James Comey's interview with George Stephanopoulos Plugging Book

[DaisyDay]

James Comey's interview with ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos

Watch clip or read the transcript.

 

[Halbhh]

Thinking about Comey and how he is presenting information, I want to say to all people reading the thread that we can't know Comey's motives, but can only take him at his word (unless gifted with some special ability to see deeper perhaps).

Comey says (early): " I was never going to write a book. But I decided I had to write this one to try and be useful. That was my goal after I was fired, to be useful. And it occurred to me maybe I can be useful by offering a view to people, especially to young people, of what leadership should look like and how it should be centered on values."

Comey seems based on his own words to be trying to warn us, as Americans, about Trump.

We can't conclude all about Trump's actions solely on Comey's words of course, but when Comey does report words Trump said, we should at least be cautioned that indeed Trump may have said just those words.

For this reason, in addition to other indications we've seen, and indictments also, I think it's therefore extremely good for the United States if Mueller's investigation continues.

 

[DaisyDay]

Now, are we able to know that's false, and instead this is for "plugging" a book as a motive?

The interview was plugging the book. That's not a confirmation nor a contradiction of his motive for writing the book. It's a simple fact that Comey is on a book tour, giving multiple interviews.

I don't understand why you would attack me for saying so and get all pious and preachy about it.

Do you have an opinion on the interview - which is the subject of this thread?

 

[Halbhh]

The interview was plugging the book. That's not a confirmation nor a contradiction of his motive for writing the book. It's a simple fact that Comey is on a book tour, giving multiple interviews.

I don't understand why you would attack me for saying so and get all pious and preachy about it.

Do you have an opinion on the interview - which is the subject of this thread?

An attack is if someone characterizes you, and if I characterize anyone in a bad way, I need to repent of that!! Did you get characterized? If you can help me, I can't see how you are characterized anywhere above. If so, though, you could help, because I can't see it, meaning I need your aid, your help, in order to see and understand what wording is that way.

We are never to judge a person as a person, but we are to learn about actions and be able to learn and know what actions are wrong, and we can point to any action (even when not being done!) and warn others, just like Paul, Peter, James, John, and Christ, warning about wrong actions.

We learn from Christ never to judge on appearances, but none of us are perfect, and we all make mistakes, such as relying on someone else (a 3rd person) to accept their judgement which they may have made on appearances.

As best I can tell, paying close attention, Comey appears to be telling the truth, and he is not trying to get rich selling a book, but is instead trying to warn all of us about what he has seen first hand in person with Trump. I don't rely on Comey to know all I know about Trump's actions and words generally, but instead mostly on Trumps spoken and tweeted words he personally said, and there are a great many.

But all of us sin, and do wrongs, and all of us have His mercy when we confess directly to our Father, because of His profound mercy! 1 John chapter 1, verses 8,9.

 

[DaisyDay]

An attack is if someone characterizes you, and if I characterize anyone in a bad way, I need to repent of that!! Did you get characterized? If you can help me, I can't see how you are characterized anywhere above. If so, though, you could help, because I can't see it.

Okay, I'll walk you through it: In your opening paragraph, you ascribe a motive to Comey for writing a book. In your second paragraph, you present my post as if it were countering that:

Now, are we able to know that's false, and instead this is for "plugging" a book as a motive? -- let's consider whether can we ascribe a motive to Comey by guessing at what is in his heart.

I never characterized Comey's motive for writing his book in any fashion, so for you to accuse me of doing so is wrong. For you to say that I am "guessing at what is in his heart" is projection at its finest, since you seem to think I find it "false".

So, we cannot use an appearance to guess at what is in someone's heart, and ascribe a motive to them by guessing.

It is a fact that he is on a book tour, giving interviews promoting his book. That's not a guess. I have NOT said anything whatsoever concerning what is in his heart - you are assuming that I am ascribing some evil to him, when I have not.

You have characterized me as pretending to know what is in someone's heart and of indicating that he is lying about his motive for writing the book when I done nothing of the kind (so far). Read my post again - I have not impugned his motive or honesty (so far). I said he is plugging his book and he is, simple fact. If you think that is a bad thing, then that is on you. So, repent! And stop derailing this thread.

...he is not trying to get rich selling a book...

Who said he was? Not I. Publicizing his book could equally be seen as trying to get the truth out. So far, I have not speculated on his reasons and motives. So far, it's been you guessing what is in my heart. Knock it off, please.

I don't rely on Comey to know all I know about Trump's actions and words generally, but instead mostly on Trumps spoken and tweeted words he personally said, and there are a great many.

Why would anyone rely on Comey, or any one person, to know all about Donald? I don't believe he, i.e. Comey, can tell all he knows at this point. John Dean, of Watergate fame, made a good point concerning the danger to Comey in giving publishing a book, then in giving so many interviews before the matter is settled and that is, if he doesn't tell it almost exactly the same each time, defense lawyers will pounce on each and every (inevitable) inconsistency to impugn his credibility on the witness stand - if and when it comes to that - Dean seemed to think it might well.

