Comeys interview on Fox news; not good for him

I will give a summary when I am done, but here is my line by line on it as I am doing it.

First starting around 50 seconds


Discussing memo that said Hillary was innocent before he interviewed her.

Comey says that the reason for this was that he and his investigators were fairly certain after going through much of the evidence that Hillary did not commit a crime.

This is astonishing for two reasons.

First as comey will later admit in the video, he would have not let people like strzok or page, who handled key parts of this investigation, have been anywhere near the investigation if he knew of the bias shown in their texts messages. This means seeing as how he trusted their judgement but now is admitting had he known their bias he wouldn’t have let them on the case, he is basically admitting he took the word of people he should have not had on the case to determine Hillary was probably innocent.

Second, and the far more important point, comey admits that Hillary did enough that she would have committed a crime, however he justification for saying she didn’t was ultimately that she didn’t have “intent”. How could he months before Hillary was interviewed establish the fact that she had no intent? Surely asking her why she did what she did would be a necessary step before deciding what intent was.

This shows comey is lying here. Think about it, if you were him and months before you interview Hillary you are thinking “Man she did some really careless things here. Well if she intended to do them that’s it it’s a crime, if she didn’t then shes off the hook” wouldn’t you at that point wait until you question her on her motivations before you make bold claims you are pretty sure she is innocent? He says that had she lied about something in her interview, or admitted something about intent in it it could have changed his mind, but that is backwards.
What documents did he read that spoke to hillarys intent that made him sure she didn’t intend to remove classified info?

2:00 in the video

Baier asks about the fact that comey already knew Hillary has told lies or mistruths.

He doesn’t deny she lied, but says that he had an good idea she was innocent, and unless she lied to them he wouldn’t be a crime.

Ok that’s true. But if you know someone is lying publicly about this, why would you assume that they had no intent and were innocent until you at least interviewed them. It seems as if despite knowing Hillary did enough to commit the crime, and that she was lying about in in public, he assumed she was innocent months before interviewing her, which is ridiculous.

Also keep in mind by this point comey would have known that Hillarys team had destroyed subpoenaed evidence. So he knows she is lying about this in public, he knows she has destroyed evidence; yet he is going out of his way to know she has no intent despite this?

Now keep in mind, comey will later say in this interview that Trumps supposed lies mean he deserves worse being impeached, and made him want to keep notes and give them out. But with other liars like Hillary, he seemingly has not problem with, further showing his own bias against trump and for hillarys and others.

3:15
Baier brings up the legal standard for grossly negligent says nothing about intent.

Comey says grossly negligent is a kind of intent.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Clearly Hillary disregarded the the need for reasonable care; that is not in dispute. Now did she know there was foreseeable harm?

Well first all people with security clearances I believe must sign documents and be told about the dangers of keeping things on a state servers and dveices, so clearly she would be aware of forseeable harm. In addition, emails show her own team was warning her in 2011 the dangers of using her private server.

Justin Cooper, an aide to former President Bill Clinton, warned in 2011 about "overseas" use and other security issues concerning her emails and her personal BlackBerrys.

"All of your older messages will remain on the server. There is a way for me to move everything on to the new device, but the security whizzes have convinced me that this is a horrible thing to do because you also transfer any viruses, spyware and junk overseas providers hide on there," he told Hillary Clinton in an email dated June 6, 2011.

freebeacon.com...

So comey is clearly full of it. She was grossly negligent; as his original memo originally stated until strzok (who comey admits shouldn’t have been anywhere near the case) changed the wording.

3:55
Bret asks why comey allowed mills to sit in on hillarys interview.

Comey perhaps has a slip, because he says the FBI had already “scrubbed” her conduct and she was no longer a subject.

Boy didn’t they; they gave her immunity and smashed her devices with hammers!

His answer in nonsense! Why would investigators ever let someone who was such an important person in an investigation that they had to be given immunity set in with another subject? What was she given immunity from? There is no justification for this whatsoever.

4:30
Bret asks why no grand jury

Comey says it was run out of hq because he didn’t want leaks, well that is garbage. Look at the leaks against trump.

He says Hillary was not interviewed in front of a grand jury because he didn’t feel they needed one.

But keep in mind at this point comey already knew Hillary and company had destroyed subpoenaed evidence. So why all of this benefit of the doubt about assuming she was innocent, and no grand jury. The destruction of this evidence alone is a crime that should have been charged.

8:10
What is the crime that lead to investigation of Russia starting.

