Now, it'd doubtful that what Comey did was leaking in any technical sense anyway
is incorrect. Not only is there something wrong with the grammar in that sentence, {which is no big deal but I just can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with it'd. Har!), but yeah, it is absolutely leaking in a very technical sense.
As the FBI director Comey wrote some memos. He did this in his official capacity as FBI director. That means those memos are the property of the United States government. This is clearly stated in the FBI employment contract, paragraph two, that Comey signed all so long ago. Paragraph 3 of that same contract clearly states that this material cannot be released to unauthorized individuals without permission. And paragraph 4 clearly states that any information, documents or whatever is released, it has to be reviewed first to determine if it should be released. Comey violated those terms clearly.
The contract also details all possible consequences for violating the terms of the employment contract. Those consequences are- Termination, civil liability, revocation of security clearances and criminal prosecution or any combination thereof.
So yeah, not only can Trump sue, especially if he proves that the memos Comey released are lies and thus libel, Comey can find himself personally and civilly on the hook. I doubt if criminal charges would be filed as there is probably no classified status on the memos.
Ya gotta remember Sym, the memos in question are basically Comey's recollections on his meetings with Trump and he wrote them as some time after these meetings. In other words, they are from his own fallible memory, slanted from his own perspective and may or may not be factual. He may well believe they are factual, but if Trump produces tapes of the actual conversations and those tapes don't jive with his recollections, it's trouble for Comey.
I have no idea how this shakes out, Maybe Trump is just blustering, that's certainly a possibility. Hopefully you now understand the real nature of what this is about and can understand that there is another option rather than the -
sym wrote:I mean, he can't have it both ways- either it's true and was disclosed, or it's a lie.
What we know for sure because Comey absolutely admitted it, that he leaked the memos. That can't be denied. But the truth of the memos is not a done deal at all. Those memos are just Comey's memory of the meetings. You know as well as I do that human memory is quite fallible. Especially when it's shadowed by personal feeling about the people one is dealing with. The memos could certainly be lies, but Comey might have believed what he was writing was the truth as he saw it, which might be biased because he hates Trump. But Trump might be full of shit as well. But if he comes out with actual tapes of the conversations that Comey describes and the words Comey says were used appear nowhere on those tapes, Comey's got a problem. Though it's a chain of custody nightmare, which is why criminal charges for Comey are pretty much out the window. Civil charges though, oh hell yeah, if Comey is wrong about the information on those memos or he is misremembering or has slanted his observations because of biased feeling toward Trump then yeah, he's got a civil problem. Trump might just be petty enough to sue Comey and force the former FBI director to pay a six figure or plus settlement. Personally, if I were in Trump's spot, had tapes that absolutely destroyed Comey's recollection of the meetings, I'd just release the tapes and show the whole public what a fucking liar Comey was and that'd be plenty enough. No need to kick him some more while he's down and out. But that's only if the tapes show that, which I have no idea is the case, but it's what Trump seems to be alluding to. With Trump you just never know.
Symmetry wrote:But then you run in to the same problem- if Trump is saying that this was a leaked conversation, he's admitting that the conversation happened,
So what if the conversation happened? It's the content of the conversation that matters. Comey says it's one way, Trump says it's another. There is no way of knowing which is true. Unless there is some actual record, like tape recordings.
What do you think happened in those conversations? And why do you think that was what the conversations were?
The only thing you've ever heard about them is what Comey remembers about them. Comey offered no tapes proving his recollections are correct and Trump has yet to show his recollections are correct, but he alludes to actual tapes.
I don't know about you, Sym, but the actual tapes of a conversation gives a whole hell of a lot more understanding of a conversation than one parties memory of the conversation, wouldn't you agree?
Symmetry wrote:But then you run in to the same problem- if Trump is saying that this was a leaked conversation, he's admitting that the conversation happened,
So what if the conversation happened? /quote]
An interesting line of argument. If it happened, the President of the United States is under pressure for abuse of his power and obstruction of justice. Those are potentianly impeachment-worthy allegations. "So what?", really?
If it didn't happen, why is Trump suing?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote: An interesting line of argument. If it happened, the President of the United States is under pressure for abuse of his power and obstruction of justice. Those are potentianly impeachment-worthy allegations. "So what?", really?
If it didn't happen, why is Trump suing?
No one is questioning if it happened. Trump isn't denying the conversations. Trump is denying Comey's version of the conversation. How are you not getting this?
