It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


transcript of the 12-7-18 comey interview with redactions

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 09:05 PM
top of 60-62 near bottom

some levity in these answers as im sure as he said comeys wife is happy he did not kiss or hug

Mr. Comey. No, it does not.
Mr. Nadler. Are you aware of any, quote, "conflicted" people on the special counsel's team?
Mr. Comey. I am not.
Mr. Nadler. Do you agree with the characterization that the special counsel's investigation is a witch hunt?
Mr. Comey. I do not.
Mr. Nadler. What is your general impression of the individuals on the special counsel's team?
Mr. Comey. I know them by reputation, and it's an all - star team of people whose names I've known for years as great Federal prosecutors. Others are unknown to me. But I know the reputation and substance of the person leading them, the best. Although we're not friends, I admire Bob Mueller. He is more than people realize.

Mr. Nadler. Do you agree with the characterization that the special counsel's team is out of control and are not seeking the truth?
Mr. Comey. I don't have any reason to believe that's true.
Mr. Nadler. And how confident are you that the members of the special counsel team are conducting the investigation based solely on the facts and the law and not on their political affiliation?
Mr. Comey. I'v e seen no indication. Again, all I follow it through is the public media. I've seen no indication of that in the media. And, again, I also know the person who leads them and the kind of culture he creates, and it's one of integrity.
Mr. Nadler. Why do you think the President publicly attacks Robert Mueller and his investigators as frequently as he does? Is it to undermine public confidence in their findings or some other reason?
Mr. Comey. I don't know.
Mr. Nadler. Do you agree with the President's characterization that Robert Mueller is damaging the criminal justice system?
Mr. Comey. I do not.
Mr. Nadler. How would you characterize the special counsel investigation and its importance, not only to our national security, but as a means of restoring public confidence in our elections and law enforcement agencies?

Mr. Comey. Watching it from the outside, my judgment as an experienced prosecutor and investigator is it's been conducted with extraordinary speed, with extraordinary professionalism, and zero disclosure outside of public court 62 filings. It represents the way our criminal justice system is supposed to work in investigating, and I believe it's incredibly important to the rule of law in this country that the work be allowed to finish.

Mr. Nadler. Now, you may have answered this already, but one specific assertion is that you and Special Counsel Mueller are, quote, "best friends." On September 5th, President Trump brought up Special Counsel Mueller in an interview with The Daily Caller stating, quote: And he's Comey's best friend, and I could give you a hundred pictures of him and Comey hugging and kissing each other. You know he's Comey's best friend, close quote. Are you best friends with Robert Mueller?

Mr. Comey. I am not. I admire the heck out of the man, but I don't know his phone number, I've never been to his house, I don't know his children's names. I think I had a meal once alone with him in a restaurant. I like him. I am not a -- I'm an associate of his who admires him greatly. We're not friends in any social sense.

Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I will not ask whether you've ever hugged and kissed him.
Mr. Comey. A relief to my wife.

so heaps of praise for Muller and some funny jokes and questions about trump "interfering" w the investigation and they seem to be focusing on the angle of trump trying to shut it down/ stop the investigation . ha but is good to see some people have senses of humor still even if i dont align with them politically

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 09:12 PM
rest of 62-68 questions about comeys book are where we lead off with and more of distancing comey and Muller and their "friendship" but Comey says he would stake his life on Muller

Mr. Nadler. On page 88 of your book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies in Leadership, you recount a hospital scene during the Bush administration with then - FBI Director Robert Mueller. 63 In the first full paragraph you wrote, quote: Mueller and I were not particularly close and had never seen each other outside of work, but I knew Bob understood and respected our legal position and cared deeply about the rule of law. His whole life was about doing things the right way, close quote. How do you know Robert Mueller cares deeply about the rule of law and doing things the right way?

Mr. Comey. Well, from watching him work. I was his supervisor when I was deputy attorney general and he was the FBI director. But most importantly, through that incident, watching him be prepared to resign, to end his career, because he thought the Bush administratio n was doing things inconsistent with the law, and he wasn't going to be any part of it, wasn't going to have it. And that strength bolstered me during that difficult period but was just typical of the way he approached things.

Mr. Nadler. And he was at that point part of the Bush administration. Is that correct?

Mr. Comey. Correct. He was the FBI director.
Mr. Nadler. And how confident are you that he will do things the right way with respect to the special counsel investigation?
Mr. Comey. There are not many things I would bet my life on. I would bet my life that Bob Mueller will do things the right way, the way we would all want, whether we're Republicans or 64 Democrats, the way Americans should want.
Mr. Nadler. And is it fair to say that there are no facts that you know of to support the notion that Special Counsel Mueller is politically motivated or biased?
Mr. Comey. I don't know of any. I'm smiling at this moment because I can't imagine any, given the nature of that person and his life.
Mr. Nadler. And it's still accurate that you're not particularly close to Robert Mueller?
Mr. Comey. It is accurate.
Mr. Nadler. On October 17th, the FBI responded to a Freedom of Information Act request for, quote, "photographs of former FBI Director James Comey and Robert Mueller hugging and kissing each other," by saying "no responsive records were located." I assume you're not aware of any such photographs?
Mr. Comey. I'm not aware of any such photograph. I have never hugged or kissed the man. Again, I'm an admirer but not that kind of admirer.
Mr. Nadler. The FBI and the Department of Justice have been more broadly accused of conducting investigations driven by political bias instead of just by the facts and the rule of law. During your tenure at the FBI and the Department of Justice, were you aware of any FBI investigation motivated by political bias?
Mr. Comey. None. Never.
Mr. Nadler. Were you aware of any Justice Department investigations that were motivated by political bias?
Mr. Comey. Never. None.
Mr. Nadler. On May 22nd, Republican Members of Congress introduced House Resolution 907 requesting that the Attorney General appoint a second special counsel to investigate misconduct at the Department of Justice and the FBI. That resolution alleged, quote, "Whereas, there is an urgent need for the appointment of a second special counsel in light of evidence that raises critical concerns about decisions, activities, and inherent bias displayed at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding FISA abuse, how and why the Hillary Clinton email probe ended, and how and why the Donald Trump - Russia probe began," close quote. Is there any evidence of inherent bias displayed at the highest levels of the DOJ and the FBI regarding how and why the Hillary Clinton email probe ended? Mr. Comey. Not that I'm aware of. Mr. Nadler. Are you aware of any evidence of inherent bias displayed at the highest levels of the DOJ and the FBI a gainst Donald Trump as part of the Trump - Russia investigation?

