Where is James Comey's mugshot?

[JSRG]

Comey said to the Senate that he didn't authorize any leaks. McCabe testified that Comey did. Therefore, who do you believe?

You are misrepresenting McCabe's claim. McCabe said that he leaked information about the Clinton investigation to the press on his own initiative, and that after he did so, he told Comey about it, and Comey didn't have a problem with it. (Comey, for his part, says that McCabe never told him McCabe was the one who did it and in fact told Comey that he hadn't)

McCabe didn't claim Comey authorized the leak! He claimed he did it of his own initiative and then told Comey about it afterwards. So even if we were to accept McCabe's account (and note that the Office of Inspector General's report strongly took Comey's side), it still wouldn't contradict Comey's statement that he never authorized anyone at the FBI to leak information on the Trump or Clinton investigations, because McCabe didn't claim Comey authorized him.

 

[JSRG]

Neither of them did. McCabe didn't need authorization to leak and he told Congress just that. He further informed them that he told Comey after the fact that is what he did. Comey corroborated.

It is not clear if by "Comey corroborated" you mean (according to McCabe's testimony) Comey approved of the leaking after the fact, or if you're saying Comey corroborated McCabe's testimony. If you mean the former, that's true, but not the later.

(I apologize in advance if you meant the former, and thus I'm basically arguing against something you weren't trying to say)

In my prior post I linked to the report of the Office of Inspector General which was very harsh on McCabe's conduct. In its summary on pages 22-23, it says the following regarding the conflicting reports:

We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during his conversation with then-Director Comey on or about October 31, 2016, when they discussed the October 30 WSJ article. As detailed above, Comey and McCabe gave starkly conflicting accounts of this conversation. Comey said that McCabe “definitely” did not tell Comey that he had authorized the disclosure about the PADAG call. To the contrary, Comey told the OIG that, on or about October 31, McCabe led him to believe “in form or fashion” that McCabe did not authorize the disclosure about the PADAG call to the WSJ. Comey described how McCabe gave Comey the impression that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure about the PADAG call, was not involved in the disclosure, and did not know how it happened. By contrast, McCabe asserted that he explicitly told Comey during that conversation that he authorized the disclosure and that Comey agreed it was a “good” idea.

While the only direct evidence regarding this McCabe-Comey conversation were the recollections of the two participants, there is considerable circumstantial evidence and we concluded that the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comey’s version of the conversation. Indeed, none of the circumstantial evidence provided support for McCabe’s account of the discussion; rather, we found that much of the available evidence undercut McCabe’s claim.

So Comey didn't corroborate McCabe's claim that he told Comey. Though, as you say (and as I noted in my prior post) McCabe did not claim that Comey authorized him to leak it, just that he told Comey about it after the fact (as is stated in the above excerpt, though it's more clear in its more in-depth description of it earlier on page 12). Their disagreement was on whether McCabe told Comey about it afterwards.

 

[DaisyDay]

It is not clear if by "Comey corroborated" you mean (according to McCabe's testimony) Comey approved of the leaking after the fact, or if you're saying Comey corroborated McCabe's testimony. If you mean the former, that's true, but not the later.

(I apologize in advance if you meant the former, and thus I'm basically arguing against something you weren't trying to say)

In my prior post I linked to the report of the Office of Inspector General which was very harsh on McCabe's conduct. In its summary on pages 22-23, it says the following regarding the conflicting reports:

We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during his conversation with then-Director Comey on or about October 31, 2016, when they discussed the October 30 WSJ article. As detailed above, Comey and McCabe gave starkly conflicting accounts of this conversation. Comey said that McCabe “definitely” did not tell Comey that he had authorized the disclosure about the PADAG call. To the contrary, Comey told the OIG that, on or about October 31, McCabe led him to believe “in form or fashion” that McCabe did not authorize the disclosure about the PADAG call to the WSJ. Comey described how McCabe gave Comey the impression that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure about the PADAG call, was not involved in the disclosure, and did not know how it happened. By contrast, McCabe asserted that he explicitly told Comey during that conversation that he authorized the disclosure and that Comey agreed it was a “good” idea.

