Comey testimony transcript

[LostMarbels]

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.

Because he would need to know that process in order to defend his client Jose Padilla against FBI charges of domestic terrorism. He needs to know what motions, and/or paperwork was filed. What those filings entail, and what motions need to be filed to counter them.

He needed to know what motions or paperwork to file against President Bush when he fought against unconstitutional wiretapping by the DHS, FBI and others. That is direct experience in surveillance/counter surveillance he claims to have no knowledge of.

He was a main lawyer in Lockheed Martin. The single largest militarily funded organisation on the planet at the time, and had/has direct legal ties to the DOJ, DOD, and DHS.

Sorry, not buying it.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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

I don't know, but will leave you to speculate.

 

[Kentonio]

Because he would need to know that process in order to defend his client Jose Padilla against FBI charges of domestic terrorism. He needs to know what motions, and/or paperwork was filed. What those filings entail, and what motions need to be filed to counter them.

He needed to know what motions or paperwork to file against President Bush when he fought against unconstitutional wiretapping by the DHS, FBI and others. That is direct experience in surveillance/counter surveillance he claims to have no knowledge of.

He was a main lawyer in Lockheed Martin. The single largest militarily funded organisation on the planet at the time, and had/has direct legal ties to the DOJ, DOD, and DHS.

Sorry, not buying it.

None of that has anything to do with what he was asked. He was asked about the documentation involved in opening an investigation. The honest answer was probably something like ‘first you have to fill out form HS38364 in triplicate and have it approved by the relevant departmental heads.. etc etc’. So no, as someone who never did that stuff, and just had investigations arrive on his desk much later in the chain, it’s not some big shock that he’s not familiar with the grunt work leading to that point.

 

[LostMarbels]

None of that has anything to do with what he was asked. He was asked about the documentation involved in opening an investigation. The honest answer was probably something like ‘first you have to fill out form HS38364 in triplicate and have it approved by the relevant departmental heads.. etc etc’. So no, as someone who never did that stuff, and just had investigations arrive on his desk much later in the chain, it’s not some big shock that he’s not familiar with the grunt work leading to that point.

That's interesting. Comey never did any grunt work. Yet he was competent enough to head an organisation he knew absolutely nothing about, concerning law he didn't even understand... He ran that organization for years, and still knows nothing about how it works. Makes sense.

 

[cow451]

I think that was exactly Gowdy's line of attack. I understand Comey's response to that line of questioning, but to respond you have never heard the word collusion in your entire career is not believable.

You either didn’t read the exchange in proper context or you intended to mischaracterize the exchange. He did not say what you are claiming.

 

[LostMarbels]

You either didn’t read the exchange in proper context or you intended to mischaracterize the exchange. He did not say what you are claiming.

Did you ever consider I just didn't write my post correctly? It's not a direct quote?

Anyways that has already been pointed out, and the conversation continues.

Comey testimony transcript

 

[cow451]

Did you ever consider I just didn't write my post correctly? It's not a direct quote?

Anyways that has already been pointed out, and the conversation continues.

Comey testimony transcript

A thousand pardons.

 

[hedrick]

I think that was exactly Gowdy's line of attack. I understand Comey's response to that line of questioning, but to respond you have never heard the word collusion in your entire career is not believable.

Gowdy asked specifically for the definition of the crime of collusion. Comey properly answered that he had never heard of such a thing.

 

[LostMarbels]

Gowdy asked specifically for the definition of the crime of collusion. Comey properly answered that he had never heard of such a thing.

And if you read the quote you posted you will find: I think that was exactly Gowdy's line of attack. I understand Comey's response to that line of questioning


This has already been pointed out tho:
but to respond you have never heard the word collusion in your entire career is not believable.

Comey testimony transcript

and:

Comey testimony transcript

 

[Kentonio]

That's interesting. Comey never did any grunt work. Yet he was competent enough to head an organisation he knew absolutely nothing about, concerning law he didn't even understand... He ran that organization for years, and still knows nothing about how it works. Makes sense.