 

[Halbhh]

Okay, I'll walk you through it: In your opening paragraph, you ascribe a motive to Comey for writing a book. In your second paragraph, you present my post as if it were countering that:

I never characterized Comey's motive for writing his book in any fashion, so for you to accuse me of doing so is wrong. For you to say that I am "guessing at what is in his heart" is projection at its finest, since you seem to think I find it "false".

It is a fact that he is on a book tour, giving interviews promoting his book. That's not a guess. I have NOT said anything whatsoever concerning what is in his heart - you are assuming that I am ascribing some evil to him, when I have not.

You have characterized me as pretending to know what is in someone's heart and of indicating that he is lying about his motive for writing the book when I done nothing of the kind (so far). Read my post again - I have not impugned his motive or honesty (so far). I said he is plugging his book and he is, simple fact. If you think that is a bad thing, then that is on you. So, repent! And stop derailing this thread.

Who said he was? Not I. Publicizing his book could equally be seen as trying to get the truth out. So far, I have not speculated on his reasons and motives. So far, it's been you guessing what is in my heart. Knock it off, please.


Why would anyone rely on Comey, or any one person, to know all about Donald? I don't believe he, i.e. Comey, can tell all he knows at this point. John Dean, of Watergate fame, made a good point concerning the danger to Comey in giving publishing a book, then in giving so many interviews before the matter is settled and that is, if he doesn't tell it almost exactly the same each time, defense lawyers will pounce on each and every (inevitable) inconsistency to impugn his credibility on the witness stand - if and when it comes to that - Dean seemed to think it might well.

(first a minor note: that opening paragraph is a quote of Comey)

Sounds like you are saying that "plugging" is not promoting for the sake of profit as the primary motive.

Is that correct?

Also, I'm confused some by a very central thing.

If I warn against a wrong action, is that the same as an accusation.

It seems to me (in my limited human understanding) that in order to accuse someone, I have to say they themselves are doing a wrong action. Am I mistaken in that in your view? You may be able to help.

I used the word "we" because I'm not thinking of you in particular, but of each and every last person, A-Z, myself, John, Ralph, Ernest, Jane, etc.

I'm saying that all people should not assume they usually know the motives of others (though sometimes motives are obvious), as a warning, like Paul or Peter or James would warn in their epistles.

But if someone warns you or me, does that mean you or I are accused?

Maybe so! If so, then the epistles are accusing us all the time, really, right? I often am reading the epistles and thinking -- "I've done that!.... Do I still do it, or have I repented yet?" etc. So, I'm taking the accusation as helpful. In contrast, when I'm really innocent of that particular wrong (a few here and there i've not ever done that I can remember, lol), then I merely read over it, without pausing much.

To me "Plugging Book" suggests clearly that Comey is only cynically trying to make a buck, and would not offer up information otherwise for us, as citizens, except only in self-defense. Instead, I feel Comey seems (appears in the video) to be warning us -- as a helpful warning to us, America. When you watched the video, did it seem different than that?

 

[DaisyDay]

(first a minor note: that opening paragraph is a quote of Comey)

Yes, I noticed that and then you went on to imply that I was calling his stated motive "false" which I did not.

Sounds like you are saying that "plugging" is not promoting for the sake of profit as the primary motive.

Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. "Plugging" is a synonym of "promoting" or "publicizing" - it can be done for fame, fortune, righteousness, whatever, doesn't matter.

MerriamWebster plugging 8 :a piece of favorable publicity or a favorable mention usually incorporated in general matter
OxfordEnglish plug informal : A piece of publicity promoting a product, event, or establishment.
CambridgeDictionary noun : the act of telling people publicly about a product, event, etc.:
verb : to advertise something by talking about it a lot or praising it, especially on the radio or television:
FreeDictionary 2. To briefly publicize or advertise, especially during a public event not specifically intended for advertising purposes; as, during the interview he plugged his new book.

Also, I'm confused some by a very central thing.

If I warn against a wrong action, is that the same as an accusation.

You better stop that now or else burn in hell! Yeah, sure, that's "just" a "warning", no implied accusation at all

It seems to me (in my limited human understanding) that in order to accuse someone, I have to say they themselves are doing a wrong action. Am I mistaken in that in your view? You may be able to help.

Have I not been clear so far?

I used the word "we" because I'm not thinking of you in particular, but of each and every last person, A-Z, myself, John, Ralph, Ernest, Jane, etc.

I'm saying that all people should not assume they usually know the motives of others (though sometimes motives are obvious), as a warning, like Paul or Peter or James would warn in their epistles.

But if someone warns you or me, does that mean you or I are accused?