Mr. Comey. I am not.
Mr. Nadler. Are you aware of any actions ever taken to damage the Trump campaign at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?
Mr. Comey. I am not.
Mr. Nadler. Are you aware of any actions ever taken to personally target Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?
Mr. Comey. I am not.
Mr. Nadler. And you have previously noted, I believe, that if Agent Strzok, who had expressed his personal political opinions negatively about then - candidate Trump, had wanted to misuse his office to damage the Trump campaign, he could easily have done so by leaking information about the fact that there was an ongoing investigation. Is that not correct?
Mr. Comey. Certainly, yes.
Mr. Nadler. And he could have done that, but he did not do that?
Mr. Comey. He did not.
Mr. Nadler. That would be evidence that he was not doing anything to bring his political opinions into making judgments at the FBI?
Mr. Comey. Certainly inconsistent with the conspiracy theory that he was trying to hurt Donald Trump. If you're going to have a conspiracy theory, you've got to explain all the facts. And it's hard to reconcile his not leaking that Trump associates were under investigation and his drafting of a letter to Congress on October 28th that Secretary Clinton believed hurt her chances of being elected.
Mr. Nadler. At a campaign rally in August, President Trump said, quote, "Our Justice Department and our FBI have to start doing their jobs and doing it right and doing it now because people are angry. People are angry," close quote. In another rally in September, the President said, quote, "Look what's being exposed at the Department of Justice and the FBI. You have some real bad ones. You see what's happening at the FBI. They're all gone. They're all gone. But there's a lingering stench and we're going to get rid of that too," close quote. Do you agree with the President's characterization that the Department of Justice and the FBI are not doing their jobs?
Mr. Comey. I do not.

so more questioning of trumps actions and statements and more praise for Muller and a few tidbits about the Muller investigation

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 09:14 PM

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
top of 60-62 near bottom

some levity in these answers as im sure as he said comeys wife is happy he did not kiss or hug

Mr. Nadler. Are you aware of any, quote, "conflicted" people on the special counsel's team?
Mr. Comey. I am not.

Yet Peter Strzok was initially on the Mueller Team and removed !!!!!!!

edit on Dec-08-2018 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 09:18 PM
mid 67-mid 69
i cut it off right before "evidence 1 is introduced as i felt it was a good stopping point for the snippit but they go full national security for why we must belive fbi isnt biased

Mr. Nadler. Do you believe there are some "real bad ones" at the FBI or DOJ?
Mr. Comey. I do not.
Mr. Nadler. Are you at all concerned that the President of the United States is trying to smear and undermine the credibility of his investigators at the Justice Department?

Mr. Comey. Deeply concerned. I think the part of that that's right is that people are angry. Some people are angry because they've been lied to for so long about the nature and quality of the FBI and the Department of Justice.
Mr. Nadler. I'm sorry. Lied to --

Mr. Comey. Lied to by the President and his supporters about the nature and quality of the Department of Justice and the FBI. It's shortsighted, and anybody who knows those organizations, knows it's not true.
Mr. Nadler. And what implications might there be under the Justice Department and the rule of law?

Mr. Comey. Those kind of lies hurt the ability of the FBI to be believed at a doorway or in a courtroom. That makes all of us less safe. These are honest institutions made up of normal flawed human beings, but people committed to doing things the right way. When they're lied about constantly, it hurts the faith and confidence of the American people in them, and that is bad for all of us. I don't care what your political stripe is.

Mr. Nadler. And how does that impact our national security?
Mr. Comey. Our national security turns upon the ability of an FBI agent to convince the girlfriend of a jihadi that we will protect her if she cooperates with us. If we're seen as a political group of one kind or another, an untrustworthy group, that trust is eroded and the agent loses the ability to make that case. If a jury doesn't believe an FBI agent when he or she says, I found this or I heard this in the course of this case, we're less safe because the case can't be made.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. And these are direct consequences of statements made, such as I've quoted, by the President and by other people who go along with him?
Mr. Comey. I believe they are.
Mr. Nadler. And what impact do you believe that actions of this Congress' resolutions, such as H.R. 907 that I quoted a few minutes ago, and investigations, frankly, such as this one, have on the ability of the Justice Department to conduct fair and thorough investigations and prosecutions?

Mr. Comey. To the extent it echoes the lies and the smears from the President, it simply increases the chances that the Department of Justice and the FBI's credibility will be undermined. I'm a big fan of oversight and truth - seeking, but when people veer from truth - seeking into trying to find any excuse to bad - mouth an organization that's investigating the President, we've lost our way.
Mr. Nadler. Would you be surprised to know that criminal defendants are using attacks similar to those levied by the President and Republicans?
Mr. Comey. No.

so comey seems to imply with Nadlers help that trump is undermining the credibility of the FBI but no real hummdingers here and they seem to be focusing on trump mostly as opposed to the Republicans questions about Lynch and Clinton's

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 09:19 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Does "I was not aware" count as one of those "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" counts that we saw earlier?