It is a case of he said/he said. It's not worth spit. Comey's testimony is worth spit. He has no proof, only his recollections which he wrote down in memos. We don't know when he wrote the memos. We know Comey doesn't have tapes, which would actually, you know, prove that Comey is telling the truth.
What do you mean "Why is Trump suing"? Comey leaking the memos, which were government property, opens him up to the possibility of civil liability. That's just the law, man.
Why is Trump under pressure for abuse of power and obstruction of justice? What proof is there of that? Comey's testimony? He has no way of proving what he says. It is only his word. His testimony might be true, it might not be true. You've obviously decided to believe Comey, I personally have no idea.
Comey admitted to leaking the memos. His quote during his own testimony is that he couldn't leak them himself for obvious reasons. Those reasons were that he was not authorized to release those memos, so he leaked them. A violation of his contract. Which he can be held civilly liable for, terminated, charged with a crime or having his security clearance revoked.
I'm not making an argument Sym, I'm simply trying to describe to you the reality of the situation which, at the moment, boils down the the unproven word of one guy about the conversation he had with another guy. The other guy says the first guy is not telling the truth and disputes the first guys account. That's exactly what it boils down to at the moment. I don't know why you are overthinking this. Comey might be right, he might be full of shit. I, nor you, have any way of knowing for sure either way.
Don't you agree that actual taped records of the conversation would show one way or another which one is telling the truth?
Good, now answer the one question you keep fucking ducking like a pathetic loser.
Don't you think that an actual taped recording of the conversations in question will show what was actually said and give true understanding in our evaluation of which side of the he said/he said dispute is the correct version?
OMFG, Sym you ninja deleting noob. You deleted your comment.
Patches, you're flogging a dead horse here. Pretending that its not a problem for Trump, or indeed that it's something that I'm "not getting", to use your words, seems a little naive.
You do understand that this is a problem for Trump right?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Patches, you're flogging a dead horse here. Pretending that its not a problem for Trump, or indeed that it's something that I'm "not getting", to use your words, seems a little naive.
You do understand that this is a problem for Trump right?
Comey's testimony isn't. Do you understand that?
What Comey's testimony amounts to is an example of hearsay made under the "imprimatur of authority" which was not his to lend. Do you understand that? By Comey's own admission these were one one one meetings, notoriously difficult to get usable evidence from. Nothing Comey said in the testimony would pass muster in any court of law because it's hearsay.
Now, if Comey had taped recordings of these one on one conversations, that'd be a different story. But if he had those he'd have revealed them in his testimony. Trump on the other hand could very well have those tapes. Which could be a problem for Comey if his recollection isn't accurate.
You obviously believe Comey over Trump even though Comey has no actual, you know, evidence. But what does evidence matter when it feeds confirmation bias, which is what you seem to be demonstrating.
Do you think that the actual taped recordings of these conversation, and what was actually said that Comey alleges, would put a definitive understanding of what was actually said? Yes or no, sym, can you manage that one tiny thing?
Comey's testimony isn't the worth a hill of beans. He might be telling the truth, absolutely. He might also be lying through his teeth or any any degree between. We just don't know. But it's still worthless. There is no actual evidence. Maybe some will show up, you can keep your fingers crossed, I wouldn't hold that against you. But so far all you are demonstrating is wishful thinking.
But one thing is for sure, because Comey admitted it himself. He distributed government property without authorization. He possibly opens himself to some legal issues without a doubt. Like I said, criminal prosecution seems unlikely given the chain of evidence rules which would be a bitch to get past. But it's not past the realm of possibility. If Comey broke a law, it'd be this one, Sym, I know you aren't an expert in US law, so here ya go, read it for yourself- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641
riskllama wrote:sym dodging a question??? nooo....gtfo!!!
IKR, I would think he'd want to hear actual taped recordings of these conversations. They could actually prove Trump is guilty of a high crime after all. It could also show Comey's recollection of the conversations is slanted and incorrect. I'd think Sym would want to know the truth at least, but maybe he's not interested in the truth.
I am. I'd love to hear those tapes if they exist.
What would be hilarious, and I mean belly aching guffawing, would be if Trump released tapes of those conversations and there was a total of 18 minutes of missing recordings. Now that would be great. It'd give Sym a whole new lease on life and hope of Trump going down.