Sorry but this is silly. It’s like asking the chairman of a major steel corporation about the exact process of setting up a machinist line, and then claiming he’s incompetent because he can’t tell you exactly what that entails, or a pharmaceutical chairman not knowing the chemical elements of every product. My CEO wouldn’t have the first clue how to do my job, nor would I expect him to, that’s not his job.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's interesting. Comey never did any grunt work. Yet he was competent enough to head an organisation he knew absolutely nothing about, concerning law he didn't even understand... He ran that organization for years, and still knows nothing about how it works. Makes sense.

Sorry but this is silly. It’s like asking the chairman of a major steel corporation about the exact process of setting up a machinist line, and then claiming he’s incompetent because he can’t tell you exactly what that entails, or a pharmaceutical chairman not knowing the chemical elements of every product. My CEO wouldn’t have the first clue how to do my job, nor would I expect him to, that’s not his job.

Not only is it silly, it's not true. Comey spent roughly the first half of his career in the US Attorney's office, a good chunk of that being in the Southern District of NY. If being a lawyer in one the toughest prosecutors' offices in the country doesn't qualify as grunt work, I think you might want to re-evaluate your notion of "grunt work".

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

If they mean the exact same thing then why are you so upset that Comey used the word conspire rather than collude?

 

[KCfromNC]

That's interesting. Comey never did any grunt work. Yet he was competent enough to head an organisation he knew absolutely nothing about, concerning law he didn't even understand... He ran that organization for years, and still knows nothing about how it works. Makes sense.

Come on, if you're going to try and spin this, at least use some hyperbole.

Kidding aside, though, what facts back up these claims :

"an organisation he knew absolutely nothing about"
"law he didn't even understand"
"still knows nothing about how it works"

Thanks in advance.

 

[DaisyDay]

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...

Neither the FBI nor the US DOJ have been around that long. Straw man argument - no one, including Comey, disputes that it is "a" word, somewhat common in ordinary parlance, BUT the assertion here that you made that I would like you to back up is using the word as a legal term by the FBI and DOJ. If you still decline, then I'll assume it's because you can't, that you simply made an empty argument with no basis.

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.

If the name is not a mystery, then Gowdy already knows it and is trying to bait Comey into saying what he is not allowed to say. I notice you cut the exchange short when it continues:

Ms. Bessee. If the agent is not at the SES level and above, you probably cannot state the name.
Mr. Gowdy. When you say "probably cannot," is that a legal prohibition, or is that an FBI policy prohibition?
Ms. Bessee. An FBI policy and a DOJ policy prohibition.
Mr. Gowdy. Does the FBI take the position that that's binding on Congress?
Ms. Bessee. Based on my direction from the FBI Director and from the Deputy Attorney General's Office, that is our direction. We can go back and ask the question if we can reveal the name.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, how about do that for me. For the meantime, we'll just refer to that person as FBI Agent 1.
​

 

[Belk]

I don't know, but will leave you to speculate.

Oh, I have no need to speculate. This is a pretty open and shut case.

 

[cow451]

Oh, I have no need to speculate. This is a pretty open and shut case.

 

[LostMarbels]

Neither the FBI nor the US DOJ have been around that long. Straw man argument -

Daisy? If the country was founded in 1776 how could you even misconstrue the date of 1525 to indicate the FBI or the DOJ???????

If you still decline, then I'll assume it's because you can't, that you simply made an empty argument with no basis.

You can assume what you want. It's a ridiculous argument I do not even feel like addressing. Hoorah... you win!

If the name is not a mystery, then Gowdy already knows it and is trying to bait Comey into saying what he is not allowed to say. I notice you cut the exchange short when it continues:

Ms. Bessee. If the agent is not at the SES level and above, you probably cannot state the name.
Mr. Gowdy. When you say "probably cannot," is that a legal prohibition, or is that an FBI policy prohibition?
Ms. Bessee. An FBI policy and a DOJ policy prohibition.
Mr. Gowdy. Does the FBI take the position that that's binding on Congress?
Ms. Bessee. Based on my direction from the FBI Director and from the Deputy Attorney General's Office, that is our direction. We can go back and ask the question if we can reveal the name.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, how about do that for me. For the meantime, we'll just refer to that person as FBI Agent 1.
​

I'm sorry you cannot understand how to truly appreciate how artful, and well formed of a response Comey articulates. He is ducking and dodging like a prise fighter. I do not know if Gowdy will expose his chin.​

 

[LostMarbels]

If they mean the exact same thing then why are you so upset that Comey used the word conspire rather than collude?