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 09:22 PM
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

LOL! Trump hasn't undermined the credibility of the FBI any more than Comey just did with this God awful testimony. This is another case of either severe CYA or complete incompetence.

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 09:28 PM
69-to top of 74

we finally get to clinton after a healthy dose of in my opinion "jihadis bad and using this against fbi" i hadnt heard about this so was kind of news to me i THINK i stopped just after the new democrat (jackson)started asking questions and this is the first evidence entered and bouns "lame duck republicans" broguht up by jackson lee

[Comey Exhibit No. 1 Was marked for identification.]

Mr. Nadler. And I want to introduce an exhibit. It's an article from the Huffington Post. The headline, Trump's FBI 70 Attacks Are Helping Accused Terrorists Defend Themselves in Court. This article details the defense of three alleged domestic terrorists in Kansas. They are anti - Muslim militia members accused of planning to bomb an apartment complex with predominantly Somali immigrant residents. Defense counsel argued the men were targeted by, quote, "a biased FBI conspired against them in the lead up to the 2016 election due to their political beliefs," close quote. What is your reaction to that?

Mr. Comey. Well, again, I don't know the particular case, but taking the news article at face value, it's an example of the kind of thing that I worry about. When corrosive attacks are directed at our institutions of justice, we will all pay a price for that.
Mr. Nadler. And, therefore, you'd believe that the current political rhetoric endorsed by the President and his allies, such as I've quoted, is potentially damaging t o law enforcement's ability to keep Americans safe?

Mr. Comey. I do. I'm not against criticizing law enforcement organizations or law enforcement leaders. I've been criticized, I think, reasonably. But when you attack the fiber of the institution and say it's corrupt and untrustworthy and aiming at political enemies, you do lasting damage to an institution this country relies upon, and everybody should 71 realize that's a mistake.

Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I have no further questions.

Ms. Jackson Lee. M s. Jackson Lee. Good morning, moving into good afternoon. Thank you for your presence here. I want to put on the record that Democrats never received a copy of the agreement. So I hope that, in short order, the majority will provide us with the agreement regarding the quashing of the subpoena.

Mr. Kelley. I will be more than happy to, and its merely an email correspondence.

Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate getting something in writing. Thank you so very much. Let me thank you, Mr. Comey, for your service to the Nation. I share your view that the American people would have been better served if the lame duck House Republican majority of this committee had scheduled a public hearing instead of a private interview behind closed doors to discuss matters that are vital to the health of our democracy. I fully expect that to be a standard practice for this committee in the 116th Congress under a new Democratic majority. So I have several questions, which I'd like to lay the predicate for. Dealing with the FBI investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, the investigation was an outgrowth of the House Republican Benghazi investigation. A sad investigation, which we now know, because it was confirmed by House Majority Leader McCarthy that it was for one purpose. It had at its principal aim was to undermine and damage the public image and standing of Secretary Hillary Clinton, whom House Republicans feared would be the 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee. You'll recall that House Republicans relentlessly questioned, second - guessed, and attacked her integrity and that of career FBI agents when you announced at your famous July 5th, 2016, press conference that the FBI concluded that there was no evidence to support a finding Secretary Clinton had violated the law. House Republicans bitterly criticized you and questioned the integrity and legitimacy of the investigation. For your part, you were confident enough in the determination reached by the FBI that you've stated under oath the case itself was not a clifhanger and that no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring such a case on these facts. House Republicans disagreed with you extensively. They wanted you to prosecute Secretary Clinton regardless of the facts. And from July 2016 through October 2016, Ho use Republicans engaged in an almost daily ritual of holding hearings, desperately trying to tear down your investigation and your recommendation. They did not stop attacking you until October 28th, the day you sent your letter to the congressional leaders announcing that, in an unrelated investigation, the FBI had learned of the existence of emails that appeared to be pertinent to an investigation of Secretary Clinton's email server. House Republicans promptly leaked your update, according to the media, characterizing your action as a decision by the FBI to reopen its investigation, even though the FBI had not at that time reviewed any of the emails in question and notwithstanding the fact that you advised them the FBI was not then in a position to assess whether or not this material may be significant. For the next 8 days, a period in which millions of Americans were casting their ballots during early voting, the baseless claims of House Republicans were repeated ad nauseam by them and candidate, Mr. Trump, dominating media coverage in the final days, and did not stop even after your announcement 2 days before the election on November 5th, 2016. That upon further review, that the FBI had again found no basis to believe that Secretary Clinton had committed a crime. Given this chronology and the benefit of hindsight, do you regret not following the Justice Department's policy and practice of refraining from taking investigatory or prosecutory actions that could affect the outcome of an election to be held within the ensuing 60 days of an election?

Mr. Comey. I don't. I regret being involved at all, but even in hindsight, I think that that was the decision I had to 74 take. And I don't want to quibble, but there's no policy around taking action in a runup to an election, but there's a really important norm that I believe in. If you can avoid it, you take no action in the runup to an election. It might have an impact on the election, I believe in that, even today.

so she comes out blaming republicans somewhat for hillarys loss over the investigation and kind of gives him greif over doing his report when it seems in her opinion it should not have occured

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 09:40 PM
mid 74- top of 78

she seems to be trying to throw him under the bus yet at same time give him an out in my opinion but she has been the most "hostile dem" so far to question him and implies that he interfeared with the election directly lol and implies that our elections are more important then others

Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I can't put words in your mouth, but you were, in essence, engaged or interfering or participating in an election of the known and documented leaders of the free world. I would consider the elections of the President of the United States in a world context as one of the most significant elections that we would ever have in the world. Again, would you not consider that maybe in that context that the timing was very difficult?

