Thanks for sharing this..... On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Kamakazee <[email protected]> wrote:
> Straight from the horse's ass: > > Ahead of tomorrow's much-anticipated testimony, former FBI Director James > Comey has released his prepared remarks. > > *Key highlights include:* > > First Contact... > > I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a > conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other > Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national > security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian > efforts to interfere in the election. *At the conclusion of that > briefing, I remained alone with the President- Elect to brief him on some > personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the > assessment.* > > > > I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to* > assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. > That was true;* we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. > We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one > meeting at Trump Tower, based on President- Elect Trump’s reaction to the > briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that > assurance. > > > > *I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the > President-Elect in a memo.* > > On Loyalty... > > The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the > Green Room at the White House. > > > > I added that I was not “reliable” in the way politicians use that word, > but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was > not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the > traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as > the President. > > > > *A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect > loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way > during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in > silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject > near the end of our dinner.* > > > > ... > > > > Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my > job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard > great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. *He > then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from > me.” He paused and then said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” I > paused, and then said, “You will get that from me.” As I wrote in the memo > I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the > phrase “honest loyalty” differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be > productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped end a > very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should > expect.* > > > > During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had > briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed > his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was > considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it > didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because > it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, > which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He > said he would think about it and asked me to think about it. > > > > *As was my practice for conversations with President Trump, I wrote a > detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with > the senior leadership team of the FBI.* > > On pressuring Comey... > > On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counter- > terrorism briefing of the President. > > > > *When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the > President began by saying, “I want to talk about Mike Flynn.” Flynn had > resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done > anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go > because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other > concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.* > > > > *The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a > good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done > anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice > President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this > go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I > replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience > dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense > Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I > would “let this go.”* > > > > The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and > left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large > group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President. > > > > *I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about > Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood > the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in > connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian > ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking > about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his > campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just > happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of > his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI’s role > as an independent investigative agency.* > > No Hookers... > > On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He *described > the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act > on behalf of the country*. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, *had > not been involved with hookers in Russia,* and had always assumed he was > being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to “lift the > cloud.” I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we > could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, > to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the > problems this was causing him. > > Full Prepared Remarks below...(emphasis ours) > *Statement for the Record* > > *Senate Select Committee on Intelligence James B. Comey* > > *June 8, 2017* > > Chairman Burr, Ranking Member Warner, Members of the Committee. Thank you > for inviting me to appear before you today. I was asked to testify today to > describe for you my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump > on subjects that I understand are of interest to you. I have not included > every detail from my conversations with the President, but, to the best of > my recollection, I have tried to include information that may be relevant > to the Committee. > > > *January 6 Briefing* > > I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a > conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other > Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national > security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian > efforts to interfere in the election. *At the conclusion of that > briefing, I remained alone with the President- Elect to brief him on some > personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the > assessment.* > > The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert > the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it > was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the > media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC > should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the > President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise > an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive > briefing. > > The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this > portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because > the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We > also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the > President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the > briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might > create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about > whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his > personal conduct. > > It is important to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations > are different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work. The > Bureau’s goal in a counter-intelligence investigation is to understand the > technical and human methods that hostile foreign powers are using to > influence the United States or to steal our secrets. The FBI uses that > understanding to disrupt those efforts. Sometimes disruption takes the form > of alerting a person who is targeted for recruitment or influence by the > foreign power. Sometimes it involves hardening a computer system that is > being attacked. Sometimes it involves “turning” the recruited person into a > double-agent, or publicly calling out the behavior with sanctions or > expulsions of embassy-based intelligence officers. On occasion, criminal > prosecution is used to disrupt intelligence activities. > > Because the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known, counter- > intelligence investigations tend to be centered on individuals the FBI > suspects to be witting or unwitting agents of that foreign power. When the > FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for > recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the > foreign power, the FBI will “open an investigation” on that American and > use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any > relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted. > > In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the > FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure > President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That > was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We > agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one > meeting at Trump Tower, based on President- Elect Trump’s reaction to the > briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that > assurance. > > > *I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the > President-Elect in a memo.* To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a > laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the > meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one > conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This > had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama > twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law > enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say > goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize > the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President > Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone. > > > *January 27 Dinner* > > The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the > Green Room at the White House. He had called me at lunchtime that day and > invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my whole > family, but decided to have just me this time, with the whole family coming > the next time. It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at > the dinner, although I assumed there would be others. > > It turned out to be just the two of us, seated at a small oval table in > the center of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us, only entering > the room to serve food and drinks. > > The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI > Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in > earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him > that I intended to. He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given > the abuse I had taken during the previous year, he would understand if I > wanted to walk away. > > My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that > this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at > least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of > patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s > traditionally independent status in the executive branch. > > I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten- > year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added > that I was not “reliable” in the way politicians use that word, but he > could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on > anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional > political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President. > > *A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect > loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way > during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in > silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject > near the end of our dinner.