Comey says you open an investigation to see if americans are in cahoots with a foreign nation.

Well that didn’t answer the question at all. Which americans were accused, what was the first piece of evidnce that led to that investigation? Comey answers none of this.

He really blew it with the feigned ignorance about FusionGPS and Perkins-Coie.

And guess what else....

The FBI don't have any say in Grand Jury proceedings, the DOJ does.

He really outed himself tonight ✅

I wonder who put him up to this ?

🎁coming soon

Nothing about LL and "The Matter" either.

Boingg Boingg

📣

9:00 when did he learn dnc Hillary funded the dossier.

He has the nerve to say he still doesn’t know they did!

This is incredible! Now keep in mind he will later admit that this dossier played a part in getting a fisa warrant.

So he admits he had no idea who funded it, only that it was funded by trumps opponents. How asinine is it that evidence can be used by the head of the fbi and he cavalierly acts like he doesn’t know much about it, including who the source was in depth, or who funded it. The standard for using evidence to spy on americans should be much higher than that!

Then he goes on to say that the republicans funded it first, which bret correctly tells him is a lie. So this is comey admitting TO THIS DAY he doesn’t know who funded the dossier, despite him using it in part to spy on an ameircan citizen connected to a presidential campaign.

Now notice on the question about why did Comey basically keep the Hillary investigation in HQ he says they knew how important it was because it involved a presidential candidate so they wanted to be careful. But here, he is admitting that not only did he not take the time to learn about important details of a piece of evidence to spy on a presidential campaign, he is still wrong about its origins over a year later! This shows another example of the double standard between both of the fbis investigations, for Hillary they were extremely careful and meticulous, for trump cavalier and nonchalant.

Most importantly here. As comey admits later, the buck stops with him. As the head of the fbi, he should have been aware of the details of evidence he was using to request to spy on an American connected to a presidential campaign. The fact he didn’t know the details of steele who wrote the dossier, or even his name, is highly troubling if like the Grassley and nunes memos suggest that steele reputation was a large factor in the case the fbi put to the fisa court for accepting this evidence.

In other words, if the fbi told the court the fact that steele is so credible is an important factor to cinsider in believing hios dossier and granting a warrant, and comey didn’t even bother to really find out anything about steele, it is a disgusting abuse.

9:55

Bret asked if he told Obama who it was funded by or did comey want to know who funded it.

He says he knew it was funded y opponents of trump, which opponents didn’t matter to him.

This is ridiculous. It would be very important to know exactly who funded it and many more details if you are using it as evidence to spy on an American connected to trumps team.

10:40
Bret asks given that comey called the dossier unverified and salacious did he use it in the fisa warrant of page and lead with it.

Comey says that his recollection was that this isn’t the case, it was just a very small part and wasn’t critical.

Several problems with this.

First, as I will show a video later, Gowdy, who say the application, directly contradicts this and says that the dossier was what they led with, and was a major component. SO someone is lying, and it seems most likely to be comey.
Secondly, notice Comey doesn’t respond to bret asking him about saying the dossier was salacious and unverified. In fact, as comey has made it quite clear earlier, he didn’t think enough of the dossier to find out who wrote it (steele) and who paid for it. His strategy is to merely act like it wasn’t that important.

But even if it wasn’t important (which I believe the Grassley memo shows is a lie) why include evidence like this at all if it wasn’t necessary? He cant have it both ways.

Either it was important enough to get the warrant, and therefore comey should have done his duty (given he has admitted how serious these investigations involving candidates were) to know as much as he could about the dossier, or it was unimportant and should never have been included in such a serious matter.

a reply to: Grambler

I'm truly surprised Comey would go on Fox, he must be desperate for attention for his book.

Hopefully he makes a lot, he may need it for a good lawyer.

a reply to: Vector99

Fox = Fix

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Grambler

I'm truly surprised Comey would go on Fox, he must be desperate for attention for his book.

Hopefully he makes a lot, he may need it for a good lawyer.

He was far from "comfortable".

I think he has been forced.

Somebody's got him by the bobber line.

😎

11:20
Bret asks if comey only told trump about the salacious parts in his briefing on this.

Comey says that is the case.

Now think about this for a minute. Comey has said earlier in this interview that they had reason to believe that Carter Page, a one time member of the trump team, was a Russian stooge. Comey also would later admit to trump and publicly that trump was not under investigation.