Mr. Comey. Oh, excruciating. Causes me great pain even to sit here and talk about it today, but the two alternatives I saw, I chose the least bad. I still think the other alternative was worse. And as between bad and worse, I had to choose bad. I wish we weren't involved, but given that we were involved, we tried to make the right decision for the right reasons.

Ms. Jackson Lee. You sent a letter dated October 28th, 2016, to indicate that there was a reopening of the investigation. I count the numbers of addressees as 16. Why would you need to send -- did you send this classified? Did you send this with an indication that this was not to be exposed to the media? Did you make the point or have your liaisons make the point to the Members of Congress that this should not have been exposed?

Mr. Comey. I don't know for sure. It wasn't classified. It was a private communication to the eight chairs and rankings of the committees that had received information from the FBI. And the Congressional Affairs staff of the FBI thought those were the people it ought to go to. It was not, as you said earlier, we didn't release anything to the public, but it wasn't classified.

Ms. Jackson Lee. But I think you can -- would you pretty well agree that 16 addressees is almost inevitably going to be released?
Mr. Comey. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you think that the FBI could have been more cautious, whether you did government affairs, 8 days out or how many days out before the election?

Mr. Comey. I don't know, is the honest answer. The staff that works Congressional Affairs thought we had to inform these eight committee chairs and rankings. And so I think about it the way you do, that raised the serious prospect it would be released to the public, and -- but that was a risk we thought we had to run.

Ms. Jackson Lee. Why did not Attorney General Lynch or Deputy Attorney General Yates not make the announcements of July 5th, October 28th, or November -- 2016? Were they consulted? Did they concur in your judgment?

Mr. Comey. Separate incidents. July 5th, I informed them that I was going to make an announcement, and so they weren't consulted on the substance of the announcement. The October 28th letter, I informed them the day before that I thought I had to inform Congress but would be happy to discuss it with them. And they said they didn't wish to discuss it with me. And so in the first instance, I don't think they had much opportunity to engage with me on it because I said I think I need to do this separately. In October, they did but chose not to take the chance -- take the opportunity.

Ms. Jackson Lee. Why wouldn't you yield to Deputy Attorney General Yates to make that announcement? Is that not the normal protocol in any structured law enforcement versus prosecutor from the low level -- let me not call local district attorneys low level - - but from the level of local government all the way up to the Federal Government, that the district attorney, the prosecutor, the attorney general, the attorney general of the State of whatever, makes the announcement regarding any prosecutorial stance?
Mr. Comey. Definitely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And then why was that not done here?
Mr. Comey. First of all, to agree with the first part of your question, yeah, the normal circumstances, the Attorney General would make that announcement with the FBI direct or --
Ms. Jackson Lee. Absolutely.

Mr. Comey. -- standing next to her. Absolutely. And so I had never even actually heard of a circumstance where the FBI made an announcement separate from the -- without coordinating it with the Attorney General. I thought we had to do that if the American people are going to have confidence that the result was apolitical. Now, it would have been great if Loretta Lynch had recused herself and made Sally Yates the acting attorney general. I think what I would have done in that circumstance is hand it to Sally, who did not have the issues that Loretta had -- I like them both -- but didn't have the issues that Loretta had with potential appearance of bias, but Loretta announced that she would not recuse herself. She would just accept my recommendation and that of the career prosecutors. And so I felt like I didn't have the option to hand it to Sally because Loretta had stayed in charge. That makes sense. And so I called each of them and said, I'm going to make an announcement this morning. I'm not going to coordinate it with you. I hope when you see it, you'll understand why. And the goal was to make sure the American people knew, this wasn't the Obama administration. This wasn't some political fix. There was no case there because apolitical professionals thought so.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me move on
so we get more context of the Lynch and some more semi hostility to Comey

ill be doing smaller snipets to limit the size of my posts which i hope is ok

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 09:54 PM
top of 78-top of 83 tail end of jacksons questions again focusing on "orange man bad" (sorry i had to) but we get some interesting answers about the timeline into trump investigation

Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me move on. It is true, is it not, that Secretary Clinton's campaign was not the subject of a Federal counterintelligence investigation by our Nation's law enforcement?
Mr . Comey. To my knowledge, it was not. You're saying the Clinton campaign?

Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
Mr. Comey. To my knowledge, it was not.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But the same is not true with respect to the Trump campaign, which was under investigation for colluding with a hostile foreign power to influence the outcome of the 2016 election?
Mr. Comey. The Trump campaign was not under investigation. The FBI, in late July, opened counterintelligence investigations of four Americans to see if they were working in any way with the Russians to influence our elections.

Ms. Jackson Lee. Those individuals were affiliated with the campaign? I believe they were in some form.
Mr. Comey. At least some of them were. The FBI and the Department of Justice have not confirmed the names of those folks publicly, which is why I'm not going into the specifics.
Ms. Jackson Lee. However, during the discovery of that investigation, which was comparable to an investigation of another candidate, that information was not announced or presented to the American people or asked of the Attorney General to make a statement based upon the facts that the FBI had. No announcement was made about that. Is that correct?

Mr. Comey. That's correct. And it was treated the way the Clinton investigation had been treated. We said nothing during the beginning of it. It wasn't until the following spring that we confirmed to Congress that there even was an investigation of any sort without naming the people. So the rule actually was consistently applied.

Ms. Jackson Lee. But you never ever came to the American people during the election to indicate that there were investigations of principals that may have been involved in the Trump campaign on any matter?

Mr. Comey. That's correct , because of our policies and approach to those investigations, all investigations.

Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me offer to say, I don't know if the American people could decipher between the distinction. What is left in the minds is you announced one, you didn't announce the other.

