Comey testimony transcript

[LostMarbels]

Fortunately, that is NOT what he said. It is in the transcript, which I quoted for your convenience, that he said that he was unfamiliar with the "crime of collusion" not the word "collusion" itself. He said he had never heard the word used as they were using it, meaning a "prosecutable crime". He was clear on that, so what is the misunderstanding? It is not a legal term, so not in connection with his career as a lawman.

The words collusion and conspiracy are intermingled even in Watergate. Even if it is not a legal term, to say he has never heard it used in that way is ridiculous. The word collusion has been used in everything from espionage cases to domestic terrorists indicted by the FBI. This was a dodge.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Can you give one example from his testimony for each of your accusations? Thanks

lack of Transparency -
lack of Honesty -
Stonewalling -

Post #7 covers two of those. Lack of honesty is in his selective memory, go through the transcript and count the number of times his answer is "I don't know" or something to that effect and consider his (former) position(s) and background. I do not think "I don't know" was part of his job description. The smug looks and smirks on his face also tell the story, he wanted to put on a show, he wanted to make it televised knowing how little could be made public because of the nature of the information.

 

[Hank77]

The words collusion and conspiracy are intermingled even in Watergate. Even if it is not a legal term, to say he has never heard it used in that way is ridiculous. The word collusion has been used in everything from espionage cases to domestic terrorists indicted by the FBI. This was a dodge.

Trey Gowdy is an attorney. He knows that there isn't any crime of collusion. So why did he ask Comey as though there were?
If you were giving testimony before people with this much power how careful would you be to dot every 'i' and cross every 't'?
If you had been a professional in law enforcement and an attorney how detailed a person do you think you would be? How careful would you be to make sure that what you said was detail accurate and that no one could assume you were saying something that you weren't?

In my opinion I don't think you realize how serious it is to give testimony in a legal environment.

 

[DaisyDay]

The words collusion and conspiracy are intermingled even in Watergate. Even if it is not a legal term, to say he has never heard it used in that way is ridiculous. The word collusion has been used in everything from espionage cases to domestic terrorists indicted by the FBI.

That's not what I've heard, so what is your source for saying that it is used by the Justice Department and the FBI?

This was a dodge.

How so, when he went on to say, "I think in terms of conspiracy or aiding and abetting." Why is it important to you that he uses that particular word when discussing crime?

 

[LostMarbels]

Trey Gowdy is an attorney. He knows that there isn't any crime of collusion. So why did he ask Comey as though there were?
If you were giving testimony before people with this much power how careful would you be to dot every 'i' and cross every 't'?
If you had been a professional in law enforcement and an attorney how detailed a person do you think you would be? How careful would you be to make sure that what you said was detail accurate and that no one could assume you were saying something that you weren't?

In my opinion I don't think you realize how serious it is to give testimony in a legal environment.

Collusion is a predicate and a synonym of conspiracy. To collude is: come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire.

Conspire: make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act.

So a person that colludes is bringing people to the understanding that a harmful purpose is necessary, and those who conspire make plans to enact the harmful purposes with those they already colluded with. To try and say this is unheard of is laughable.

 

[Hank77]

Post #7 covers two of those. Lack of honesty is in his selective memory, go through the transcript and count the number of times his answer is "I don't know" or something to that effect and consider his (former) position(s) and background. I do not think "I don't know" was part of his job description. The smug looks and smirks on his face also tell the story, he wanted to put on a show, he wanted to make it televised knowing how little could be made public because of the nature of the information.

Where did you see this testimony televised? I didn't think it was. I read the text posted by another member here.

 

[LostMarbels]

That's not what I've heard, so what is your source for saying that it is used by the Justice Department and the FBI?

I honestly do not feel like going through all the work to prove a word that has been in use since 1525 has been used in modern times. Have at it...

How so, when he went on to say, "I think in terms of conspiracy or aiding and abetting." Why is it important to you that he uses that particular word when discussing crime?

It is not just semantics but also the manner in which he responds to questioning throughout the hearing. His answers are very well groomed and rehearsed. He has no intention of letting anything 'slip', or even in giving a straight answer.

Mr. Gowdy. Do you know the other veteran special agent's name?

Mr. Comey. I think so. I'm hesitating only because I may butcher his name, and I don't know whether the FBI wants the names of special agents on a public record. So I think I know his name.

You look at Comey's response. He states that he thinks he knows the name, but he might not pronounce it right. Then he says the FBI might not want him releasing the name, thusly, he only 'thinks' he knows the name.

Comey is stone cold and knows exactly how to not answer. He neither denies nor confirms the question with a definitive answer in the word soup he presented. He stated he thinks he might know, so latter on he can give the name without having perjured himself. Likewise, he can claim it was the wrong person he was thinking about, again without having perjured himself.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Where did you see this testimony televised? I didn't think it was. I read the text posted by another member here.

I did not say it was televised, I said he wanted it to be televised. Obviously the transcript was made public, which I disagree with because there is little difference except minus body language and vocal tone theatrics.

 

[Hank77]

Comey is stone cold and knows exactly how to not answer. He neither denies nor confirms the question with a definitive answer in the word soup he presented. He stated he thinks he might know, so latter on he can give the name without having perjured himself. Likewise, he can claim it was the wrong person he was thinking about, again without having perjured himself.

A FBI representative was there. Comey had been cautioned not to reveal some information about the ongoing investigation in a public setting. They later had a closed door session where he could speak more openly with the Intelligence Committee.

 

[Hank77]

I did not say it was televised, I said he wanted it to be televised. Obviously the transcript was made public, which I disagree with because there is little difference except minus body language and vocal tone theatrics.