While the only direct evidence regarding this McCabe-Comey conversation were the recollections of the two participants, there is considerable circumstantial evidence and we concluded that the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comey’s version of the conversation. Indeed, none of the circumstantial evidence provided support for McCabe’s account of the discussion; rather, we found that much of the available evidence undercut McCabe’s claim.

So Comey didn't corroborate McCabe's claim that he told Comey. Though, as you say (and as I noted in my prior post) McCabe did not claim that Comey authorized him to leak it, just that he told Comey about it after the fact (as is stated in the above excerpt, though it's more clear in its more in-depth description of it earlier on page 12). Their disagreement was on whether McCabe told Comey about it afterwards.

I did mean the latter, so thanks for the correction.

 

[Pommer]

It is not clear if by "Comey corroborated" you mean (according to McCabe's testimony) Comey approved of the leaking after the fact, or if you're saying Comey corroborated McCabe's testimony. If you mean the former, that's true, but not the later.

(I apologize in advance if you meant the former, and thus I'm basically arguing against something you weren't trying to say)

In my prior post I linked to the report of the Office of Inspector General which was very harsh on McCabe's conduct. In its summary on pages 22-23, it says the following regarding the conflicting reports:

We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during his conversation with then-Director Comey on or about October 31, 2016, when they discussed the October 30 WSJ article. As detailed above, Comey and McCabe gave starkly conflicting accounts of this conversation. Comey said that McCabe “definitely” did not tell Comey that he had authorized the disclosure about the PADAG call. To the contrary, Comey told the OIG that, on or about October 31, McCabe led him to believe “in form or fashion” that McCabe did not authorize the disclosure about the PADAG call to the WSJ. Comey described how McCabe gave Comey the impression that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure about the PADAG call, was not involved in the disclosure, and did not know how it happened. By contrast, McCabe asserted that he explicitly told Comey during that conversation that he authorized the disclosure and that Comey agreed it was a “good” idea.

While the only direct evidence regarding this McCabe-Comey conversation were the recollections of the two participants, there is considerable circumstantial evidence and we concluded that the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comey’s version of the conversation. Indeed, none of the circumstantial evidence provided support for McCabe’s account of the discussion; rather, we found that much of the available evidence undercut McCabe’s claim.

So Comey didn't corroborate McCabe's claim that he told Comey. Though, as you say (and as I noted in my prior post) McCabe did not claim that Comey authorized him to leak it, just that he told Comey about it after the fact (as is stated in the above excerpt, though it's more clear in its more in-depth description of it earlier on page 12). Their disagreement was on whether McCabe told Comey about it afterwards.

Gonna be an uphill battle to get to “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

 

[JSRG]

Gonna be an uphill battle to get to “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Well, it's not even clear if this is about McCabe at all. The indictment says:

On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, Fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United Stales, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports" regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.

2. That statement was false, because, as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.

As I understand it, referring to people not by name in an indictment isn't unheard of (hence "Person 1" and "Person 3"), though it does leave it unclear to us who they are. We can safely assume Person 1 is Hillary Clinton, but who is Person 3? We don't know yet. The post I was responding to appeared to assume it was McCabe and claimed McCabe said Comey told him to leak, but as I noted previously, McCabe never claimed Comey authorized him to leak.

Another possibility that has been floated as the identity of Person 3 is Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School who served as an advisor at the FBI. We do know that Comey used Richman to leak information to the press, but it wasn't about the Hillary Clinton investigation (and for that matter, came after Richman wasn't working with the FBI). The claim might instead be that Comey used Richman to leak information about the Hillary Clinton investigation on a prior occasion, but if so there is no real proof of it that's been made public.

Or, who knows, maybe Person 3 isn't either one of these, and is some other FBI agent.

Since we don't know what the government has, it is possible they have good evidence that Comey authorized someone to leak to the press about the Clinton investigation that just hasn't been shown publicly yet. So I don't want to say they definitely have no case. However, the (so far) rather slipshod nature of the prosecution does not inspire much confidence they do.