Mr. Comey. Yeah, I agree with that --
Ms. Jackson Lee. When you met with the President at the White House on January 27th, 2017, the meeting during which he asked you to let Flynn go, did the President know at the time that the FB I was investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 elections?

Mr. Comey. The meeting you're referring to was Valentine's Day, February 14th of 2017, not the 27th. And I don't know --

Ms. Jackson Lee. I stand corrected. Thank you.

Mr. Comey. I don't know what the President knew at that point.

Ms. Jackson Lee. What did you understand the President to be asking for when he requested that you let Flynn go? To stop investigating Michael Flynn's conduct or stopping investigating Russian interference of the 2016 election?

Mr. Comey. The first. As I've testified, I understood him to be directing me -- asking, but I took it as a direction -- to drop an investigation of Flynn's interaction with the FBI over his conversations with the Russians in the transition.

Ms. Jackson Lee. What was your impression of that request?

Mr. Comey. That it was improper and that I was not going to abide by it.

Ms. Jackson Lee. Were you silent at that time or did you indicate that to the President?
Mr. Comey. My re collection is he said something about Flynn being a good guy and that he hoped I would let it go. And I answered, "I agree he's a good guy," or words to that effect, but I didn't agree to his request. I actually just commented on part of what he had said .
Ms. Jackson Lee. And did you pursue responding back to him or was there silence after that? Meaning, did you engage subsequent to that of his point? Because, obviously, when the President of the United States speaks, and though you're in an independent agency, he might believe that work should begin on responding to his request.

Mr. Comey. I don't know what he believed. I never spoke to him about it again.

Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you feel a certain pressure?
Mr. Comey. I felt that he was asking me, directing me to drop a criminal investigation, which I thought was improper, so I went back, wrote a memo about it, briefed the leadership of the FBI so we could figure out what to do about it. [Comey Exhibit No. 2 Was marked for identification.]

Ms. Jackson Lee. This is my last question, and it requires an exhibit. Pages 68, 69 of the transcript from former FBI General Counsel James Baker. The question was: "You had said that the President's firing of Director Comey, you considered to be a th reat to national security. And my question was, in what way was it a threat to national security?" The answer was: "So the investigation at a high level was about Russia, period, full stop. And it was trying to assess, in this particular instance, what the Russians were doing or had done with respect to the 2016 Presidential election. We are trying to investigate what the Russians did and what any -- and whether there were any Americans or others who had done things in support of those efforts, either knowingly or unknowingly, so that we could understand the full nature and scope of what the Russians had attempted to do. And so to the extent that this action of firing Director Comey may have been caused by or was the result of a decision to shut down that investigation, which I thought was a legitimate investigation, then that would frustrate our ability to some degree to ascertain what the Russians as well as any other Americans or others had done in furtherance of the objectives of the Russian Federation. So not only -- I guess the point is not only would it be an issue about obstructing the investigation, but the obstruction itself would hurt our ability to figure out what the Russians had done and what is and what would be the threat to the national security. Our inability or our -- the inability or the delays, the difficulties that we might have with respect to trying to figure out what the Russians were doing, because our main objective was to thwart them." Director Comey, do you agree with Mr. Baker's assessment that President Trump's firing you was a threat to national security?

Mr. Comey. I don't know enough to say to the -- if it's true that the firing was designed to thwart the Russian investigation, then I would agree, understanding of what Russia was doing. But I don't know enough about the reasons -- what the real reasons were for the firing to give you a definitive answer.

so ambiguous answer to russian investigation and pretty clear answer about his firing which should end the he fired comey to mess with the investigation as he cant exactly prove intent unless trump is foolish enough to admit it

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 09:55 PM
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

You'll recall that House Republicans relentlessly questioned, second - guessed, and attacked her integrity and that of career FBI agents when you announced at your famous July 5th, 2016, press conference that the FBI concluded that there was no evidence to support a finding Secretary Clinton had violated the law.

No surprise that Sheila Jackson Lee has it wrong again. There was no question about whether or not Hillary Clinton "violated the law". She kept a personal server in an unauthorized and illegal location that had classified information on it. Just because Hillary claimed that she didn't know she was breaking the law or that she didn't "intend" to break the law, does not mean that she did not violate the law.

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 10:00 PM
mid 83-mid 84 as it ends jacksons questiong where she seems to be trying really hard to get comey to blame his firing on trump trying to compermise the investigation which he says he cant conculsively say

Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, Mr. Comey, didn't you write memos about the conversation? Wasn't it important enough to you as a law enforcement officer who deals with national security to solidify or to cement your memory in a memo?

Mr. Comey. Sure. Ms. Jackson Lee. So wouldn't that lead to a conclusion that this was really a dangerous posture to be in and it might jeopardize national security?

Mr. Comey. Sure, it might. I just can't answer the ultimate question as to whether it did because I don't know for certain what the motivation was in firing me.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In hindsight as well?

Mr. Comey. Well, I've heard President Trump say on television that he fired me because of the Russia thing. Ms. Jackson Lee. So with that in mind, would you say that was a threat to national security?
Mr. Comey. If that was the reason for the firing. But I've also heard him say other things at other times that that wasn't the reason, and so it's really not -- I'm not able to answer it because I can't see enough of the facts. I'm sure that's something the special counsel is examining.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you agree that y our firing could have threatened the ability of the FBI to learn what the Russians as well as any other Americans or others had done in the furtherance of the objectives of the Russian Federation?

Mr. Comey. Potentially.