Patches, you're flogging a dead horse here. Pretending that its not a problem for Trump, or indeed that it's something that I'm "not getting", to use your words, seems a little naive.
You do understand that this is a problem for Trump right?
Comey's testimony isn't. Do you understand that?
It's a problem for Trump. You need to face the truth,
A former FBI director testifying that the President is a liar is a problem. Trump has a problem.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
If lying was a problem for a politician we wouldn't have any politicians. If lying was a problem for a President, every single President we've ever had would have been impeached. So...whatever you say sym, whatever you say.
Don't you think the actual tape recordings of the meetings between Comey and Trump will prove which one of them is lying?
patches70 wrote:If lying was a problem for a politician we wouldn't have any politicians. If lying was a problem for a President, every single President we've ever had would have been impeached. So...whatever you say sym, whatever you say.
Don't you think the actual tape recordings of the meetings between Comey and Trump will prove which one of them is lying?
Difference is, Trump doens't have his own party leadership convinced. They might be playing along because of his popularity among republican voters, but they've made it abundantly clear they're not fond of him. Not to mention, the damage to his reputation might lose him congress in two years time.
I'm just cautioning sym to manage his expectation, especially because of how wrong his original post is in this thread.
Let's look at it line by line-
"So, the former director of the FBI called Trump a liar."
Ok, that's no big deal. Lots of people call Trump a liar during the campaign, he still won. Comey doesn't have the best track record about being honest either. But whatever. This is the most factual statement made in sym's op.
"Trump's retaliation is calling Comey a liar,"
Which is also pretty much a spot on observation by sym. It also illustrates the point of the he said/he said situation. You got two guys calling each other liars. There is no way to know which one is correct. If you hate Trump you'll automatically assume Comey is telling the truth. If you are a Trump supporter you'll automatically assume Trump is telling the truth. Or if you are like me you have no idea which one is full of shit. Either way, it gets us nowhere. Then Sym starts conflating and misunderstanding because he doesn't know American law, the responsibilities of the FBI director and the handling of US government property-
"but he's also threatening to sue Comey for leaking."
Of course Trump is threatening this, it's one of the consequences for leaking government property without authorization. Comey admitted freely that he did this, so that's not in dispute at all. The memos he wrote in his official capacity as FBI director makes those memos US government property. Comey gave those memos to a buddy of his who in turn gave them to a reporter. The memos in the hands of Comey's buddy is pure hearsay through imprimatur of authority. Go ahead, look up the word "imprimatur" and you'll get it. Comey didn't have authorization to release those memos. In the spoiler below I'll post the entire FBI employment contract. It's not very long, you'll see what I'm talking about and why Trump can certainly sue because it's right there in the contract of what could happen if one leaks government property without authorization. It has nothing to do with truth telling, who is right or who is wrong. It's just a simple consequence for leaking the memos, which I assume Comey is quite content to deal with.
"Now, it'd doubtful that what Comey did was leaking in any technical sense anyway, but why is Trump threatening to sue?"
Now with the information you have now Waaw, you should see and understand that Comey giving those memos to his buddy with instructions to give them to reporters is absolutely in a very technical and logical sense, "leaking". What Comey did is the very definition of leaking. So why sym thinks that what Comey did could be interpreted as something other than leaking is pretty weak. It doesn't matter why Comey felt he had to leak the documents. Look at that chick Winner who just might go to prison for releasing information. She certainly did some leaking of classified materials and she'll go to jail for it. From her POV she was doing a service, fine and dandy, people gotta do what their conscience dictates, but that doesn't alleviate the consequences.
"I mean, he can't have it both ways- either it's true and was disclosed, or it's a lie."
What sym doesn't seem to get is that these things are not mutually exclusive. The memos could be true or not true. There is no doubt that the memos were disclosed illegally. Comey admitted it. So for that he can be fired, sued civilly, criminally prosecuted, a whole host of bad outcomes that are clearly laid out in the employee contract which Comey signed.
This is the link to the FBI's employee contract. I copy pasted the text in the spoiler tag in case you don't feel like actually clicking the link. It's only a page, page and a half long. Pay particular attention to paragraph 2,3,4 and then apply your logic skills with the understanding that Comey did indeed leak those memos, by his own admission.
Then scroll right on down to paragraph 7 which clearly highlights the possible consequences of violating this contract. One of those possible consequences is indeed being sue in civil court.
