Tag Archives: James Comey

Moment of truth approaching? Tapes or no tapes?

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is going to testify behind closed doors in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

He might have plenty to tell his former Senate colleagues.

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans finally are beginning to turn up the heat on the president of the United States regarding a reckless tweet he posted some time back about the potential existence of White House tape recordings.

Show ’em if you got ’em, Mr. President.

Donald Trump made some snarky reference to tape recordings after he fired FBI Director James Comey. It was that “Russia thing” that produced the dismissal. Comey and Trump reportedly had some conversations about Russia and the FBI”s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian government hackers who sought to influence the 2016 presidential election outcome.

Tapes, Mr. President?

There are so many “Big Questions,” it’s becoming difficult to keep track of them. One of them is this: Did the president record the conversations or is he bluffing about their existence?

Now comes the heat from the president’s side of the partisan divide. Republicans want him to clear the air.

Of course, the president hasn’t shown much proclivity to listen to anyone, let alone act on the torrent of advice he’s getting.

So, I suppose we should expect the mystery to deepen and the chaos to continue.

Tapes, Mr. President? If you have ’em, produce ’em

Donald John Trump has turned the political tease into something of an art form.

He fired FBI Director James Comey and then blasted out a tweet that said Comey had better hope there aren’t any tape recordings of his conversations with the president.

The tweet, quite naturally, produced a crap storm of its own with pols and pundits wondering out loud if Trump was bluffing. Such “tapes,” of course, would have recorded conversations the president had with Comey regarding the FBI’s investigation into the “Russia thing” that Trump acknowledges was his reason for dismissing Comey.

The former FBI boss returned to Capitol Hill this week to testify about Russia, Trump, the 2016 election and the state of affairs at the FBI when Trump dropped the hammer on Comey, who painted quite an unflattering portrait of the president.

So, here’s the question of the day: Do you, Mr. President, have recordings of your conversations with Comey. If you do, produce them. If you don’t, then admit it was all a bluff, a hoax, a sham, a game. Tell us the truth … for once!

Let’s get to the heart of this hacking matter

As a frequent critic of Donald J. Trump, I want to set the record straight on a key issue that’s threatening the man’s presidency.

I do not give a rat’s rear end about whether alleged attempts by Russian agents to influence the 2016 presidential election actually created a Trump victory. I accept the notion that Trump would have won the election anyway.

What is troubling me is the question of what role — if any — the Trump campaign had in assisting the Russians.

Former FBI Director James Comey told U.S. Senate committee members today that he is certain of Russian meddling in our election. I accept the FBI director’s opinion on that, too.

I keep circling back to the question of whether Trump’s team actively aided the Russian hackers. If they didn’t aid them, did they know about any attempts to influence the election? If they knew and did nothing, that to me is tantamount to collusion — even if it doesn’t fit the legal definition of the word.

We keep hearing reports of key Trump campaign advisers meeting with Russians during the campaign and then during the transition. It all gets back to the Watergate-era question posed by then-Sen. Howard Baker: What did the president know — and when did he know it?

As for the whether the hacking/meddling actually proved decisive, that they changed enough votes to swing the results in favor of Trump and away from Hillary Rodham Clinton, it doesn’t matter to me. What does matter is that they have done what all those intelligence agencies have said they did. The former director of the FBI has confirmed it to my satisfaction.

If the Trump campaign colluded, dear reader, we are looking at a charge of treason.

Let’s end the debate over whether Russians hacked us

Here’s a thought to ponder going ahead: Let’s all just stop arguing over whether the Russians — government agents or “patriots” — hacked into the U.S. electoral system while seeking to influence the 2016 election outcome.

Let us now settle on the fundamental question: Did the Donald John Trump presidential campaign commit treason by colluding with the Russians?

Former FBI Director James Comey had much of the nation enthralled for two hours today as he testified before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee. He confirmed what 17 intelligence agencies have determined already: The Russians sought to influence the election. Russian President Vladimir Putin — one of the more untrustworthy individuals on the planet — said that Russian “patriots” might have been responsible for the deed.

Now we get to the Main Event. The Seventh Game. The Bottom of the Ninth Inning.

Special counsel Robert Mueller has been handed a huge mound of information to digest from his former colleague, Comey.

The president had said Wednesday when word of Comey’s testimony leaked out that he felt “vindicated” by what he heard. After today, I’m betting real American money the president feels a whole lot less vindicated.

No one can know with any degree of certainty whether Mueller is going to produce evidence of criminality on the part of the campaign or the president himself.

Comey’s dismissal as FBI director, as he was investigating the Trump campaign-Russia allegations, was shocking all by itself. Then came the crap storm of motives, reversals, changes in story and contradictions — from the president himself.

And in the midst of all this, Donald J. Trump — of all people — called Comey a “grandstander” and a “showboat.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/james-comey-robert-mueller-trump-case-file-239319

Kettle, met pot.

I do not believe a grandstanding showboat appeared today before he Senate panel. I believe the nation saw a meticulous lawyer and administrator who defended the agency he led from unfounded attacks by the president of the United States.

James Comey, moreover, has handed Robert Mueller a full arsenal of ammunition to use as he continues his arduous task of determining whether there was collusion with an foreign adversary to undermine our nation’s electoral process.

Comey delivers … almost

If you thought former FBI Director James Comey was going to assert that Donald Trump committed a criminal act, well, take a breather.

He didn’t do it. He didn’t tell Senate Intelligence Committee members that the president “obstructed justice.” He did say the president “lied” and that he “defamed” the FBI and himself.

However, any assertion of criminality is going to come from the special counsel, Robert Mueller — Comey’s longtime friend and former professional colleague.