Ms. Jackson Lee. In the past 18 months since that testimony, do you feel more certain that you were fired because of the Russian investigation? If so, why?
Mr. Comey. I'm still in the same place, that I've heard the President say that, but I've also heard him say different things. So I can't answer the question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is there any need to further investigate Hillary Clinton's emails based upon the decision that you made not to prosecute?
Mr. Comey. Not that I can possibly see.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You consider this case closed?
Mr. Comey. Yes. There's no serious person who thinks there's a prosecutable case there. And so, not that can I see.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield. Thank you.

but he does imply no need to further investigate Clinton so at least he threw her that bone from the dem perspective ,not exactly a fan of jackson so lol been kind of vague with my postings but meh on to the next democrat questions i hope my biais has not shined to brightly . but i dobut either side as entrenched as they each are has their opinions changed just yet

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 10:09 PM
mid 84-mid 89 cummings starts his questions with more russia questions about trump and comey asserting that infact russia did interfear which i dont think has been proven just yet? unless they were talking about the memes and fb pages

Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Director Comey, Elijah Cummings, the ranking member of the Oversight Committee. You've already testified to Congress about the Russia investigation a number of times. The last time was June 2017 during the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, so that was about 18 months ago. During your June 20 17 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, you stated, and I quote, "The Russia investigation itself is vital because of the threat, and I know I should have said this earlier, but it's obvious if any Americans were part of helping the Russians do that to us, that is a very big deal," end of quote. Director Comey, can you elaborate on what, quote, "the threat," unquote, is that makes the Russia investigation so vital?

Mr. Comey. The aim of the Russian effort in 2016 was to destabilize, under mine, damage our democracy. That was their overwhelming goal. And so you have a foreign nation that is attacking the United States of America in an effort to undermine that which is essentially us, our democratic process. So that's a very serious threat . And understanding whether any Americans were part of that effort is incredibly important because the threat of those Americans by virtue of their alliance with the Russians would pose to our country.

Mr. Cummings. Can you describe for us the magnitude of the national security threat the FBI was investigating?

Mr. Comey. Well, I don't know that I can say it better than I just said it. We saw, as did the rest of the intelligence community, in 2016, the Russians engaged in a widespread, sophisticated effort to undermine this democracy, to hurt one of the candidates, Secretary Clinton, and to help the other candidate, Donald Trump. Given the stakes of the election and the nature that we are a democracy, it is hard to imagine anything more important than understanding and thwarting that threat.

Mr. Cummings. If someone were to impede or prematurely halt the special counsel's Russia investigation, how severe would the implications be to our national security, in your opinion?
Mr. Comey. Well, in my opinion, it would undermine our national security by not holding accountable people who might have been involved in either the Russians or people who worked with them, first. And second, it would send an absolutely appalling message about the rule of law in this country of ours.

Mr. Cummings. And would there also be severe implications for our democracy and the rule of law?

Mr. Comey. Yes. The Russians' goal was for everyone in the world to have doubt about the nature and credibility of the American democracy, to dirty it up so it's not a shining city on the hill. So their attack had implications for that, the role of the American democratic experiment. And if someone were to order it stopped, the investigation into that, it would have a similar effect.
Mr. Cummings. You stated it was, quote, "obvious," end quote, that any Americans helping the Russians interfere with our election is a big deal. And I agree. Can I ask you to spell out in as basic terms as possible why that would be a very big dea l? I also think it is a big deal that the President's campaign chairman and his national security advisor both pleaded guilty to committing crimes. Michael Flynn and the President's national security advisor pleaded guilty to having lied to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian Government, about sanctions. So the national security advisory lied about his contacts with the foreign government over a national security issue. How serious of a national security risk is it to have the national security advisor lying about his contacts with a foreign government adversary to the FBI and the American people?

Mr. Comey. Mr. Cummings, I don't think I can answer the last part of that question because it touches on the work of the special counsel. I can answer the first part, which is, the reason it's a big deal is you have an adversary nation attacking America. If Americans in our country are assisting them, it's aiding and abetting the enemy in attacking our country. We take it seriously when people were helping German saboteurs infiltrate Long Island during World War II. We take it seriously when scientists are selling secrets to the Soviets about our nuclear capabilities. I take it just as seriously if there are Americans who were -- and I'm not saying that there were -- but if there were Americans who were assisting this attack on our democracy, it's of the same type, which is why I said it's so obvious.

Mr. Cummings. The President's national security advisor has access to our country's most closely held secrets. The Russians knew that, and they had talked to Flynn and what he talked about, and they knew that Flynn and others in the White House were lying about those communications. Does that create the concern that the national security advisor had been compromised by a foreign adversary?

Mr. Comey. I think I have to give you the same answer about the particular, that even though the man has pled guilty, it's still something I think is within the purview of the special counsel, so I ought not to be opining on it.

Mr. Cummings. All right. What is the risk to our country of having the person with access to our most closely held secrets be compromised or potentially compromised by a foreign adversary? And I'm not saying that you're concluding that it happened. I am just asking, what's the risk, if that were the case?

Mr. Comey. Thank you for that.
Mr. Cummings. You follow me?
Mr. Comey. Yeah, I follow you, and I'd like to take it to one more level of abstraction.
Mr. Cummings. Sure.
Mr. Comey. Not talk about any particular person. A big part of the FBI's counterintelligence work in the United States is trying to understand whether foreign adversaries have gained any leverage over anyone in a position to influence a policy of the United States Government or to reveal its secrets. And so it's at the heart of our counterintelligence work, because that's how the bad guys overseas hurt us. One of the ways is they co - opt people, recruit them, or coerce them into giving up information that's inconsistent with American interest. And so it's a critical issue without regard to the person.

so comey still not allowed to talk about it but i feel cummings is kind of trying to lead him and comey smartly not falling for it but still implying that he does belive they did seriously effect the election so dems get that i guess?