The reason sym is confused is because he doesn't know any of this. He's just basing his entire POV on the limited and narrow slant given by his own favored propaganda infusing source. His own bias gets him thinking that this is a smoking gun that's going to bring Trump down. Hey, maybe he's right, but so far from what we know, there isn't anything. Comey's testimony was anti climactic.
What would be really climactic would be Trump busting out some tapes of the three conversations Comey had with him, once in person and twice by phone. I guarantee there are recordings of the phone conversations without a doubt. I have no idea about the face to face meeting though. One thing's for sure, Comey ain't got any tapes...that alone is bad news for Comey and the hopes of busting Trump because those tapes are the evidence. That evidence is in Trump's control...
You may also wanna believe that Trump is going to get stabbed in the back by the Repubes, which is certainly possible. However, even though many of them may hate Trump, ya gotta understand political realities trump emotions. Politics make strange bedfellows in other words. So is assuming that the midterms is going to be a bloodbath for the Repubes. If they stab Trump in the back and go along with the Demorats in taking Trump down, indeed it would be a bloodbath for them come midterms. At least that's how all the evidence is pointing now if one can remove one's self from the political loyalty aspect of it. Those that can't stand Trump like to mock and scoff at Trump's repeated Tweets but one needs to understand that Trump is getting his message out despite the slant and there are people who are seeing this and those people are going to vote. In the same way that everyone was "shocked" that Trump won the election, so it can turn out just the same way for the midterms. The repubes gotta be careful and it's not very wise of Trump haters to pin their hopes on the Comey testimony. But people do whatever people do so ok, keep thinking this is going to destroy Trump. Hell, by how democrats had been talking, Trump should have already been impeached by now.
You have to remember, the Repube base is so disgusted with the Repube party that they actually chose Trump over any regular Repube candidate. I mean sheesh, how many times does someone need to get hit over the head before they finally get the message? A whole lot of times it seems.
So in conclusion, I personally have no idea if Comey version of the events in the memos is correct of if Trump's version is correct. I did, however, notice that Comey was careful in his testimony by using caveats like "I feel as though" and "I believe" often and illustrates that Comey is indeed only telling his interpretation of the conversations. We know well that human beings are sometimes poor at interpreting things, and the last time I checked Comey is a human being.
That's why actual tapes of the conversations are more objective. What Comey gave doesn't really help much at all to actually getting to the bottom of this mess. Tapes on the other hand, oh yeah, they could be quite helpful.
patches70 wrote:If lying was a problem for a politician we wouldn't have any politicians. If lying was a problem for a President, every single President we've ever had would have been impeached. So...whatever you say sym, whatever you say.
Don't you think the actual tape recordings of the meetings between Comey and Trump will prove which one of them is lying?
You are either ignorant (what I believe) or you are lying like your King Of Lies aka Trump.
President Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job.
President Trump will resign before being impeached for : Obstruction Of Justice
Legally, wouldn't it only be leaking if it was true? I mean basically Trump would confirm the voracity of the statement if he sued or tried to prosecute comey.
Also I think it's worth noting... Comey called trump a liar under oath. trump called Comey a liar, with no legal repercussion for lying.
Symmetry wrote:Now, it'd doubtful that what Comey did was leaking in any technical sense anyway, but why is Trump threatening to sue?
It's leaking, the question is what was leaked.
If Comey wrote these memos from conversations with Trump (but never Obama) then these are official FBI records since he was acting as the FBI director at the time. Therefore they belong to the FBI. They don't belong to him, technically speaking and disbursing them without the authorization of the current acting head of the FBI is leaking.
Period. End of story.
You can't have fired members of government take the records of their department and hand them at will to random university professors. That's not right. The memos technically were at the very least of "Confidential" classification by their very nature.
mookiemcgee wrote:Legally, wouldn't it only be leaking if it was true? I mean basically Trump would confirm the voracity of the statement if he sued or tried to prosecute comey.
Also I think it's worth noting... Comey called trump a liar under oath. trump called Comey a liar, with no legal repercussion for lying.
What Tzor said. He made those memos in his capacity as FBI director which means those memos belong to the US Government.
mookie wrote: Also I think it's worth noting... Comey called trump a liar under oath. trump called Comey a liar, with no legal repercussion for lying.
That's the thing, what exactly do you think Comey accused Trump of lying about?