This means that comey sincerely felt that page was a Russian spy, and yet instead of telling the president elect that they have a dossier that may show Page was a Russian spy, he leaves that out all together? If comey was really interested in keeping then country safe, why would he not tell trump this? This shows that Comey was more interested in playing politics than keeping the country safe.

12:30
Bret asks comey if he ever tried to find out who leaked the conversation he had with trump about the dossier.

This part is VERY IMPORTANT!

Comey says NO!!!

He says it was an unclassified public document.

First off, no it wasn’t. It was used in part to obtain a fisa warrant. We would later find out that the FBI basically fired steele, because they didn’t want him talking to the press about the allegations in the dossier. If comey is right here, the FBI would have never done that.

Secondly, that wasn’t the question! Bret asked if he tried to find out who leaked the details of his briefing with trump. Of course comey didn’t try to find out, because he didn’t care about leaks to make trump look bad, as we will see later.

Now see this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Comey admits it was clapper that told him to brieif trump on the pee allegations in the dossier. Comey admits he tells trump that cnn is looking for an excuse to run the story, implying he knew it would be bad for trump.

Then when comeys briefing is used four days later as the hook cnn needed to run the story, comey now says he had no interest in finding out who leaked about the briefing! This lends creedence to the theory in that thread that clapper told comey to brief trump so that that briefing could be leaked, and cnn (where clapper now works) could then run the story.

A normal head of the fbi would be furious that his private briefing were being leaked, and that they were used as the excuse to run the very unverified salacious story he warned the President may come out. But not comey, he had no interest in perusing the leaker.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Grambler

I'm truly surprised Comey would go on Fox, he must be desperate for attention for his book.

Hopefully he makes a lot, he may need it for a good lawyer.

It is not really surprising. Going on Fox means people who would say things like "You watch liberal media?!" get exposure to the fact that he put out a book.

Same reasons Right-wing pundits go on CNN and MSNBC when they have new books to push.

a reply to: Grambler

Excellent post Grambler! If I remember correctly, there is a litmus test for culpability. For regular civilians the litmus test would be a reasonable person... for a state actor the litmus test would be a reasonable state actor.

a reply to: Grambler


Comey isn't stupid, ideologically blind maybe, but not stupid.


There are functional adults living, working, who still believe Trump and anyone who voted for him is the devil and that Hillary is an angel come from the heavens to save the world.


*shrug*


You can lead a horse to water. . . . .

12:40
Bret asks comey if he informed president trump that steele had been fired by the fbi or who funded the dossier.

Comey says no and he didn’t know that at the time.

This is ridiculous! Again there were leaks galore to make trump look bad, and it seems comey had no intention of looking in to them. Now comey is claiming he did not know in January of 2017 that steele, whose researched he used in part to spy on an associate of trumps team, had been fired for lying to the fbi, and for leaking to the press.

Why wouldn’t comey know about this! How could he not know that one of his one sources for evidence was one of the leaks he should have been looking for, and lied to the fbi? Again, he admits earlier that the two investigations into Russia and Hillary were hugely important and had to be done right because of the fact they would effect an election. But he wasn’t even aware the fbi fired steele? This shows the grossest incompetence or flat out lying.

13:05
Bret asks if it is fair to say Obama knew more about theb investigation into Russia than trump.

Comey says that’s not the case at all.

Now wait a minute, comey admits to telling trump basically nothing at this point other than the pee allegations.

Yet there are reports of Obama telling world leaders that trump may be a stooge of Putin before Obama left office. SO either comey is lying and he was telling Obama more details, or someone on his team was; or Obama was maliciously making up lies about trump in an effort to hurt the future president of the country and the country itself.

Either way that is terrible.

a reply to: Grambler

I don't have time to post anything too long let alone get into an in depth conversation but this caught my eye:

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

"conscious and voluntary disregard...which is likely to cause" is essentially intent. You have to prove that the person was intentionally doing something that they knew would likely cause "grave injury or harm" for it to be gross negligence.

I'll try to catch the interview later. My wife bought the book and has been reading it the last two days so of course I had to watch the CNN town hall thing with Anderson Cooper who didn't go particularly easy on Comey.

People with profiles like this should probably abstain from doing interviews. Trump shoved his whole leg in his mouth on Fox and Friends this morning and they actually told him that they had to wrap things up to encourage him to shut up which was pretty sad.

The whole theory that Hillary didn't intend to brake the law is a little silly. Sandy Berger tried the same defense. That he unintentionaly removed and destroyed documents from the national archives. He was caught and prosecuted. Barely punished but prosecuted.