It's against God's Commandment to falsely accuse someone, so you really shouldn't do that.

Didn't say you did do it, just saying you shouldn't...riiiight? I find your argument extremely disingenuous.

Maybe so! If so, then the epistles are accusing us all the time, really, right?

When the epistles quote something of mine, and then admonish, well....that hasn't happened yet.

I often am reading the epistles and thinking -- "I've done that!.... Do I still do it, or have I repented yet?" etc. So, I'm taking the accusation as helpful. In contrast, when I'm really innocent of that particular wrong (a few here and there i've not ever done that I can remember, lol), then I merely read over it, without pausing much.

I've explained and you can either take responsibility or not, as you please. You can apologize or not - I won't hold my breath.

To me "Plugging Book" suggests clearly that Comey is only cynically trying to make a buck, and would not offer up information otherwise for us, as citizens, except only in self-defense.

I've told you more than once already that is not what I said. He is on a book tour and he is promoting his book. He is being interviewed all this week, in many media outlets, specifically to talk about his book whether you want to believe that or not.

Instead, I feel Comey seems (appears in the video) to be warning us -- as a helpful warning to us, America. When you watched the video, did it seem different than that?

I haven't made up my mind yet. I find Comey interesting and complex, but I don't feel I know him.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, I noticed that and then you went on to imply that I was calling his stated motive "false" which I did not.

Yes, that is correct. "Plugging" is a synonym of "promoting" or "publicizing" - it can be done for fame, fortune, righteousness, etc.

You better stop that now or else burn in hell! Yeah, sure, that's "just" a "warning", no implied accusation at all

Have I not been clear so far?

It's against God's Commandment to falsely accuse someone, so you really shouldn't do that.

Didn't say you did do it, just saying you shouldn't...riiiight? I find your argument extremely disingenuous.

When the epistles quote something of mine, and then admonish, well....that hasn't happened yet.

I've explained and you can either take responsibility or not, as you please. You can apologize or not - I won't hold my breath.

I've told you more than once already that is not what I said. He is on a book tour and he is promoting his book. He is being interviewed all this week, in many media outlets, specifically to talk about his book whether you want to believe that or not.
I haven't made up my mind yet. I find Comey interesting and complex, but I don't feel I know him.

Ok, this could be helpful, in that you are saying if I respond to you (or post after you post), and then say a general principle "we" should follow, that can be reasonably thought to mean you are being accused personally as guilty, instead of only me telling you or "we" all a warning only, but instead Judging you -- which would be judging on appearances, which is precisely what Christ said not to do: John 7:24.

I don't even want to allow an appearance that I may be doing that!

Thank you!

While I did not judge you as a person, I did judge what I thought was an action of painting Comey with the word "Plugging" as cynically after profit and not caring about America or justice (judging an action, but not a person is something we are to do). But I see you didn't mean the word "Plugging" that way, even though some (obviously I did) will take the word to mean just that. Better if I'd asked: "By 'Plugging' do you mean ______" and let you yourself respond what it means to you as you used it.

Meanwhile, when anyone sees the title, some will conclude precisely what I did -- the word "Plugging" suggests Comey is disingenuous.

Would you like to change that?

If so, you can -- you are able to edit the title of the post.

I will edit to attempt to remove any appearance of judging you though without removing the crucially important general exhortation I did mean to say.

 

[TheGuide]

The interview was plugging the book. That's not a confirmation nor a contradiction of his motive for writing the book. It's a simple fact that Comey is on a book tour, giving multiple interviews.

I don't understand why you would attack me for saying so and get all pious and preachy about it.

Do you have an opinion on the interview - which is the subject of this thread?

Of course he's plugging his book. It will likely be his income, so making it tantalizing was neccesary, and having the opportunity to plug it on television is a blessing. He's made some (BIG) mistakes that also cost him his job, but his book and future speaking tours will better than make up for it.

 

[Halbhh]

..dp..

 

[Halbhh]

James Comey's interview with ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos

Watch clip or read the transcript.

You are able to edit the Title of the OP post I learned a while back.

You could clarify and prevent misunderstanding.

 

[AirPo]

Spoiler: NoteToSelf

Okay, I'll walk you through it: In your opening paragraph, you ascribe a motive to Comey for writing a book. In your second paragraph, you present my post as if it were countering that:

I never characterized Comey's motive for writing his book in any fashion, so for you to accuse me of doing so is wrong. For you to say that I am "guessing at what is in his heart" is projection at its finest, since you seem to think I find it "false".

It is a fact that he is on a book tour, giving interviews promoting his book. That's not a guess. I have NOT said anything whatsoever concerning what is in his heart - you are assuming that I am ascribing some evil to him, when I have not.

