December 8, 2018


... transcript.


chickelit said...

Come again?

stever said...

He won't talk, just running the clock out

Mary Beth (the commenter) said...

TL;DR summary - I don't know, I don't remember.

john said...

I'm going to read the whole thing. Questions go from pages 11 to 234.

narciso said...

his lips are moving, it ignore that halper was paid a million dollars, from dia funds, that mifsud was an asset of british Saudi and Italian intelligence,

Jersey Fled said...

Sounds like someone trying to avoid perjuing himself. Some of the stuff he "didn't know" or "couldn't remember" seem to be things that are pretty well established by other's testimony and other evidence.

Mary Beth (the commenter) said...

He dosn't know who started the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Also, he said that Trump saying that Flynn made a mistake and didn't have criminal intent is possibly obstruction but Obama saying Clinton made a mistake with her server and didn't have criminal intent was just fine.

Spiros said...

Mr. Comey continues to deny surveilling or "wire-tapping" the Trump campaign and/or Trump tower. But there is absolutely no doubt that Carter Page and Paul Manafort (and, perhaps, as many as seven other Trump associates!) were surveilled before and after the 2016 campaign using FISA wiretaps. And, in a May 23, 2018 tweet, Mr. Comey even defended the use of a mole in the Trump campaign because "[t]he FBI’s use of Confidential Human Sources (the actual term) is tightly regulated and essential to protecting the country." So why is there no wiggle room in Mr. Comey's continued denials?

Valerie Jarret's husband has stated that the "FBI become America's secret police." Maybe he's right.

Darrell said...

How about a 286-count indictment before the end of the month?

rcocean said...

Read the Transcript.

Comey doesn't know who Bruce Ohr was. Doesn't know if he'd approve of his conduct, assuming he knew who Ohr was.

Doesn't know what "Conduct" is. Doesn't know how to answer the question, since its so complex and nuanced.

Who knows what "is" is. Can you clarify that Senator.

What a Joke Comey is.

rcocean said...

As someone else wrote, Comey remembered just enough to write a book, and then forgot everything else.

Trump should've fired this clown on Day 1.

David Begley said...

“Mr. Comey. The appearance of bias is as important. I don't know exactly what the word "insidious" means, so I'm not saying that one. “

A law school grad shouldn’t need the OED to know what “insidious” means.

What a worm.

chickelit said...

pp 227-228:

Mr. Comey. Yep. I believed it then, I believe it now. And anybody that thinks we were on team Clinton trying to cut her a break is smoking something.

Smoking a gun??

Narayanan said...

Did I read right that he was accompanied by FBI lawyers i.e. handlers ?
Don't we need to know their names?
Asking for all Americans.

narciso said...

of course he couldn't replace comey, until after sessions had been seated (that's why they leaked the communications with kislyak,) after yates had been replaced twice, but they had their inside man in Rosenstein,

Darrell said...

Drop Comey out of a helicopter right onto Mueller.
That's the ending Hollywood needs for this story.

David Begley said...

The Hillary investigation was classic point shaving and that’s obstruction of justice when the FBI does it.

Rob said...

When Comey was making the rounds of talk shows, flogging his book, I believe he actually harbored the delusion the Democrats might nominate him to run against Trump in 2020. He was pitching his "ethical leadership" like a latter-day Ron Popeil. And to think that this horse's ass was running the FBI.

Wince said...

Chairman Goodlatte: Witnesses who knowingly provide false testimony could be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or for making false statements. Do you understand this?

Mr. Comey: Yes, I do.

Comey was warned. And wan't the a taxpayer-paid FBI lawyer at his side?

Now, I was wondering, in all the cases of those charged by Mueller with lying, did his team have to issues some kind of "Miranda warning" prior to the alleged false statement?

You'd think if evidence of a crime can be excluded because of a failure to warn a suspect, you'd also think that a person speaking to federal law enforcement would also have to be warned that any false statement could be used against him in a court of law.

Evidently not.

Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency. United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.

Even in our age of ever expanding federal power, the breadth of this statute (and the discretion it lodges in prosecutors) is awesome. Congress has regulated so many areas of our lives and federalized so many functions that the reach of Section 1001 is virtually boundless. This is what caused many federal courts to create an "exculpatory no" doctrine, holding that falsely answering "no" to an inquiry from a federal agent was, standing alone, not a crime under Section 1001. In 1998, however, the United States Supreme Court rejected this doctrine (as being inconsistent with legislative intent) in Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398, 805 (1998). Thus, the only avenue for reform with respect to Section 1001 is in Congress, where politicians seldom get brownie points for narrowing the reach of federal criminal statutes.

LYNNDH said...

And the Left wonders why so many on the right are angry. We know absolutely nothing will happen to any of BO' and Hillary's people and the FBI and other "Intelligence" people. We will never have the truth from these people. I wish we could waterboard them.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...


