Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Surprise, surprise.
he was jumping around the logic, trying to conjure some excuse for his Act of Treason


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-lawyer-file-leak-com
plaint-after-comey-testimony-source-says-n770231


http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-
updates-read-trump-lawyer-marc-kasowitz-s-1496945767-htmlstory.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I do believe that G is correct and anything in question was not classified information.

That being said, "leaked" and "gave" in this situation are exactly the same thing. Don't be cute.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Funny how all of the non-classified information "given" out on a daily basis by the FBI was everything except for the fact that Trump was never under FBI investigation?

Comey proved on many occasions in his testimony what a coward he is.

---

Quote:

---

Comey just yesterday said he could not talk about the validity of the Dossier in an open setting

If the Dossier had been completly false, Comey would have said that

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
He already said there wasn't an investigation into Russia ties, so he would have NO REASON to not say the dossier wasn't real. Not that I didn't know that already.

---

Quote:

---

There are 5 other ongoing investigations into Trump / Russia connections. I just posted that yesterday and you replied - have you forgotten that already?- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
Ex-Twitter Ceo summed it up perfectly:

Comey testifies Trump lied on multiple occasions & the White House calls testimony a victory. Tells you all you need to know about Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

And Preachers, because that's their job.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Tells me all I need to know about the (ex) CEO of Twitter,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I'm calling bullshit. You don't know anybody with a 3 digit IQ.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
You've got some massive issues your own self,
so why WOULD I care what you think of me??

---

Quote:

---

George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley does a good job in The Hill* outlining much of the relevant law. One major issue is whether these documents belonged to Comey, in the sense of being his property rather than the government’s. That is the position he took in his testimony. Like Turley, I think the former director is wrong.

* http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/337160-opinio
n-the-damaging-case-against-james-comey

As a longtime prosecutor, I have a black-and-white test for this sort of thing: Would a judge in a criminal trial consider the documents to be government property for purposes of federal discovery law? That law requires the government to disclose to the defense any prior statement made by a witness, written or otherwise recorded, that is in the government’s possession. It also mandates that the government disclose any information that is material to the preparation of the defense (such as evidentiary exhibits that the prosecution plans to introduce into evidence). Finally, the government must produce any exculpatory evidence — meaning, any evidence that (a) suggests the accused is not guilty, (b) contradicts the prosecution’s theory of the case, or (c) could be used to impeach a witness’s testimony. Comey’s notes may fall into all three of those disclosure categories.

... what would happen if a prosecutor in the case argued to the presiding judge that the government did not need to disclose Comey’s notes because they are his personal property and not in the government’s possession? Rest assured, the judge would blow a gasket, and rightly so.

The memos were written by an FBI official, apparently on FBI equipment, and related directly to FBI investigative business. Indeed, the fact that investigative business was central to Trump’s conversations with the former director is what induced Comey to write the memos: He perceived the president’s statements as political intrusion into law-enforcement investigations and intelligence probes. The memos were thus government property, and the then-director was obliged to make sure they were retained in government files.

That does not mean it would have been improper for Comey to keep a copy of them for himself. But doing that would not change the character of the memos as government property, and it would not relieve Comey of the obligation to comply with all government disclosure restrictions on the contents of the memos.

At the Federalist, Bre Payton reproduces a copy of the standard FBI employment agreement*, making a persuasive argument that Comey’s memos are government property and that the former director’s disclosure of information in them to unauthorized persons violated the employment agreement’s terms. Nor would the memos’ status as government documents turn on whether or not the documents were physically placed in the government’s files. Nor would their storage outside the government’s filing system relieve the government of any disclosure obligations in a criminal case; a court would simply rule that the government constructively possessed the documents through Comey, who was its agent when he made and retained them. The government would be responsible for securing them and complying with its disclosure obligations.
* http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/09/james-comey-violate-fbi-employment
-agreement/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:


Destined to become a classic line.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

But, given the extremely lax standard Hillary was held to, I'm not surprised that Comey would apply the same attitude toward himself. Rules are meant to be broken, as long as you can rationalize your actions to yourself as meeting some other criteria you hold more dear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Other people accidentally get the wrong baby handed to them at the redneck hospital.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
But, given the extremely lax standard Hillary was held to, I'm not surprised that Comey would apply the same attitude toward himself. Rules are meant to be broken, as long as you can rationalize your actions to yourself as meeting some other criteria you hold more dear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
Well, then being a Trumptard must take a hella ton of rationalization.

---

Quote:

---

George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley does a good job in The Hill* outlining much of the relevant law. One major issue is whether these documents belonged to Comey, in the sense of being his property rather than the government’s. That is the position he took in his testimony. Like Turley, I think the former director is wrong.

* http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/337160-opinio
n-the-damaging-case-against-james-comey

As a longtime prosecutor, I have a black-and-white test for this sort of thing: Would a judge in a criminal trial consider the documents to be government property for purposes of federal discovery law? That law requires the government to disclose to the defense any prior statement made by a witness, written or otherwise recorded, that is in the government’s possession. It also mandates that the government disclose any information that is material to the preparation of the defense (such as evidentiary exhibits that the prosecution plans to introduce into evidence). Finally, the government must produce any exculpatory evidence — meaning, any evidence that (a) suggests the accused is not guilty, (b) contradicts the prosecution’s theory of the case, or (c) could be used to impeach a witness’s testimony. Comey’s notes may fall into all three of those disclosure categories.