* > > > At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the > Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a > paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because > “problems” come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. > But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by > undermining public trust in the institutions and their work. > > Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my > job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard > great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. *He > then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from > me.” He paused and then said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” I > paused, and then said, “You will get that from me.” As I wrote in the memo > I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the > phrase “honest loyalty” differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be > productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped end a > very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should > expect.* > > > During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had > briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed > his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was > considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it > didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because > it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, > which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He > said he would think about it and asked me to think about it. > > *As was my practice for conversations with President Trump, I wrote a > detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with > the senior leadership team of the FBI.* > > > *February 14 Oval Office Meeting* > > On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counter- > terrorism briefing of the President. He sat behind the desk and a group of > us sat in a semi-circle of about six chairs facing him on the other side of > the desk. The Vice President, Deputy Director of the CIA, Director of the > National Counter- Terrorism Center, Secretary of Homeland Security, the > Attorney General, and I were in the semi-circle of chairs. I was directly > facing the President, sitting between the Deputy CIA Director and the > Director of NCTC. There were quite a few others in the room, sitting behind > us on couches and chairs. > > The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and > telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. > As the participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General > lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to > speak only with me. The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also > stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then > excused him, saying he wanted to speak with me. > > > *When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the > President began by saying, “I want to talk about Mike Flynn.” Flynn had > resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done > anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go > because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other > concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.* > > > The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with > leaks of classified information – a concern I shared and still share. After > he had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in > through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people > waiting behind him. The President waved at him to close the door, saying he > would be done shortly. The door closed. > > *The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a > good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done > anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice > President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this > go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I > replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience > dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense > Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I > would “let this go.”* > > > The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and > left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large > group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President. > > *I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about > Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood > the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in > connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian > ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking > about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his > campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just > happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of > his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI’s role > as an independent investigative agency.* > > > The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect > the investigative team with the President’s request, which we did not > intend to abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one-on-one > conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account. We > concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, > who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in > Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy > Attorney General’s role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United > States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role. > > After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, > resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our > investigation progressed. The investigation moved ahead at full speed, with > none of the investigative team members – or the Department of Justice > lawyers supporting them – aware of the President’s request. > > Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to > pass along the President’s concerns about leaks. I took the opportunity to > implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication > between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened – > him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, > remained behind – was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not > reply. For the reasons discussed above, I did not mention that the > President broached the FBI’s potential investigation of General Flynn. > > > *March 30 Phone Call* > > *On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He > described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his > ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with > Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always > assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to > “lift the cloud.” I responded that we were investigating the matter as > quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t > find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then > re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.* > > > Then the President asked why there had been a congressional hearing about > Russia the previous week – at which I had, as the Department of Justice > directed, confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between > Russia and the Trump campaign. I explained the demands from the leadership > of both parties in Congress for more information, and that Senator Grassley > had even held up the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General until we > briefed him in detail on the investigation. I explained that we had briefed > the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were > investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were > not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had > previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact > out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of > Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have > an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly > because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.) > > > The President went on to say that if there were some “satellite” > associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that > out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to > get it out that we weren’t investigating him. > > In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director > Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn’t brought up “the McCabe thing” because I had > said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and > had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe’s wife) campaign > money. Although I didn’t understand why the President was bringing this up, > I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person. > > He finished by stressing “the cloud” that was interfering with his ability > to make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get > out that he wasn’t being investigated. I told him I would see what we could > do, and that we would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we > could. > > > *Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney > General Dana Boente (AG Sessions had by then recused himself on all Russia- > related matters), to report the substance of the call from the President, > and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before > the President called me again two weeks later.* > > > *April 11 Phone Call* > > *On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had > done about his request that I “get out” that he is not personally under > investigation.* I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting > Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that “the > cloud” was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that > perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney > General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the > White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the > request, which was the traditional channel. > > > *He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to > you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him > what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to > have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He > said that was what he would do and the call ended.* > > That was the last time I spoke with President Trump. > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:17:54 AM UTC-5, Kamakazee wrote: > > Sweatin' to the oldies and all....... >> > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
