointed out with McCabe's testimony, context is important. "I hope you can let this go" can mean something very different depending on how it is said.

[detltu]

I haven't seen what they have said over the past couple of days, but from what I have seen of past reporting is that they usually give every benefit of doubt to the administation and omit facts that undercut their theory of how it's all still rainbows and daisies.

There are not fair and accurate, but that doesn't make them entirely useless. They are more useful when their guy is not in power. The media is most valuable when it serves to hold people accountable. You can count on them to do that (even often unfairly) when democrats are in power. Not so much right now.

Poor wording on my part. I wasn't talking about Fox. I know they are not fair and balanced and will present this in the best light possible. I meant CNN, Reuters, etc.

[Guisslapp]

Poor wording on my part. I wasn't talking about Fox. I know they are not fair and balanced and will present this in the best light possible. I meant CNN, Reuters, etc.

Depends on the quality of their sources these days because most of the news items are originating from people within the government or close to it that do not want to be identified (for obvious reasons). Reuters is more reliable than CNN, which is relatively balanced though slightly left leaning (making it even better when Republicans are in charge, IMO).

[DONW]

Comey is most likely rethinking that memo. If he felt the President was obstructing justice and did not tell the attorny general, he could be convicted for that. His grandstanding could come back to bite him in the butt.

[Guisslapp]

Comey is most likely rethinking that memo. If he felt the President was obstructing justice and did not tell the attorny general, he could be convicted for that. His grandstanding could come back to bite him in the butt.

Wrong.

[PawDawg]

Why is it that Rush is the only one to have pointed out that in Comey's sworn Senate testimony (2 times on separate days) he stated that Trump had not interfered in the investigation.

[LATechBanjo]

Why is it that Rush is the only one to have pointed out that in Comey's sworn Senate testimony (2 times on separate days) he stated that Trump had not interfered in the investigation.

I've seen it a couple other places.

He's not connecting the final dot, which is the point of Comey leaking it (which, come on, he did).

The point was to elicit the subpoenas so Comey could publicly conduct the festivus airing of grievances while maintaining some plausible deniability.

This has all the makings of a Comey mud-slinging stunt, and the media gets to choose how far on the limb they wanna go. Whether or not he has actual dirt on Trump/Flynn remains to be seen, but now he gets to air it publicly without directly volunteering it.