ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Trump will sue Comey over release of memos...or threaten to do so like he usually does. What's the legal claim? Yeah... Interesting point. Can a sitting president sue a citizen? Has it been done before... Please God, say no. Sharing the content of an unclassified memo that Comey himself wrote...is...bad? I guess? I see what you did... Very sneaky. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2017 Author Share Posted June 9, 2017 Sharing the content of an unclassified memo that Comey himself wrote...is...bad? I guess? Ask any Trump supporter, they will tell you its not just bad, but really bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Trump will sue Comey over release of memos...or threaten to do so like he usually does. What's the legal claim? Why, defamation of character of course! Sharing the content of an unclassified memo that Comey himself wrote...is...bad? I guess? Anything he writes in the course of his duties as head of the Federal Bureau of Matters is government property. Mishandling and leaking it to the media, although cowardly and self-serving, is not a criminal act. It is however, grounds for being fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Why, defamation of character of course! Anything he writes in the course of his duties as head of the Federal Bureau of Matters is government property. Mishandling and leaking it to the media, although cowardly and self-serving, is not a criminal act. It is however, grounds for being fired. He was already fired when he "leaked" it. Also, let's be very clear about "leak." Did he print the memo and mail it? FWD it to his gmail then send it to his friend? Read it aloud over the phone? Or did he call him up and give him the gist? Do you know enough about the ownership of "government property" to say which of these, if any, is more illegal/terminable than the others? If he was already fired when he "leaked" it, then presumably he wouldn't have access to the original copy unless he duplicated it. I think it stands to reason that he shared the content of the memo based on his own recollection. Which--if you listen to the full interview with the guy to whom he "leaked"--sounds as if it's the case. As if he was "given" the content from Comey in a very conversational way. As one would between friends. So...again. About that "leak?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 He was already fired when he "leaked" it. Also, let's be very clear about "leak." Did he print the memo and mail it? FWD it to his gmail then send it to his friend? Read it aloud over the phone? Or did he call him up and give him the gist? Do you know enough about the ownership of "government property" to say which of these, if any, is more illegal/terminable than the others? If he was already fired when he "leaked" it, then presumably he wouldn't have access to the original copy unless he duplicated it. I think it stands to reason that he shared the content of the memo based on his own recollection. Which--if you listen to the full interview with the guy to whom he "leaked"--sounds as if it's the case. As if he was "given" the content from Comey in a very conversational way. As one would between friends. So...again. About that "leak?" Somebody should have better apprised Trump's lawyer who managed to make a complete fool of himself by screwing up the timeline. Not a good look when casting aspersions. For those thinking that Comey's testimony was somehow a beginning of the end of this, you may want to think again. This is just the beginning. And did anyone pay close attention to the questions that could not be answered in an open setting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2017 Author Share Posted June 9, 2017 Somebody should have better apprised Trump's lawyer who managed to make a complete fool of himself by screwing up the timeline. Not a good look when casting aspersions. For those thinking that Comey's testimony was somehow a beginning of the end of this, you may want to think again. This is just the beginning. And did anyone pay close attention to the questions that could not be answered in an open setting? Yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Somebody should have better apprised Trump's lawyer who managed to make a complete fool of himself by screwing up the timeline. Not a good look when casting aspersions. For those thinking that Comey's testimony was somehow a beginning of the end of this, you may want to think again. This is just the beginning. And did anyone pay close attention to the questions that could not be answered in an open setting? Let's also remember that the "leak" came after the president undermined the man and the entire institution (FBI) by calling its former leader a "nut case" in a [public] meeting with a foreign adversary. Tell me more about how this began with a Comey "leak." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Anything he writes in the course of his duties as head of the Federal Bureau of Matters is government property. Mishandling and leaking it to the media, although cowardly and self-serving, is not a criminal act. It is however, grounds for being fired. Perjury is a criminal act though, and Comey perjured himself regarding the leaks. He claims he only leaked to the NYT (through his cut out) after Trump tweeted about the tapes. The first NYT article which ran quoting that memo was a few days prior to that tweet. Ooops, James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Perjury is a criminal act though, and Comey perjured himself regarding the leaks. He claims he only leaked to the NYT (through his cut out) after Trump tweeted about the tapes. The first NYT article which ran quoting that memo was a few days prior to that tweet. Ooops, James. lol wut? May 12: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/863007411132649473 May 16: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) lol wut? May 12: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/863007411132649473 May 16: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html The May 11th NYT article quotes the memo without referencing where the information came from. It clearly came from the memo - a full day before Trump's tweet which prompted Comey to "wake up in the middle of the night" with an urge to leak. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html Edited June 9, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 The May 11th NYT article quotes the memo without referencing where the information came from. It clearly came from the memo - a full day before Trump's tweet which prompted Comey to "wake up in the middle of the night" with an urge to leak. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html Um. No. So Comey was BOTH of the sources cited in that article? Whoa, this is scary!! Do you derive your powers of inference from your third eye or fourth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Um. No. So Comey was BOTH of the sources cited in that article? Whoa, this is scary!! Yes, sir. Read the article and the memo. It's clear where the information from the May 11th article came from considering it's word for word from Comey's memo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) Yes, sir. Read the article and the memo. It's clear where the information from the May 11th article came from considering it's word for word from Comey's memo. May be it did. But that doesn't mean they got the memo from Comey (your inference). It was a memo. Other people had access to it. The NYT piece says it was confirmed by two people. The memo wasn't Comey's personal diary otherwise kept locked and under his mattress. Your accusation of perjury here is wildly inconsistent with your apparent inability to infer anything from any other piece of information that has been brought to light in all of this. You have a keen willingness to infer the worst based on information that would implicate anyone/anything opposing Trump/GOP. Information implicating Trump/GOP, on the other hand, is evidently impossible for you to process without thick, impenetrable skepticism. Edited June 9, 2017 by The Big Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Let's also remember that the "leak" came after the president undermined the man and the entire institution (FBI) by calling its former leader a "nut case" in a [public] meeting with a foreign adversary. Tell me more about how this began with a Comey "leak." Not sure off the top of my head if he gave the memos to his friend before Trump's meeting with the Russians, but there is no doubt in my mind Comey has taken Trump's comments personally. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Comey sues for defamation. Using the term "nut case" in the oval office while meeting with a foreign adversary known to have recently perpetrated a hostile act against our nation is beyond the pale. Heard from some legal beagles that Comey's publication of the memos was a sound strategy if he really thought there were tapes that could corroborate his version of events. Any reasonable person would and should have taken Trump's threat at face value and getting your memorialized version on the public record was the right move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) May be it did. But that doesn't mean they got the memo from Comey (your inference). It was a memo. Other people had access to it. The NYT piece says it was confirmed by two people. It wasn't Comey's personal diary otherwise kept locked and under his mattress. You can invent whatever spin you need to in order to make yourself comfortable. I'm just talking about the facts. Comey himself said he retained custody of the memo and it wasn't in general circulation of the FBI. So if the NYT was quoting the memo it came from Comey - based on his sword testimony not my inference. This is the same NYT that Comey testified got several articles wrong which relied upon the quotes of "unnamed but high level" sources. The same NYT when asked about these false stories yesterday suddenly said they suddenly couldn't "find" their "high level" sources that contributed to those stories. The article quotes the memo word for word and Comey testified yesterday he didn't give that memo out to his cut out until after Trump tweeted on the 12th. The May 11th article calls that testimony into question. You have a keen willingness to infer the worst based on information that would implicate anyone/anything opposing Trump/GOP. Information implicating Trump/GOP, on the other hand, is evidently impossible for you to process without thick, impenetrable skepticism. I'm not a Trump supporter or a Republican. Try again. Heard from some legal beagles that Comey's publication of the memos was a sound strategy if he really thought there were tapes that could corroborate his version of events. Any reasonable person would and should have taken Trump's threat at face value and getting your memorialized version on the public record was the right move. Sure. But he leaked the memo before Trump's tweet about tapes. Which kind of