... what would happen if a prosecutor in the case argued to the presiding judge that the government did not need to disclose Comey’s notes because they are his personal property and not in the government’s possession? Rest assured, the judge would blow a gasket, and rightly so.

The memos were written by an FBI official, apparently on FBI equipment, and related directly to FBI investigative business. Indeed, the fact that investigative business was central to Trump’s conversations with the former director is what induced Comey to write the memos: He perceived the president’s statements as political intrusion into law-enforcement investigations and intelligence probes. The memos were thus government property, and the then-director was obliged to make sure they were retained in government files.

That does not mean it would have been improper for Comey to keep a copy of them for himself. But doing that would not change the character of the memos as government property, and it would not relieve Comey of the obligation to comply with all government disclosure restrictions on the contents of the memos.

At the Federalist, Bre Payton reproduces a copy of the standard FBI employment agreement*, making a persuasive argument that Comey’s memos are government property and that the former director’s disclosure of information in them to unauthorized persons violated the employment agreement’s terms. Nor would the memos’ status as government documents turn on whether or not the documents were physically placed in the government’s files. Nor would their storage outside the government’s filing system relieve the government of any disclosure obligations in a criminal case; a court would simply rule that the government constructively possessed the documents through Comey, who was its agent when he made and retained them. The government would be responsible for securing them and complying with its disclosure obligations.
* http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/09/james-comey-violate-fbi-employment
-agreement/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And there's Wishi - always keeping it classy. And by classy, I mean trailer-trash style.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

CNN. Lawmakers to Trump: Release Comey tapes if they exist.



Oonj: hmmmm. Good idea.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

CNN. Lawmakers to Trump: Release Comey tapes if they exist.



Oonj: hmmmm. Good idea.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Wishi... Or gradeschool bully?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:


Basically, his critics will discredit him, no matter what.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
You'd have to HAVE credit to be DIScredited, and he lost that a half dozen bankruptcies ago.

---

Quote:

---

Trump can give no right answer here that will satisfy his critics. If he says - hey folks, just bluffing ... then people will call him a liar about claiming to have the tapes, OR they'll say he DOES have recordings but he's lying about not having them instead. If he DOES release tapes, then his critics will claim he's withholding the worst parts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Wishi... Or gradeschool bully?

---

He's sober now, if he wants to play with the big kids then he needs to get kicked in the stupid every now and then. And there be a lot of stupid to kick.

Just call me John Wayne baby, because I don't take shit offa NOBODY.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Funny how all of the non-classified information "given" out on a daily basis by the FBI was everything except for the fact that Trump was never under FBI investigation?

Comey proved on many occasions in his testimony what a coward he is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
That would be good.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

CNN. Lawmakers to Trump: Release Comey tapes if they exist.



Oonj: hmmmm. Good idea.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

Though ... as I think about it - Trump can give no right answer here that will satisfy his critics. If he says - hey folks, just bluffing ... then people will call him a liar about claiming to have the tapes, OR they'll say he DOES have recordings but he's lying about not having them instead. If he DOES release tapes, then his critics will claim he's withholding the worst parts.

Basically, his critics will discredit him, no matter what.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
That's the key isn't it? Never under investigation, and Comey was never supposed to release that bit of information. Ok, he's the fucking president, he has a right to know. So, he tells him. You would think that would be enough for the dumb motherfucker, but noooooooooo, he wants a public spectacle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
What does (bankruptcies) have to do with anything? The way it'll play out will be that NOTHING will satisfy his critics. If that isn't an indication of closed-minded, biased people who have no respect for facts, I don't know what is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

I think the grade school bully thing was because of how juvenile everything you say sounds Wishy.

You are a sad, aging woman nearing menopause...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I do believe that G is correct and anything in question was not classified information.

That being said, "leaked" and "gave" in this situation are exactly the same thing. Don't be cute.

---

No they aren't. Fox and Trump and Trump's lawyers are using "leaked" to imply an illegal act (and Trump supporters are no doubt falling for it, see JSF).
Reality Winner leaked documents. Leaking implies making public classified or restricted information that is not suppose to be made public. These were his notes to do with as he pleased, including giving them to someone, anyone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Comey just yesterday said he could not talk about the validity of the Dossier in an open setting

If the Dossier had been completly false, Comey would have said that

---

Whatever.

That goes into the bin of ... somebody said that somebody thinks that somebody said that somebody thinks that somebody said that somebody thinks that ... squeak squeak squeak squeak squeak around and around goes the hamster wheel ...

Btw, I just find it absoFUCKINGlutely ridiculous that **I** have to keep defending Trump, of all people.

Not because I supported him (my vote went to **NOT HILLARY**) but because the dems are cowardly fucking liars and assholes who wouldn't know the meaning of the words EVIDENCE, HONOR, and INTEGRITY if they spent the next 100 years studying them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I'm calling bullshit. You don't know anybody with a 3 digit IQ.

---

My kid tested out at about 130 by her school

---