You have characterized me as pretending to know what is in someone's heart and of indicating that he is lying about his motive for writing the book when I done nothing of the kind (so far). Read my post again - I have not impugned his motive or honesty (so far). I said he is plugging his book and he is, simple fact. If you think that is a bad thing, then that is on you. So, repent! And stop derailing this thread.

Who said he was? Not I. Publicizing his book could equally be seen as trying to get the truth out. So far, I have not speculated on his reasons and motives. So far, it's been you guessing what is in my heart. Knock it off, please.


Why would anyone rely on Comey, or any one person, to know all about Donald? I don't believe he, i.e. Comey, can tell all he knows at this point. John Dean, of Watergate fame, made a good point concerning the danger to Comey in giving publishing a book, then in giving so many interviews before the matter is settled and that is, if he doesn't tell it almost exactly the same each time, defense lawyers will pounce on each and every (inevitable) inconsistency to impugn his credibility on the witness stand - if and when it comes to that - Dean seemed to think it might well.

Do not anger Daisy.

 

[Halbhh]

Of course he's plugging his book. It will likely be his income, so making it tantalizing was neccesary, and having the opportunity to plug it on television is a blessing. He's made some (BIG) mistakes that also cost him his job, but his book and future speaking tours will better than make up for it.

It would be reasonable to think that: if Comey is only plugging his book, he's out to simply make money, and that's his motive.

But I think it's important for us to avoid that conclusion, that judgement about Comey's action in giving interviews, because it's against Christ's instructions in John 7:24.

Comey says his own motive as quoted in post #2.

Unless Comey says he's just out to make money, or gives a clear indication that is his motive, I think we should not any of us ascribe that as his motive.

 

[DaisyDay]

It would be reasonable to think that: if Comey is only plugging his book, he's out to simply make money, and that's his motive.

But I think it's important for us to avoid that conclusion, that judgement about Comey's action in giving interviews, because it's against Christ's instructions in John 7:24.

Comey says his own motive as quoted in post #2.

Unless Comey says he's just out to make money, or gives a clear indication that is his motive, I think we should not any of us ascribe that as his motive.

MerriamWebster plugging 8 :a piece of favorable publicity or a favorable mention usually incorporated in general matter

OxfordEnglish plug informal : A piece of publicity promoting a product, event, or establishment.

CambridgeDictionary noun : the act of telling people publicly about a product, event, etc.:
verb : to advertise something by talking about it a lot or praising it, especially on the radio or television:

FreeDictionary 2. To briefly publicize or advertise, especially during a public event not specifically intended for advertising purposes; as, during the interview he plugged his new book.

 

[DaisyDay]

Of course he's plugging his book. It will likely be his income, so making it tantalizing was neccesary, and having the opportunity to plug it on television is a blessing. He's made some (BIG) mistakes that also cost him his job, but his book and future speaking tours will better than make up for it.

I don't see how he could have kept that job without seriously compromising himself.

What do you see as being his BIG mistakes? In some cases, he didn't have any good options, from what I've read.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't see how he could have kept that job without seriously compromising himself.

What do you see as being his BIG mistakes? In some cases, he didn't have any good options, from what I've read.

I think Comey is a pretty honest guy and almost has a righteous aura about him. I think that is also his weak spot, because with that comes a level of arrogance.

Also, nothing surprised me with Trump's behavior in these events with Comey, but I did learn a lot more about Comey, than I did about Trump, who I knew was a narcissist goof ball. Comey to me, for a guy who has his resume, lacks backbone and courage and is passive aggressive in his approach.

 

[Smidlee]

Comey admitted he abuse his position in the FBI to getting involved in politics. He thought Hillary had won the election so he came out right before election about more Hillary e-mails. By his own words he wonder if he got Trump elected. It's not his job to get anyone elected so he is admitting of wrong doing. Trump did the right thing by firing him. Comey seem to be a camera hog and no doubt trying to get name recognition probably to run for office , even President, himself. He obviously trying to get back in with the Democrat party.

 

[DaisyDay]

He obviously trying to get back in with the Democrat party.

There is no "Democrat" party, as you know. Comey has always been a Republican.

He thought Hillary had won the election so he came out right before election about more Hillary e-mails. By his own words he wonder if he got Trump elected. It's not his job to get anyone elected so he is admitting of wrong doing.

Not exactly, because Clinton was ahead in the polls up to the point when he announced they were reopening the investigation. That was the turning point. The problem as he saw it was that they had already said the investigation was closed; now, that was no longer true. If he said nothing, and Clinton did get elected and the investigation did turn up something new and incriminating, then he would have been at fault for exonerating her; saying nothing, he feared, would be seen as deceitful.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Guess I should buy the book.

One never knows when there will be a shortage of bathroom supplies?

M-Bob

 

[DaisyDay]

Guess I should buy the book.

One never knows when there will be a shortage of bathroom supplies?

M-Bob

If that's how you use books, then that would explain a lot - your behind is more well-read than your head.