Still, Comey’s testimony today appears to have affirmed what many Americans have thought — if not known — about the president. It’s that he doesn’t understand the intricacies of governance and of the need to keep his hands off important investigations.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/337031-comey-delivers-dramatic-rebuke-of-trump

Comey has painted a disturbing portrait of the man who now calls the shots at the top of the government’s executive chain of command.

He has laid down a predicate — perhaps — for the special counsel to pursue the answers to questions on the minds of millions of Americans:

Did the president’s campaign collude with Russian government agents to influence the outcome of the 2016 election? If so, did the campaign act on the president’s direct orders? Did he have knowledge of it? If there is no collusion — and if the president’s team knew about the Russian hacking, why didn’t Trump’s team move to stop it?

More to come …

Comey sets the table

James Comey’s testimony before a U.S. Senate committee is going to send even more shockwaves through the nation’s capital.

The former FBI director is going to tell the Intelligence Committee that Donald J. Trump pressured him repeatedly to back off an investigation into whether Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had done something wrong while conferring with Russian government officials.

Oh, but wait. Now comes the president’s lawyer who says Trump feels “vindicated” because Comey supposedly told the president he wasn’t under “investigation” personally.

Is that vindication? We’ll have to await the Q&A from senators.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/336848-comeys-dramatic-account-rocks-washington

Americans are going to hear Comey say he was “concerned” about the president’s repeated pressure. Will we hear the ex-FBI boss declare that he believes there was an attempt to obstruct justice? Don’t hold your breath. My hunch is that such a determination will have to come from special counsel Robert Mueller — Comey’s old friend and former colleague. Mueller has taken the lead on investigation this Russia matter and whether there was “collusion” between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian hackers who were seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election outcome.

I do not believe that Comey’s testimony will “vindicate” the president. Nor will it convict him. It is likely to keep the post at full boil while the special counsel and his team do their work to uncover the truth.

Let’s call it James Comey Day

I guess some of the TV news networks think Thursday is going to be a big day.

At least one of them, CBS News, is planning to pre-empt its daytime programming to broadcast the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee hearing featuring former FBI Director James Comey.

Comey is going to speak publicly about his firing by Donald J. Trump, as well as the conversations the two men had prior to Comey’s dismissal.

Hey, it’s a big deal, man!

Comey was heading up an FBI investigation into allegations that Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian government agents and hackers who were seeking to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

Then he got canned. Just like that! 

Vice President Pence said the dismissal had “nothing to do” with the Russia probe. Then the president told NBC News that, yep, he fired Comey because of the “Russia thing.”

So, let’s ask former top federal cop what went down, shall we?

Let us also determine which man to believe: a meticulous note-taker such as Comey or a serial liar such as the man who fired him.

Get the popcorn and the soda ready.

Good news, bad news for Comey hearing

Donald J. Trump delivered a one-two punch of good news and, well, not so good news regarding the upcoming testimony of former FBI director James Comey.

The good news: The president said he wouldn’t invoke any executive privilege to silence Comey, who will testify to the Senate Intelligence Committee about conversations he had with Trump regarding the FBI investigation into “the Russia thing.”

The president decided against acting on his stranger impulses by deciding to let Comey have his say. Comey did talk to special counsel Robert Mueller — a longtime friend and colleague — who reportedly “cleared Comey for takeoff,” according to Comey associates.

The, um, bad news: Trump will be tweeting while Comey is testifying.

Allow me an “ugh,” and a “sheesh” on that one.

This president is just about the most insufferable human being ever to occupy this once-exalted office.

Does this clown really have to do this?

Consider as well — for just a moment — that Trump reportedly referred to Comey in conversations with Russian dignitaries at the White House as a “showboat.”

More chaos in looking for FBI boss? No-o-o-o!

What? Do you mean to say that Donald Trump’s search for a new FBI director has become an exercise in chaos and confusion?

Why, I simply cannot believe it.

Actually, of course I can. And I do believe it.

The president likely didn’t have a hiring plan ready to execute when he canned FBI Director James Comey a few weeks ago. Indeed, the director reportedly didn’t even know he was getting fired until he heard something on TV while he was preparing to meet with FBI agents in California. And then, he thought it was a prank, a joke. Well, it damn sure wasn’t a joke.

Now The Hill reports that Trump’s selection and vetting process is turning into another kind of joke.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/336171-trump-fbi-director-interviews-chaotic-report

The Hill and other media have reported that several candidates have dropped out of the running to replace Comey. Meanwhile, the president’s team reportedly is scrambling to find someone to fill the post much in the manner it is fighting to fill so many other senior positions within the administration.

Indeed, it appears that jobs once thought to be career builders for aspiring public servants now have been seen as career enders.

It well might be that the post of FBI director has joined that dubious roster of government jobs that no one wants.

Indeed, given the chaos throughout the Trump administration we’ve seen to date, who can blame any top-notch law enforcement professional or legal eagle for their reluctance at stepping onto that political minefield?

What do you suppose blocking Comey would tell us?

Let’s play out a certain scenario that’s being discussed in Washington, D.C. at the moment.

Donald J. Trump reportedly is considering whether to invoke executive privilege to block former FBI director James Comey from testifying before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.

The White House isn’t saying what the president will do.

Trump fired Comey as FBI director while the FBI is in the midst of an investigation into whether the Trump presidential campaign colluded with Russians who were hacking into the 2016 presidential election.

Trump canned Comey suddenly.

The Justice Department has appointed a special counsel to lead the investigation.

If the president blocks Comey’s testimony, what are we supposed to presume? Might it be that Comey has something terribly damaging to tell senators — under oath — about whether the president obstructed justice by pressuring him to back off an investigation?

Inquiring minds might want to know. Don’t you think?