President Trump's lawyer's statement on Comey hearing

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Well-known member
Contributor
Trump's lawyer hits the proverbial nail on the head. I expect the lying liberal snowflakes will now circle the wagons and attempt to infer that Trump was obstructing justice by....wait for it.....hurting Comey's feelings. :rofl2:


I am Marc Kasowitz, President Trump's personal lawyer.

Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today's hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference. He also admitted that there is no evidence that a single vote changed as a result of any Russian interference.

Mr Comey's testimony also makes clear that the President never sought to impede the investigation into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election, and in fact, according to Mr. Comey, the President told Mr. Comey "it would be good to find out" in that investigation if there were "some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong." And he did not exclude anyone from that statement.

Consistent with that statement, the President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that that Mr. Comey"let Flynn go." As he publicly stated the next day, he did say to Mr. Comey, "General Flynn is a good guy, he has been through a lot" and also "asked how is General Flynn is doing." Admiral Rogers testified that the President never "directed [him] to do anything . . . illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate" and never "pressured [him] to do so." Director Coates said the same thing. The President likewise never pressured Mr. Comey.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/politics/marc-kasowitz-statement-trump-comey/index.html
 
Here he clearly states the case that Comey himself is lying and discloses unauthorized privileged conversations in the White House.

The President also never told Mr. Comey, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty" in form or substance. Of course, the Office of the President is entitled to expect loyalty from those who are serving in an administration, and, from before this President took office to this day, it is overwhelmingly clear that there have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications. Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.

Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President. The leaks of this privileged information began no later than March 2017 when friends of Mr. Comey have stated he disclosed to them the conversations he had with the President during their January 27, 2017 dinner and February 14, 2017 White House meeting. Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he leaked to friends his purported memos of these privileged conversations, one of which he testified was classified. He also testified that immediately after he was terminated he authorized his friends to leak the contents of these memos to the press in order to "prompt the appointment of a special counsel." Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, the public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey's excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory. We will leave it the appropriate authorities to determine whether this leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated.
 
Finally:

In sum, it is now established that there the President was not being investigated for colluding with the or attempting to obstruct that investigation. As the Committee pointed out today, these important facts for the country to know are virtually the only facts that have not leaked during the long course of these events. As he said yesterday, the President feels completely vindicated and is eager to continue moving forward with his agenda with this public cloud removed. Thank you.
 
Isn't it fascinating that the ONLY leaks are those that attempt to infer the President is somehow acting illegally, but none of them about the FACT that he was NEVER under investigation and that there is NO EVIDENCE that the Russians influenced the outcome of this election.

The attempts by dishonest, corrupt and partisan hack Democrats to overturn this election through false narratives, lies and distortions along with the FAKE media are despicable and will be exposed for all to see. Once the dust settles and there is truly no more "theres" there, the Democratic Party will find itself wandering the wilderness of political irrelevancy for at least a decade.
 
Got to love it when the conservatives start with the "shoot the messenger" defense, says a lot

Let's put it this way, Comey, who shares a fairly recognized reputation, says one thing under oath and penalty of perjury, while the President, who has is famous for fabrications and falsifying facts, says something else in a photo op, ah, lets see, he do you think is going to be believed?
 
How can anyone leak unclassified information? Better yet, how can a private citizen leak unclassified information?

Sorry, the right's attempt, and a weak attempt at that, to deflect the President's troubles by attacking Comey ain't flying. anywhere
 
Here we go again........................classified or unclassified..........................


Did Comey Violate Laws In Leaking The Trump Memo?

June 8, 2017
Jonathan Turley
Congress, Criminal law


One of the most interesting new disclosures today in the Comey hearing was the admission by former FBI Director James Comey that he intentionally used a “friend” on the Columbia law faculty to leak his memos to the media. Comey says that he did so to force the appointment of a Special Counsel. However, those memos could be viewed as a government record and potential evidence in a criminal investigation.

Notably, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman on a faculty webpage reads that he is “currently an adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.” Richman specializes in criminal law and criminal procedure.

The problem is that Comey’s description of his use of an FBI computer to create memoranda to file suggests that these are arguably government documents. Comey admitted that he thought he raised the issue with his staff and recognized that they might be needed by the Department or Congress. They read like a type of field 302 form, which are core investigatory documents.

The admission of leaking the memos is problematic given the overall controversy involving leakers undermining the Administration. Indeed, it creates a curious scene of a former director leaking material against the President after the President repeatedly asked him to crack down on leakers.

Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641 which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

There are also ethical and departmental rules against the use of material to damage a former represented person or individual or firm related to prior representation. The FBI website states:

Dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”

Lawyers generally ask for clients or employers to release information, particularly when it may be detrimental to the firm or the client or someone associated with your prior representation.