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 10:16 PM
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Ms. Jackson Lee. Is there any need to further investigate Hillary Clinton's emails based upon the decision that you made not to prosecute?
Mr. Comey. Not that I can possibly see.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You consider this case closed?
Mr. Comey. Yes. There's no serious person who thinks there's a prosecutable case there. And so, not that can I see.

Apparently, a federal district court judge doesn't see it the same way...

Specially, Lamberth ruled:

… the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.

Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:

… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?


At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 10:17 PM
mid 89-mid 92 right before a new questioner and the end of cummings questions with a nice thank you for your service to comey at the end but mostly about flyn and security clearence in this one

Mr. Cummings. Okay. When Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates learned of the significant national security risk, she went over and warned the White House counsel, who was Don McGahn. Proper protocol when the White House learned about that potential national security risk would have been for the White House to suspend General Flynn's access to classified information while they looked into the matter, but they didn't do that. So we've been told that General Flynn held his active clearance until he was fired by the White House about 18 days later. In your experience at the FBI, when the FBI learned that an individual who had an active security clearance might be a risk to our national security, did the FBI follow the standard procedure I described and suspend that individual's security clearance pending an investigation?

Mr. Comey. Well, obviously I can't comment on the particulars of the Flynn case.
M r. Cummings. Right.
Mr. Comey. But in general --
Mr. Cummings. Would that be -- no, you go ahead.
Mr. Comey. A normal response would be to suspend their clearance, but there may be operational reasons why you wouldn't do that. Say you have somebody inside the FBI you think might be a spy. You don't want to alert them to the fact that you're on to them. Suspending their clearance might alert them that you're on to them. So you might instead just try to put them in a bit of a box and restrict the information there without them knowing.

Mr. Cummings. Assuming -- so the question then becomes, in your opinion, why would a suspension of a clearance be significant there, assuming you don't have that history that you just stated?
Mr. Comey. Well, if w e had someone in the FBI that we thought might be working for a foreign power, you want to stop the damage. And so that's why the normal practice, absent operational concerns, would be to stop the damage by cutting off their access to information that the y might give to the adversary.
Mr. Cummings. Just a few more questions. You have decades of dedicated service to our country and have served in senior roles at the Department of Justice and as the head of the FBI, and so I want to get your views about national security. Do you think that President Trump's actions pose a treat to our national security? Can you explain?

Mr. Comey. Well, I think -- maybe the best answer I can give is, I think the relentless attacks on the institutions of justice are something we will all be sorry we stood silent, if we stood silent and watched that happened. Because those institutions, the Justice Department and the FBI, and the rest of the intelligence community, are essential to our national security, that they are credited and believed, which they should be. And when you run them down for political reasons, you may see a short - term gain; you see a long - term damage to our country and its security.

Mr. Cummings. Where do we go from here, Mr. Comey, and how do we rebuild after the attacks on our democratic institutions and the constant breaching of our ethical norms?

Mr. Comey. Well, our consolation should be the depth and strength of America's values. The FBI will be fine. It will snap back, as will the rest of our institutions. There will be short - term damage, which worries me a great deal, but in the long run, no politician, no president can, in a lasting way, damage those institutions, because their values are too strong. The American military, the intelligence community, the lawenforcement community, it would take generations to screw them up in a permanent way. So we're going to be okay. What falls to all of us is to speak up so that we reduce the damage in the short run and don't become numb to something that, frankly, we should all be ashamed of. And I think a whole lot of people will be ashamed of some day that they stood silent while this happened.

Mr. Cummings. Well, thank you for your service, sir.

so more of attacks on our institutions and whatnot which im sure each political side views differently then the other but mostly comey saying they will weather the storm so to speak and they seem to be patting each other on the back over general FLYNN

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 10:19 PM
a reply to: Deetermined

yeah Judical watch has a vastly different opinion on the matter then rep jackson. almost to the aproximate halfway point

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 10:25 PM

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Deetermined

yeah Judical watch has a vastly different opinion on the matter then rep jackson. almost to the aproximate halfway point

We're not talking about Judicial Watch's opinion. The information I posted was quoted from Federal District Court Judge Lamberth himself. It was printed on Judicial Watch's website.

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 10:27 PM
mid page 92-mid95 and is gomez from ca questioning him now and seems to focus on the new prospect for attorney general burr which seemed somewhat odd to me but what ever its their hearing and then ties it to a potential renewed clinton investigation

Mr. Gomez. Thank you. Mr. Comey, Congressman Jimmy Gomez from California. A few questions. There have been a lot of discussion about bias here. I wanted to bring up the potential nominee for the next Attorney General of the United States, Bill Barr. Bill Barr has stated that he sees more reason for the Department of Justice to investigate Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State than investigate conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Do you think this is a useful and reasonable allocation of DOJ or FBI resources?

Mr. Comey. I don't. So it's hard for me to react, Congressman, to a statement. I don't know what he meant by that or what the full context was. Unless there are facts that I didn't see when I was Director of the FBI, I don't see a basis for continued investigation on the email front. I don't know what he -- I can't imagine he saw something as a private citizen, so I don't know what to think of that. And I think very highly of him. I mean, I used to work for him. I probably know him better than I know Bob Mueller. I probably just damned him by saying he's a friend of mine, but I respect him. I just don't know what he meant by that.

Mr. Gomez. Do you think Bill Barr may be acting out of political motivation when suggesting a new Clinton probe? Mr. Comey. I don't know. Mr. Gomez. Bill Barr supported Trump during the campaign. And then during the campaign, he also publicly supported your decision to disclose the Clinton investigation had been reopened. Later, however, he supported President Trump's decision to fire you on the basis that you, quote/unquote, sandbagged the Department of Justice with your unilateral action on the Clinton probe. Do you think that Bill Barr is fit to oversee the FBI and the special counsel investigation in a nonpartisan manner if he were to return to serve as Attorney General?