shoots that narrative in the foot. Makes it look a lot more vindictive than pro active. Edited June 9, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) You can invent whatever spin you need to in order to make yourself comfortable. I'm just talking about the facts. Comey himself said he retained custody of the memo and it wasn't in general circulation of the FBI. So if the NYT was quoting the memo it came from Comey - based on his sword testimony not my inference. This is the same NYT that Comey testified got several articles wrong which relied upon the quotes of "unnamed but high level" sources. The same NYT when asked about these false stories yesterday suddenly said they suddenly couldn't "find" their "high level" sources that contributed to those stories. The article quotes the memo word for word and Comey testified yesterday he didn't give that memo out to his cut out until after Trump tweeted on the 12th. The May 11th article calls that testimony into question. I'm not a Trump supporter or a Republican. Try again. Making nothing from nothing is not spin. I'm not refuting the possibility that the NYT acquired the memo before the May 12 tweet. I'm questioning your inference that they got it directly from Comey, and thus he's guilty of perjury. I also never said you were a Trump supporter. That was another in an infinite series of inferences you've posited here. What I did point out is how cozy you get with information with implicates one side while ignoring/refuting/questioning/deriding information that implicates the other. You can call yourself whatever you want, at least be conscious of your behavior. Edited June 9, 2017 by The Big Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) You can invent whatever spin you need to in order to make yourself comfortable. I'm just talking about the facts. Comey himself said he retained custody of the memo and it wasn't in general circulation of the FBI. So if the NYT was quoting the memo it came from Comey - based on his sword testimony not my inference. This is the same NYT that Comey testified got several articles wrong which relied upon the quotes of "unnamed but high level" sources. The same NYT when asked about these false stories yesterday suddenly said they suddenly couldn't "find" their "high level" sources that contributed to those stories. The article quotes the memo word for word and Comey testified yesterday he didn't give that memo out to his cut out until after Trump tweeted on the 12th. The May 11th article calls that testimony into question. I'm not a Trump supporter or a Republican. Try again. Sure. But he leaked the memo before Trump's tweet about tapes. Which kind of shoots that narrative in the foot. Makes it look a lot more vindictive than pro active. Hard copy memos perhaps but Comey also testified that he had apprised 6 other high-ranking FBI officials on the details of his meetings with Trump. Details presumably contained in the memos. And I agree there is definitely a level of vindictiveness as well. Comey was defamed and didn't take it lightly. Edited June 9, 2017 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Making nothing from nothing is not spin. I'm not refuting the possibility that the NYT acquired the memo before the May 12 tweet. I'm questioning your inference that they got it directly from Comey, and thus he's guilty of perjury. I also never said you were a Trump supporter. That was another in an infinite series of inferences you've posited here. What I did point out is how cozy you get with information with implicates one side while ignoring/refuting/questioning/deriding information that implicates the other. You can call yourself whatever you want, at least be conscious of your behavior. Spin is saying someone else could have leaked the memo when Comey testified he kept it out of general circulation in the FBI. Spin is saying :"You have a keen willingness to infer the worst based on information that would implicate anyone/anything opposing Trump/GOP. Information implicating Trump/GOP, on the other hand, is evidently impossible for you to process without thick, impenetrable skepticism." When you (clearly) haven't read anything I've posted on this issue. If you had read me, you'd know how ridiculous that statement is. Hard copy memos perhaps but Comey also testified that he had apprised 6 other high-ranking FBI officials on the details of his meetings with Trump. Details presumably contained in the memos. And I agree there is definitely a level of vindictiveness as well. Comey was defamed and didn't take it lightly. He absolutely was, and I wouldn't have taken it lightly myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) Why, defamation of character of course! Anything he writes in the course of his duties as head of the Federal Bureau of Matters is government property. Mishandling and leaking it to the media, although cowardly and self-serving, is not a criminal act. It is however, grounds for being fired. Cowardly? I thought he had balls doing it, admitting it, and calling the liar a liar. Comey came across as an all American guy That was my take. He may serve at the "pleasure" of the Pres, but is duty and loyalty is to AMERICA. Edited June 9, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) May be it did. But that doesn't mean they got the memo from Comey (your inference). I could have sworn I heard Jimmy say yesterday in the "open setting" that he gave the memo to his bud to give yo the NYT. Edited June 9, 2017 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts