World, Writing, Wealth discussion

World & Current Events > Former US FBI Director Comey's Opening Salvo

Comments Showing 1-15 of 15 (15 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Alex (new)

Alex (asato) Pretty interesting. We'll see very soon what import these statements have.


message 2: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 14958 comments It looks like Comey attempted to be honestly loyal. The described dialogues leave room for interpretation of intentions behind the words, but not sure they amount to anything special.
I imagine during the hearing Comey might be asked to elaborate but the quintessence is clear

message 3: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan I suspect that those who believed that Comey's testimony would lead to Trump's impeachment were hoping for too much.

At this point, the impact of Comey strikes me as kinda neutral - neither harmful nor helpful to anyone's political ambitions.

(If I was in his shoes - I would be trying to cut a fine line too.)

message 4: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Just seen him on the news - pretty straight shots and not pulling too many punches - I hate to think what he might have added in the private hearing. Do not think Trump's team will be able to diss him too much without dragging themselves deeper in the mire e.g. "DT did not say that because we have a tape..."

Accusations were under oath - lying, defamation of organisation and himself, Russian influence in US election - they did interfere. Under oath constitutes evidence in a normal court of law not sure about US Senate/Congress testimony. Trump's only counter so far is the we are under attack but will emerge stronger. Could be a log night in the US just like UK

message 5: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10756 comments The written statements Comey provided seemed to me to be open to interpretation, and could be explicable that Trump is an amateur politician and had yet to learn the ropes. What little I have heard about his verbal evidence seems to be more damning, but it concerns me that I am only hearing summaries by others wanting, perhaps, to make more of it that was there. In the verbal statement, it looks as if Comey was pissed off about being fired, and that does not help.

message 6: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5791 comments I watched the entire hearing, and Comey came across as truthful. Several things became clear to me: Trump lied about some minor things; major newspapers like the NYT and the Washington Post did report events that Comey says did not happen; Trump didn't directly order Comey to do anything illegal; Loretta Lynch was not objective regarding the investigation into Hillary Clinton; Trump fired Comey because Comey wouldn't go public with the fact that Trump wasn't under investigation for colluding with the Russians.

Trump lied about minor things - not good. But there's evidence that the press was making up news; the investigation of Hillary wasn't objective; Trump's Russia conspiracy has no grounds. These are things Trump has claimed and which have turned out to be true.

message 7: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2250 comments Scout wrote: "I watched the entire hearing, and Comey came across as truthful. Several things became clear to me: Trump lied about some minor things; major newspapers like the NYT and the Washington Post did rep..."

Pretty much what I saw too. I was a little surprised there was no grandstanding and showboating from the Senators, but then again, their questions seemed designed to elicit the answers they wanted, whichever party they were from. Republicans kept asking him why he didn't speak up if he thought there was something wrong - setting up the final report to indicate something funny about it all from his side. One senator asked him directly if the FBI ever charged anyone based on "hope," which to me indicates they're setting up the reasoning when they conclude Trump did nothing wrong in terminating Comey.

I did find it a little shocking when he threw Lynch under the bus. Then again when he admitted to leaking a memo to the press through a friend - especially after blasting the media for publishing leaks earlier in the hearing.

message 8: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10756 comments Strictly speaking, the leak alone was a ground to fire him.

message 9: by Alex (new)

Alex (asato) He'd been fired already when he asked for it to be published.

message 10: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10756 comments Alex wrote: "He'd been fired already when he asked for it to be published."

Yes, I know, but it removes the need to feel sorry for him, if there were any such need :-)

message 11: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments Was his memo classified i.e. criminal offence to leak or was it his own private notes. If it was a legally privileged meeting then again a problem. If its notes of a social meeting between two senior people then he has every right to publish his version of events by whatever means. I don;t like the third party route but Trump can hardly complain about leaks given the publishing of DNC which I do not recall him being adverse to using or even calling for an FBI investigation into that event.

message 12: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10756 comments I you take up a job in certain professions, and I am sure the FBI will be one of them, you sign an agreement that all information received that could reasonably be thought of as confidential or secret cannot be made public without authorization. It is the information, not what it is on, that is important. In Comey's case, the issue of whether it is social or not should not be relevant; it is whether he gained the information because he was Director of the FBI or not. My view, anyway.

message 13: by Philip (last edited Jun 10, 2017 04:53AM) (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 0 comments As the creator of the document (certainly in UK Official document rules) he is responsible for its classification (if any) and ownership. I would be happier if he had published it himself.

Just like Trump in the White House in revealing secrets to Russians. He is C-in-C therefore has the right to reveal that data, even if misguided doing so.

In cold war terms I was often amazed how many times so called secret info was given to a visiting ambassador and or military attache from Warsaw Pact, when UK citizens were not allowed anywhere the military equipment unless cleared.

message 14: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin The question is legally irrelevant anyway, because Trump specifically said that he was not invoking executive privilege about this and because Trump tweeted so often about this that any pretence that this is confidential info is just a farce and an hypocritical defense strategy.

message 15: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 10756 comments Philip, Trump is C in C, but Comey was not, so that does not provide an excuse for him. I am unsure about Michel's point about executive privilege as it would depend on the nature of whatever Comey signed, but the point about Trump's tweeting is certainly a very valid one.

back to top