Mr. Comey. I think he's certainly fit to be Attorney General. As I said, I think very highly of him. Whether he should be involved in those particular cases or not is a question I can't answer. I' m sure he'll reflect on it carefully, he's a very smart guy, and get expert advice on it. I just can't answer it without knowing more.

Mr. Gomez. What factors would he take into consideration if he were to be involved in overseeing the special counsel 94 investigation?
Mr. Comey. Well, most importantly you want to consider, any time you are a leader of an institution of justice, whether there's a reasonable appearance that you lack the impartiality necessary to be involved in a particular case. And so you'd want to look at prior statements, prior engagement in litigation, those kinds of things to see whether reasonable folks could have a doubt about whether you are calling it as you see it or on one team or the other. And given the things you just laid out, it raises a question with respect to him, so I'm sure he's going to want to look at it, as will the Senate, very closely.

Mr. Gomez. What do you think may be the factors that led President Trump to nominate or will nominate Bill Barr as Attorney General?

Mr. Comey. I don't know. I know Bill for years and his record as a lawyer and as the Attorney General, and I think they're impressive. But I don't know what the President was thinking.

Mr. Gomez. I do believe that Congress has a role in the oversight of the executive branch. My concern is what are the lines of that oversight. What factors could you take into account that oversight leads to interference with an ongoing investigation? Or is there anything in your mind that would be off limits?

Mr. Comey. Well, hard to answer in the abstract. I mean, 95 I can say this: I'm a big fan of oversight. My staff used to think I was kidding when I said I want to come here and answer every question when I was Director of the FBI. I think it's important that this branch of government exercise its power. I think one of the really bad things about the drift of American history, in my lifetime, is this organization, this institution has given up a lot of its power. And so I like the idea of oversight. That said, investigations have to be done with a Lady Justice with a blindfold on, and so you really can't have oversight by a political branch of ongoing investigations and still credibly claim that the Lady Justice is wearing the blindfold. So what I would suggest is you do oversight after investigations are completed to see if the institution was acting in an appropriate way. As I said, when I moved to quash the subpoena, I support oversight of the executive branch. I just have concerns about interference with ongoing investigations, and when oversight moves from seeking truth to seeking something else, it concerns me.

so comey a fan of Burr but still questioning the lack of power the fbi has compared to the past which if memory serves me probably has a lot to do with J Edgar hoovers shenanigans more then anything else

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 10:34 PM
When the authors of future books write about how Clinton got away with it all (espionage), and then those books are turned into movies, I suspect this exact meeting will be the "kaiser soze" final scene, exposing the truth.

On a side note, I can't believe how far Matt Drudge had turned on Trump. In the early campaign and well into 2017, he was running headlines like this all the time. What has changed over there?

edit on 8-12-2018 by Tempter because: *sp

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 10:34 PM
mid 95-bottom of 97 and starts off with more hillary investigation being made public questions they seem to enjoy grilling him on this ,but they go "off reccord for first time at end of my post" so not sure if we get everything on these topics as they ran out of time apparently

Mr. Gomez. Some of the questions that have been brought up to me from my constituents relate to the decision to reveal the Hillary Clinton investigation 11 days before an election but not regarding the individuals that were being investigated in regards to any potential conspiracy with the Trump administration or the Russian Government. Can you get into that a little bit? I know you did earlier, but there is still -- you're getting shots from both sides of the aisle and on some of the decisionmaking. And my constituents are really interested in that response.

Mr. Comey. Yes. It's a reasonable question, yes. Everybody seems to think I 'm on somebody else's side, but the treatment of the two cases illustrates the rule. In the Clinton investigation, we didn't say anything about that investigation for a year, except simply 3 months in to confirm that we had an investigation. And that was an investigation that began publicly, with a public referral. So the whole world knew we had it. We formally confirmed it after investigating for 3 months, then we said nothing until it was done. That's the way we treated the Russian counterintelligence investigations. We opened them in late July, didn't know whether we had anything. In fact, when I was fired as director, I still didn't know whether there was anything to it. And so we would never consider making a statement about classified investigations that were just beginning. The problem in late October was we -- me and Loretta Lynch -- had told the world, "We're done with the Clinton email investigation. Move on." And I got hammered in this room by Republicans, and in many other rooms. And I stood my ground and said, "No, there's no there, there. Move on." On October 27th, I learned that that was no longer true. And I had my team telling me, not only is it no longer true, but the result may change from our review of these hundreds of thousands of emails, and we can't finish it before the election. And so what do I do? Do I stay silent and leave the Congress and the American people relying on something I now know is a lie or do I speak? And those are two really bad options. And my choice was to take the least bad. Tell Congress what I told you repeatedly is no longer true and try to make sure it's, "we don't know," "we're not sure," but to speak. Because to conceal would be to destroy the FBI and the Department of Justice. Forget Hillary Clinton's Presidency, although that would be severely damaged if she became President on that basis. I made the judgement that the Department of Justice and the FBI will be ruined if I concealed a lie from this Congress. Reasonable people can disagree about that, but it illustrates that we treated the two consistently. And what trapped us in October was we had told everybody it was over in the summertime.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you. Ms. Sachsman Grooms. We're out of time. We'll go off the record

so more rehashing what we kind of allready knew but another break and approaching page 100 finally lol so just about to half way mark but hope every one is still with me on this even if its somewhat a tedious process and hope i dont get flagged for spamming or whatnot as that is not my intent

posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 10:39 PM
It's over, it's all out in the open now. Comey admitted that the FISA was not fully verified. But since he wasn't under oath, there will be no ramifications. They got away with it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in