Also how could he possibly know her intent without asking her. Lol

14:20
What did comey leak to his friend richman.

He says he sent him a 2 page memo and asked him to release it to the media.

This counters stories written saying he released four memos to richman, but perhaps comey is telling the truth.

15:10
Bret asks did you leak other things to richman.

Comey laughs and says he doesn’t consider what he did a leak.

This is ridiculous. It was clearly a leak, and comey is being “weasly” (which he hates being called) by trying to argue semantics here

Bret pushes back by saying comey signed an agreement with the fbi saying that all communications must be cleared by the fbi before the can be released.

Comney says that this wasn’t a work product, which is clearly not true. Comey is describing a conversation he is having in his duty as head of the fbi. The statute Bret read clearly states that any info obtained by virtue of his employment. His conversation with trump was due to his status as head of the fbi. If comey is correct, then any fbi employee ever would be able to release any conversations they had about work (which his conversation with trump was about his investigations) and claim it ok because it was just a conversation.

Comey is wrong and violated his work agreement.

17:10
Bret asks at what point comey was made aware that some of the info was classified from his memo.

Comey plays it off as a few words in the memos were sensitive. That doesn’t answer the question though; clearly the fbi disagreed with comeys belief that these were conversations that he was welcome to give to anyone he pleased, even if it was just a few words. This shows that comey did in fact violate his work agreement because the fbi has classified some of his memos, proving he should have had to clear all of them with the fbi before he leaked them.

In addition, Comey writes at the beginning of his memos that he has classified them as secret (I Believe) but is open to the fbi telling him otherwise. This again shows that he is lying, and did initially know he couldn’t just release any memo because in his mind they were classified as secret.

SO this is proof of comey lying, and violating his work agreement.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

"conscious and voluntary disregard...which is likely to cause" is essentially intent. You have to prove that the person was intentionally doing something that they knew would likely cause "grave injury or harm" for it to be gross negligence.

I dont think so..

need to use reasonable care she needed to use reasonable care to ensure classified information didn't leave secure systems and wasn't disclosed to outside parties.

She knew the requirements, she knew that classified intel must remain on classified systems.

She knowingly, voluntarily and deliberately moved those classified information/s to insecure systems

She didn't expect it to be found out and she didn't expect it to be hacked.

If it does cause damage to people or institutions isn't the concern, its if she did it potentially resulting in that.

She's guilty and got off purely because she offered Loretta Lynch a position in her Administration

Loretta Lynch took the word of the ''team'' when they said dont prosecute.

The ''team'' was run by Mccabe and Comey

When it was realized Clinton wasnt going to win, Mccabe, Comey, Lynch and Obama colluded to get Trump impeached based on fake intelligence.

Comey used his contacts to leak the fake information, Mccabe and Lynch utilized Strzok to get the FISA warrant.

Obama looked the other way

...

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler


"conscious and voluntary disregard...which is likely to cause" is essentially intent. You have to prove that the person was intentionally doing something that they knew would likely cause "grave injury or harm" for it to be gross negligence.

Yes i covered this. Hillary knew the dangers of having a private server for two reasons.

One because she initially signed an agreement to only use government servers and devices because of the dangers of having unsecured classified data.

2 she was told by her tech guy through several emails the dangers of having a private device and server.

She knew she had the private stiff, she knew that she wasnt supposed to, and she knew that if her data got compromised it would be of grave injury or harm to the US.

Ifg this isnt the case, how could anyone ever be charged under this? Why was the guy that accidentally took files home charged; he did not even know he had the data, so certianly he didnt know there would be great harm caused.

How was Patreus charged? He could easily say he didnt know his taking of classified data would cause great harm.

The truth is these are crimes because they all are briefed on why having classified data off of government servers and devices could severely harm the country.

And lastly, are we really going to claim the someone who had a clearnce for as long as hillary did had NO IDEA that having classified info outside of government servers or devices could cause great harm?

Please.

She did it for convenience and because she didn't want to follow government rules so she could avoid the emails being part of the national archives. So Im supposed to believe that she didn't intend to hire and pay people to setup her own servers and give email adresses to her staff so they could subvert government rules and regulations. What was it an accident? How much more intent do you need? She had her own servers setup by company she paid. Which she then used to get around government regulations.

a reply to: Grambler

Thank-you for starting this thread with such a well-written, comprehensive post Grambler!

Is the saying, "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking laws", really a legal principle? If so, Hillary should be punished, regardless of her ignorance, or lack of intent.