First Im not upset. I stated he is an artful and or skillful lawyer. He knows exactly how not to answer a question to keep from perjuring himself. James Comey knows his way around a courtroom. Maybe better than Gowdy. Even tho I do not believe him, I still enjoy how crafty his responses are.

To collude is a legal predicate as a term, but a synonym in non legal use.

This is very simple. You have to colluded, or make a plan, and discuss an unlawful or harmful act; in order to put that unlawful or harmful act into action by conspiracy. If you cannot prove collusion there is no conspiracy.

To put this into perspective, let's hypothetically say there is a conspiracy of some sort of attack. You detainee 4 individuals 2 of which are caught in the act and there is no question of whether or not they will be charged. The third individual was thousands of miles away in another country when the incident occured, but you find communications and documentation directly concerning the attack addressed to the first 2. These communications and documents outline the funding and planning for the entire operation. Thusly, Mr 3 is implicated as a 'co-conspirator' since proof of collusion exists. The 4th man is a known colleague/friend of all 3 already charged. He was seen by a security camera talking to 1 and 2 at a mall food court just an hour before the attack occurs; right down the road from that mall. Mr 4 becomes a person of interest and is detained. The security footage is circumstantial. He was not found/saw at the scene, nor is there any forensics to indicate he was there. Lastly, there is no proof of collusion that indicates he was part of the conspiracy to conduct the attack. He walks.

Come on, if you're going to try and spin this, at least use some hyperbole.

Kidding aside, though, what facts back up these claims :

"an organisation he knew absolutely nothing about"
"law he didn't even understand"
"still knows nothing about how it works"

None. Absolutely bupkus.... It is a ludacris notion and my assertion if you care to read it and find out.

 

[DaisyDay]

Daisy? If the country was founded in 1776 how could you even misconstrue the date of 1525 to indicate the FBI or the DOJ???????

Oddly enough, I didn't. That was your answer to my question, which you quoted, "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?"

You can assume what you want. It's a ridiculous argument I do not even feel like addressing. Hoorah... you win!

Fine.

I'm sorry you cannot understand how to truly appreciate how artful, and well formed of a response Comey articulates. He is ducking and dodging like a prise fighter. I do not know if Gowdy will expose his chin.​

How many times has Comey testified? When they keep asking the same questions, the answers tend to become rote. I get it - you don't like him.

 

[KCfromNC]

First Im not upset. I stated he is an artful and or skillful lawyer. He knows exactly how not to answer a question to keep from perjuring himself. James Comey knows his way around a courtroom. Maybe better than Gowdy. Even tho I do not believe him, I still enjoy how crafty his responses are.

Any particular reason you don't believe him?

To collude is a legal predicate as a term, but a synonym in non legal use.

This is very simple. You have to colluded, or make a plan, and discuss an unlawful or harmful act; in order to put that unlawful or harmful act into action by conspiracy. If you cannot prove collusion there is no conspiracy.

To put this into perspective, let's hypothetically say there is a conspiracy of some sort of attack. You detainee 4 individuals 2 of which are caught in the act and there is no question of whether or not they will be charged. The third individual was thousands of miles away in another country when the incident occured, but you find communications and documentation directly concerning the attack addressed to the first 2. These communications and documents outline the funding and planning for the entire operation. Thusly, Mr 3 is implicated as a 'co-conspirator' since proof of collusion exists. The 4th man is a known colleague/friend of all 3 already charged. He was seen by a security camera talking to 1 and 2 at a mall food court just an hour before the attack occurs; right down the road from that mall. Mr 4 becomes a person of interest and is detained. The security footage is circumstantial. He was not found/saw at the scene, nor is there any forensics to indicate he was there. Lastly, there is no proof of collusion that indicates he was part of the conspiracy to conduct the attack. He walks.

That's great and all, but what does it have to do with your claims that Comey wasn't being truthful about something because he wasn't using your preferred terms for something?

None. Absolutely bupkus.... It is a ludacris notion and my assertion if you care to read it and find out.

I think the last thing we need is more assertions.