By the way, waking up in the middle of the night (as described by Comey) is not generally the best time to decide to leak damaging memos against a sitting president. There are times when coffee and a full night’s sleep (and even conferral with counsel) is recommended. Leaking damaging memos is one of those times. Moreover, if Comey was sure of his right to release the memo, why use a law professor to avoid fingerprints?

I find Comey’s admission to be deeply troubling from a professional and ethical standpoint. Would Director Comey have approved such a rule for FBI agents? Thus, an agent can prepare a memo during office hours on an FBI computer about a meeting related to his service . . . but leak that memo to the media. The Justice Department has long defined what constitutes government documents broadly. It is not clear if Comey had the documents reviewed for classification at the confidential level or confirmed that they would be treated as entirely private property. What is clear is that he did not clear the release of the memos with anyone in the government.

Comey’s statement of a good motivation does not negate the concerns over his chosen means of a leak. Moreover, the timing of the leak most clearly benefited Comey and not the cause of a Special Counsel. It was clear at that time that a Special Counsel was likely. More importantly, Comey clearly understood that these memos would be sought. That leads inevitably to the question of both motivation as well as means.
 
archives said:
Got to love it when the conservatives start with the "shoot the messenger" defense, says a lot
Click to expand...

How is Comey a messenger you moron?

archives said:
Let's put it this way, Comey, who shares a fairly recognized reputation, says one thing under oath and penalty of perjury, while the President, who has is famous for fabrications and falsifying facts, says something else in a photo op, ah, lets see, he do you think is going to be believed?
Click to expand...

He has offered to testify under oath. Comey better hope there aren't any tapes of their conversation.

As for Comey's credibility with liberals, let's take a walk back in time when Liberals hated him right before the election, before they loved him:

Maxine Waters is the greatest thing to happen to the Republican Party since BillyBob Clinton. :rofl2:
 
Stretch said:
Here we go again........................classified or unclassified..........................


Did Comey Violate Laws In Leaking The Trump Memo?

June 8, 2017
Jonathan Turley
Congress, Criminal law


One of the most interesting new disclosures today in the Comey hearing was the admission by former FBI Director James Comey that he intentionally used a “friend” on the Columbia law faculty to leak his memos to the media. Comey says that he did so to force the appointment of a Special Counsel. However, those memos could be viewed as a government record and potential evidence in a criminal investigation.

Notably, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman on a faculty webpage reads that he is “currently an adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.” Richman specializes in criminal law and criminal procedure.

The problem is that Comey’s description of his use of an FBI computer to create memoranda to file suggests that these are arguably government documents. Comey admitted that he thought he raised the issue with his staff and recognized that they might be needed by the Department or Congress. They read like a type of field 302 form, which are core investigatory documents.

The admission of leaking the memos is problematic given the overall controversy involving leakers undermining the Administration. Indeed, it creates a curious scene of a former director leaking material against the President after the President repeatedly asked him to crack down on leakers.

Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641 which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

There are also ethical and departmental rules against the use of material to damage a former represented person or individual or firm related to prior representation. The FBI website states:

Dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”

Lawyers generally ask for clients or employers to release information, particularly when it may be detrimental to the firm or the client or someone associated with your prior representation.

By the way, waking up in the middle of the night (as described by Comey) is not generally the best time to decide to leak damaging memos against a sitting president. There are times when coffee and a full night’s sleep (and even conferral with counsel) is recommended. Leaking damaging memos is one of those times. Moreover, if Comey was sure of his right to release the memo, why use a law professor to avoid fingerprints?

I find Comey’s admission to be deeply troubling from a professional and ethical standpoint. Would Director Comey have approved such a rule for FBI agents? Thus, an agent can prepare a memo during office hours on an FBI computer about a meeting related to his service . . . but leak that memo to the media. The Justice Department has long defined what constitutes government documents broadly. It is not clear if Comey had the documents reviewed for classification at the confidential level or confirmed that they would be treated as entirely private property. What is clear is that he did not clear the release of the memos with anyone in the government.

Comey’s statement of a good motivation does not negate the concerns over his chosen means of a leak. Moreover, the timing of the leak most clearly benefited Comey and not the cause of a Special Counsel. It was clear at that time that a Special Counsel was likely. More importantly, Comey clearly understood that these memos would be sought. That leads inevitably to the question of both motivation as well as means.
Click to expand...

Spot on. It was a POLITICAL move and he apparently stole Government property without proper vetting and approval. Everything I type on company computers during work hours is considered theirs, not mine. And if I decide to provide it to a competitor, I can be fired.
 
Truth Detector said:
Spot on. It was a POLITICAL move and he apparently stole Government property without proper vetting and approval. Everything I type on company computers during work hours is considered theirs, not mine. And if I decide to provide it to a competitor, I can be fired.
Click to expand...

I worked at the Florida State Health Dept. for 4 years. They monitored our computers remotely. And, you never knew when they were "in there." Just making sure we weren't emailing anything anywhere outside of their government system, sending political cartoons, saying anything disparaging about coworkers, the director, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top