Blogger Bill, Republic of Texas said...
Is tonight's theme emasculated males?

12/8/18, 5:41 PM

Hah! I was right.

Amadeus 48 said...

The one man wrecking crew in action.

Mike Sylwester said...

One thing is for sure.

Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller will not indict his BFF "Crazy Comey the Leaker" for leaking classified documents -- even though Comey has testified publicly that he leaked classified documents.

Henry said...


gilbar said...

Former FBI Director James Comey claimed “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” in response to dozens of questions concerning key details in the Russia probe,

Just like his buddy, Hilary Clinton. I wonder what would happen to ME, if the FBI investigated me, and i told them 'i don't know' who my subordinates were; or what they were doing?

JayDee77 said...

Admitted dossier never verified by time he was fired in May 2017.

Where are the arrests?

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

"pay no attention to that 6'-8" man behind the curtain"

pacwest said...

Comey owes his career and his wealth to the Clintons. He was obviously protecting her during the email investigation. Trump getting elected was a big oops for him.

David Begley said...

And Matt Gaetz is an idiot. Not serious.

JackWayne said...

One thing is clear to me - Congress makes the laws that control all of this. It is in their best interests to make law that allows the government to avoid responsibility for those actions. Comey makes it clear that plausible deniability is the true purpose of the law: for government it means they can slaughter 80 people at Waco and walk away; for a crook likes Clinton, she gets to walk away and run for President. What can’t go on, won’t go on. The Ruling Class is so drunk on their power, they have lost touch with reality.

cronus titan said...

After reading the transcript, Comey's testimony can be summarized:

I don't know nuthin' 'bout nobody. Don't be askin' me no questions 'bout nuthin' nobody knows. Capisce?

What a narcissistic weasel.

Guildofcannonballs said...

I ain't raping s cause

Guildofcannonballs said...

This is a link showing why we will genocide all but us America.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Laws do not apply to the eternally corrupt Clintons. Media LOVE the eternally corrupt Clintons. Esp. Andrew Mitchell.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

oops Andrea Mitchell.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Ultimately the democrat voters have destroyed America. Clintons are merely the vessels.

FIDO said...

Comey does not know what the words 'insidious' or 'collusion' means.


chickelit said...

The Ruling Class is so drunk on their power, they have lost touch with reality.

Suppose Trump keeps trying to root them out; they'll take the whole government down with them. On the other hand, when the Dems start doing their infestigations, the Deep State will more than oblige. I'm thinking of getting a blaze orange safety vest.

Orange in OC

narciso said...

Yes we know from the church committee how that worked, then followed the Rockefeller commission agees KGB unmasking slipped in between.

William said...

Sorry, but i have better things to do with whatever time I have left on this earth to parse ONE word of what that arrogant lying sack of sh_t has to say. When I was a kid, growing up in rural Virginia, Comey was the kind of person that we’d simply beat the crap out of behind the barn. As my grandmother used to say, he ain’t worth killing.

bagoh20 said...

The top guy at the FBI didn't know anything about what was going on. Shouldn't he refund his paychecks? The only reason people ever admit to knowing nothing about their jobs is when what they should know and likely do know is more seriously damning. Just think about it. Why would you ever say you didn't know what was going on right under your nose and at the center of your responsibilities? It's a pretty self-damaging admission.

AllenS said...

Waterboard the mother fucker.

FIDO said...

I am not dinging Comey for being ignorant of obscure terms. But 'insidious' and 'collusion' are NOT particularly obscure terms.

But somehow, the decision to SPY on an American Presidential Campaign was such a low key and unimportant decision that it was made many rungs below Comey's own lofty level. Perhaps they should question the mail boy to see if he made the final decision.

But one area that should have been questioned was 'well, if not you, WHO made that decision?" Because if they want to get to the bottom of the pot, they need to ask whomever.

But it defies credibility that some apparatchik in the FBI would take it upon him or herself to spy on Trump without making it fully clear that they had Comey's blessing.

From the tone of what was asked, it SOUNDS like these Congressmen know a hell of a lot more than they are letting on and getting Comey wrapped up in a perjury trap. "I never saw the texts", "I never saw that memo", "I never knew what questions they would ask".

If they can prove even one of these statements is false, they got him in the same nut vice that Manafort has his in.

Mark said...

Comey seems to be claiming he's a highly functional idiot.

Unfortunately while I don't believe his statements I can't argue against his greater thesis.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

“Woods procedures”-- DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application.
Uh huh.
He didn't know who started the counter intelligence investigation about Russia.
He didn't know what the evidence was for that counter intel investigation.
He didn't know who Christopher Steele was.
He didnt verify the Woods procedure was followed for the FISA applications as dictated.
Sure. Why bother?
he's going for the "I'm stupid" defense b/c if he admits truth he will have to explain why he collaborated w/ dozen or more people to use full force of the Govt to go after a presidential candidate in an attempt to destroy his candidacy & rig the election

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

when the DerpStateDems are on the hot seat, will perrrrrjurrrry still be a serious thing?

walter said...

bagoh20 said... Why would you ever say you didn't know what was going on right under your nose and at the center of your responsibilities? It's a pretty self-damaging admission.
I believe his schtick is something along the lines of it being crazy times.
He's schticking it to America.

Yancey Ward said...

Pretty much every single "I don't recall" and "I don't know" is likely an outright lie. The question is whether not they can be proven. Comey apparently believes his lies can't be proven. What is most appalling to me, though, is that no one who matters will try to prove it.

Molly said...


Remind Comey of the old "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" standard. If he didn't know this stuff, he should be charged with reckless disregard.

Also, no pension--he didn't do his job because clearly he was not on top of anything, right, Jim?

readering said...

Why does Althouse attract this class of commenters?

Blogging said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Humperdink said...

"Why does Althouse attract this class of commenters?"

With you being a regular attendee of the aforementioned class, maybe you could enlighten us.

tim in vermont said...

Didn't get mad enough to elect Trump in time, now we have a real mess. Imagine had we elected the Clintons though, it would be the boot on our neck forever.

rhhardin said...

"People who speak freely and are not worried about what they say in terms of how other people interpret it almost always look like terrible people." Scott Adams Dec 8 periscope

Molly said...

Why isn't the headline on this: "Comey reveals that Obama administration investigated political opponents during 2016 presidential campaign"?

Kevin said...

Comey's reputation relies on the Clinton investigation staying closed.

Noting is going to shake his faith that everything was done properly and there is nothing to see here, no matter what he "didn't know" while it was going on.

Kevin said...

He dosn't know who started the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall who drafted the FBI's initiation document for that late July 2016 Russia investigation?

Mr. Comey. I do not.

Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?

Mr. Comey. I don't know one way or the other.

Mr. Gowdy. Do you know who approved that draft of an initial plan for the Russia investigation in late July 2016?

Mr. Comey. I don't.

Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?

Mr. Comey. That Peter Strzok approved? I don't know one way or the other.

Mr. Gowdy. Drafted and approved it.

Mr. Comey. I don't know one way or the other.

Mr. Gowdy. Have you read that initiation document?

Mr. Comey. I don't think so. I don't remember ever seeing it.

Mr. Comey. Do you recall seeing the phrase "Trump campaign" in that initiation document?

Mr. Comey. Well, I don't remember seeing it, ever seeing it, so certainly don't remember any portion of it, because I don't remember ever seeing it.

Mr. Gowdy. If it said Trump campaign, do you still have the same answer you had when I asked you whether or not it involved the Trump campaign?

Mr. Comey. That's a question, Mr. Gowdy, I can't answer without having seen the document. So I'd be speculating about a document I don't think I've ever seen.

Mr. Gowdy. Well, I want to be fair to you and make sure I understand your testimony. You have not, did not read the FBI initiation document that launched the Russia investigation, or you read it and do not recall what it said?

Mr. Comey. I don't remember ever seeing it.

Kevin said...

Mr. Comey. I didn't see it as -- through the lens of obstruction of justice. I saw it as threatening our ability to credibly complete the investigation.

Mr. Gowdy. In what way?

Mr. Comey. The President of the United States offering a view on a matter or a case that's under investigation, when that President is of the same party as the subject of the investigation and working for her election, would tend to cast doubt in reasonable people's minds about whether the investigation had been conducted and completed fairly, competently, and

Mr. Gowdy. So, if it doesn't rise to the level of obstruction, how would you characterize the Chief Executive saying that the target of an investigation that was ongoing simply made a mistake and lacked the requisite criminal intent?

Mr. Comey. It would concern me. It concerns me whenever the Chief Executive comments on pending criminal investigations, something we see a lot today, which is why it concerned me when President Obama did it.

Mr. Gowdy. Well, it concerns me too, Director Comey. I'm also concerned that people treat similarly situated people the same. And did you make a memo after President Obama said she made a mistake and lacked the requisite criminal intent?

Mr. Comey. He said that on FOX News.

Mr. Gowdy. Right.

Mr. Comey. I did not make a memo about the FOX News broadcast.

Mr. Gowdy. Did you have a meeting with your investigative team to make sure that they were not in any way impacted by what he said?

Mr. Comey. No.

narciso said...

Much a do about nothing:

Kevin said...

Mr. Gowdy. Well, how about do that for me. For the meantime, we'll just refer to that person as FBI Agent 1. Director Comey, after the Clinton interview on July 2nd, if memory serves, 2016, FBI Agent 1 wrote: "I'm done interviewing the President," dash, and then typed 302.

Another FBI employee responded: You interviewed the President, question mark. And FBI Agent 1 wrote back: You know, HRC.

A couple days later, you were before Congress, and you said, among other things, "The decision was made and the recommendation was made the way you would want it to be, by people who didn't give a hoot about politics."

Now, Representative Ratcliffe is going to go into how that decision was made. My question to you is, had you known about these texts, would you have kept Peter Strzok and Lisa Page on the Espionage Act/mishandling of classified information case?

Mr. Comey. In your question, Mr. Gowdy, you talked about texts that I'm not aware of that involve an agent other than Peter Strzok or FBI employee other than Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, so I can't answer that part of it. To the extent you're asking about communications of Page and Strzok, if I had known about those things that they were communicating that I've seen in open source, I would not have had them stay on the -- playing any role in connection with that investigation.

Mr. Gowdy. Would you have fired them?

Mr. Comey. That I can't answer in the abstract. I'd certainly want the FBI disciplinary process to work and to look at it, to decide whether discipline was appropriate and what that would be. But I can't answer the ultimate question.

Mr. Gowdy. But if I understood your answer to the first part of that correct, you would not have allowed them to remain on the Clinton investigation had you been aware of those texts.

Mr. Comey. My judgment would have been -- and based -- the challenge for me is I haven't read all the texts, but based on what I saw -- have seen in the media since I left the FBI, that unless there was some explanation for that that I was missing, in my judgment, they wouldn't have remained part of the investigation.

Mr. Gowdy. Well, I don't want you to answer that question in the abstract. Peter Strzok did offer a justification. He said that he was not biased for Clinton or against Trump. Not that his bias didn't impact his work, he got around to that later. He just said he wasn't biased.

So, if you had brought him in and he had said, "Oh, but, Director Comey, I know I said he was a loathsome human being and I know I said that she should win 100 million to zero, but that doesn't mean I can't do my job," because that is certainly what he told my Democrat colleagues, which they bought, so my question is, would you have bought that? Would you have left him on the investigation had you known about these texts?

Mr. Comey. I would have certainly been open to listening to any explanation, but when you're the leader of a justice agency, the appearance of bias is as important as the existence of actual bias.And although I have seen no evidence of any bias in any of the participants in that effort, the appearance of bias would have been very important to me. So I -- again, it's hard to go back and live a life you didn't live, but I would imagine my judgment would have been you can't remain on the case.

jade kush said...

Thank you for sharing good and important information.

Best places to travel 2019
My Blog
Motivational Tips
recent govt job circular

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger readering said...

"Why does Althouse attract this class of commenters?"

Because her "cruel neutrality" is another way of saying she is seeking the truth.

Narayanan said...

This confirms why **congressional hearing s** are waste of time. And always will be.

So called adults on high podium and low chairs to Show up and not tell.
But Preening always.

At least kids are proud to show off and tell.

So called lawyer politicians trying to show off prosecutor skills witlessness under threat of legal jeopardy.

Stop practice of putting "witnesses" under oath and ask open ended questions - what did you do? What did you find out? Want to tell us some more? Occasionally , you want to pull other leg!?

gspencer said...

He came prepared, having read Watergate testimony and watching how Hillary slithered around questions.

Rusty said...

"Comey seems to be claiming he's a highly functional idiot. "
And a huge weasel. What a tool.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Draining the swamp in not complete.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Comey doesn't recall. He was only head of the Dept.

Wow - Comey turned into a Clinton, fast.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The chairmen of the two committees released a 235-page transcript Saturday of their interview with Comey.

According to a statement issued by the office of Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., Comey said “I don’t remember” 71 times, “I don’t know” 166 times, and “I don’t recall” eight times during his interview.

Chuck said...

Matt Gaetz; representing the Roger Stone wing of the Republican Party. Lol.

The Althouse coomentariat; representing the InfoWars wing of the internet. Lulz.

There are almost too many vintage Trump Era comments here to count. And really, it isn’t so much of a Trump Era thing as it is a lingering and even overwhelmingly Clinton/Obama Derangement Syndrome thing.

chickelit said...

Folks, I'd like to welcome back Chuck, our token representative of Trump Derangement Syndrome. You'll never read a better example in these comments. Chuck is a longtime Althouse commenter -- for decade. perhaps -- but he hopelessly typecast himself with his untreated TDS.

Danno said...

chickenlittle said..." I'm thinking of getting a blaze orange safety vest. Orange in OC

If things get as bad as in France, the people won't wear vests, except maybe camouflage ones. But they will have those evil black rifles.

Original Mike said...

Apparently, Chuck is fine with an FBI Director lying his ass off. I honestly am surprised.

Matt Sablan said...

Maybe the investigation should be paused until someone can recall who started it for what reason.