How do you know what his facial expressions were...

The smug looks and smirks on his face also tell the story, he wanted to put on a show, he wanted to make it televised knowing how little could be made public because of the nature of the information.

As I said before he met with the Intelligence Committee in a closed door session where he could be more open.
Did you read the text?

 

[LostMarbels]

A FBI representative was there. Comey had been cautioned not to reveal some information about the ongoing investigation in a public setting. They later had a closed door session where he could speak more openly with the Intelligence Committee.

Bingo. I only wanted it pointed out that this transcript is nothing but staged theater. There is no meat on them bones.

I still find it comical how Comey responds tho. The acting director of the FBI has no idea what is going on in his FBI or even the paperwork necessary to begin an investigation, because "it's' far below the Directors level.".

Mr. Gowdy. How does the FBI launch counterintelligence investigations? What documents are required?

Mr. Comey. I don't know for sure because it's opened far below the Director's level. But there's documentation in criminal investigations and in counterintelligence investigations to explain the predication for the opening of a file, that is, the basis for the opening of a file.

Come on... Comey doesn't know how to open an investigation or the paperwork required? Everyone "far below the directors level" has free reign to do as they wish without the directors knowledge? Shoot... supposedly the Director doesn't even know or understand what anyone in the FBI does. Guess he just sits around and sharpens the pencils.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

How do you know what his facial expressions were...

Because I have watched him speak on many occasions, because he has been playing the "I don't know" "I don't recall" game from the time he was fired. His arrogance surpasses even the President by far, he thinks he is invincible, that is above the law.

 

[Hank77]

How do you know what his facial expressions were...

As I said before he met with the Intelligence Committee in a closed door session where he could be more open.
Did you read the text?

I was wrong about this.....this was the closed door session.

 

[Hank77]

Because I have watched him speak on many occasions, because he has been playing the "I don't know" "I don't recall" game from the time he was fired. His arrogance surpasses even the President by far, he thinks he is invincible, that is above the law.

Your entitled to your impressions and opinions. However, they aren't necessarily true. So until there is actual evidence against him I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Belk]

Post #7 covers two of those. Lack of honesty is in his selective memory, go through the transcript and count the number of times his answer is "I don't know" or something to that effect and consider his (former) position(s) and background. I do not think "I don't know" was part of his job description. The smug looks and smirks on his face also tell the story, he wanted to put on a show, he wanted to make it televised knowing how little could be made public because of the nature of the information.

So your evidence he was stonewalling is that he said "I don't know" more then you think he should and how you imagine he looked?

 

[Hank77]

Come on... Comey doesn't know how to open an investigation or the paperwork required?

Why should he? He's an attorney and a law professor. He was the Deputy Attorney General of the US. He was never an FBI agent and had never worked in the FBI.
They didn't hire him to open investigations or do the paperwork. He was there because of his knowledge of the law and his experience in the law. He did oversee some investigations but that doesn't mean one knows how to do things outside their responsibilities.
The GM where I worked knew what should happen in each department. He knew how to read financial statements but he had no idea how to go about producing them.

Everyone "far below the directors level" has free reign to do as they wish without the directors knowledge?

I don't know exactly how it works in the FBI but I do know that there are several different departments with heads of those departments who would have been in charge of the investigations going on in their department. The Director isn't involved in all those investigations.
There is no way that one man could be overseeing all investigations on his own and overseeing doesn't mean micro-managing or directing each detail in an investigation.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So your evidence he was stonewalling is that he said "I don't know" more then you think he should and how you imagine he looked?

As if he said "I don't know" one or two times... As if I were presenting evidence in a courtroom...

 

[Belk]

As if he said "I don't know" one or two times... As if I were presenting evidence in a courtroom...

So that is a "Yes"? Seems rather low on the evidentiary threshold.

 

[LostMarbels]

Why should he? He's an attorney and a law professor. He was the Deputy Attorney General of the US. He was never an FBI agent and had never worked in the FBI.
They didn't hire him to open investigations or do the paperwork. He was there because of his knowledge of the law and his experience in the law. He did oversee some investigations but that doesn't mean one knows how to do things outside their responsibilities.
The GM where I worked knew what should happen in each department. He knew how to read financial statements but he had no idea how to go about producing them.

I don't know exactly how it works in the FBI but I do know that there are several different departments with heads of those departments who would have been in charge of the investigations going on in their department. The Director isn't involved in all those investigations.
There is no way that one man could be overseeing all investigations on his own and overseeing doesn't mean micro-managing or directing each detail in an investigation.

Granted your point about micromanagement is a good point. He may not be aware of everything going on at any given time. However, he has to at least understand the process. In the 80's he was assistant U.S. attorney of NY under Giuliani. He defended Jose Padilla. Fought Bush against electronic eavesdropping, and surveillance. Was general counsel for Lockheed Martin, and Bridgewater Associates. 2003 Deputy AG.
2004, Acting AG. He is no where near inexperienced in law, the FBI, their process or legal proceedings.

 

[Hank77]

Granted your point about micromanagement is a good point. He may not be aware of everything going on at any given time. However, he has to at least understand the process. In the 80's he was assistant U.S. attorney of NY under Giuliani. He defended Jose Padilla. Fought Bush against electronic eavesdropping, and surveillance. Was general counsel for Lockheed Martin, and Bridgewater Associates. 2003 Deputy AG.
2004, Acting AG. He is no where near inexperienced in law, the FBI, their process or legal proceedings.

That's what I said. He was hired for his knowledge and experience in the law.

Why would he know what paperwork to use to open an investigation or have ever done it? That isn't his expertise, he has no experience in it, and wasn't hired to do that.