Comey accused, under oath, that Trump lied about- -That there was dissension within the FBI ranks because of Comey -That the FBI was plague by leaks -That under Comey the FBI was administered poorly -That Trump lied about not asking him to be loyal -That Trump lied about Comey saying three times that Trump himself wasn't under investigation
If there are anything more that Comey accused Trump of lying about, by all means post it. I'm posting from memory, so I can't remember everything.
About the supposed ordering Comey to drop the Russian investigation, go back and listen to Comey's testimony carefully. Comey said, his exact term was he "believed" Trump meant that Comey should drop the investigation. Comey never accused Trump of directly telling him to drop the investigation. This is the obstruction part. All those other supposed lies are pretty much just Trump's opinion except for the loyalty comment and the three times said there was no investigation on Trump. Those two things can easily be cleared up with a tape. The loyalty thing isn't a problem because a President should expect that appointees under his administration are loyal. At least to some degree. An administrator needs to be able to trust those who work under them. If Trump produces a tape recording where he directly asks Comey "Am I under investigation" and Comey answers "No, not you directly Mr Trump", that would immediately show that Trump indeed was telling the truth that Comey told him he wasn't under investigation. In his testimony Comey stated that when asked by Trump if the investigation was directed on him, Comey maintains he was vague and didn't give a direct answer. Each time Trump asked that I might add, so Trump at least asked Comey about it multiple times. Comey didn't really go into much detail his exact wording to Trump, or that is I at least can't recall what Comey claims he said exactly, just that he was rather vague about it. And again, this has nothing to do with obstruction issues. There is nothing wrong with Trump asking Comey if he's under investigation. And Comey isn't bound to answer either that I'm aware. I can certainly see how each could have a different understanding of such a conversation.
AS far as Trump lying about the FBI being full of leaks, considering that Comey admitted being a leaker himself, it's not too much of a stretch for Trump to believe the FBI is full of leaks. Either way, even if Trump is lying about his opinion, which is what that is, it doesn't matter. The same with the dissension and poorly administered organization under Comey doesn't matter. Comey is just defending his image really and the whole thing is irrelevant when it comes to obstruction of charges.
Now, if Comey is correct, that Trump said "I hope you can see clear to let this go", it was Comey's belief that was a veiled attempt to coerce Comey into dropping the investigation. I can see the argument. If a mafia Don says "I hope you can see clear to <insert whatever task, order you want>" then absolutely, you'd best take great care and deliberation because a mafia Don will just have you murdered. But Trump isn't a mafia Don. If you ran into a police detective and you say "Hey, you're the detective investigating my buddy <insert whomever>. He didn't do anything wrong and I hope you can see clear to let this go". Well there is no obstruction at all. You can't charge someone for hoping a legal proceeding goes well for a friend. The operative word is "hope". One can hope for anything they want, not a thing illegal about it. Except when dealing with someone who will have you murdered, like a mafia type or such. That takes a who new meaning. So it all comes down to what kind of person you think Trump is. Is he a Don Corleone? Or is he just a blustering blowhard? If he is the former, then yeah, that's "hope" is ominous. If he is the latter, then it just doesn't matter what he "hopes" for.
But overall, most of what Comey accused Trump of lying about had to do with Trump's personal opinion of Comey and his administration of the FBI. None of which makes a difference as it's basically a bunch of petty stuff. Like Comey couldn't stand that someone didn't think highly of him or something, I dunno, it's all kinda weird. I guess that's how it goes though with Trump, he's a weird one indeed.
President Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job.
He was impeached because he committed perjury. That's a crime. Trump hasn't testified under oath so you certainly can't go impeaching him on perjury can you?
Bernie wrote:President Trump will resign before being impeached for : Obstruction Of Justice
Ok, if you say so. Time will tell one way or another. I can clearly see you've put all your eggs in one basket. I am cautioning you against such faith but do as you will sir. Expectations are just planned disappointments. I just hope you are ready and prepared to be disappointed or if you'll lose your mind if things don't happen to shake out how you've been led to believe they'll shake out.
I freely admit I just don't know. I don't have enough information to have the level of faith you have. All I have is shrill politicians that even if Trump came up with the cure for cancer they'd still hate him. All I have for evidence is the testimony of a guy who seemed more worried about his own reputation than that of any criminal activity. But hey, keep the faith Bernie! Everybody's gotta believe in something I suppose.
by Symmetry on Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:15 pm 
Symmetry
