Does This Pose Make Me Look Guilty?

 

Replace the book he’s holding with a mug shot sign.

So … the James Comey Book Tour has had its first week. An extremely rocky voyage so far. It seems to this observer that it is about to hit an iceberg, a la the Titanic.

Just today, we have Kim Strassel at the WSJ [paywall] with 11 questions (her column had space restrictions for adding more) that an honest interviewer would ask the former head of the FBI. We have Jim Geraghty at NR [link] echoing Mike Wallace about the catty gossipiness and pointing out the yuge blanks that need filling about Hillary, McCabe, and Lynch. At The Hill … Jonathan Turley appropriately titles his article … FBI A House Of Lies In Comey Era.

And at The Federalist, we have the esteemed Mollie Hemingway [Comey’s memos indicate the dossier briefing of Trump was a setup] who takes apart the now recently published memos of this disgrace of a man and a former head of the FBI. Sad.

Ms. Hemingway makes a very effective case that this man set up the incoming President of the United States for the public reporting of the most salacious details of what Comey also testified to Congress was “unverified,” and that although he intentionally omitted it from his testimony, he knew it was produced by the Hillary Clinton campaign as “opposition research.”

Here’s Mollie’s concluding paragraph:

That [Comey’s firing by Trump] led to Comey leaking multiple memos in order to get a special counsel appointed out of revenge. That special counsel has utterly distracted multiple agencies and embroiled all three branches of government at the highest levels. All over a document that was secretly funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, contracted by a Democrat research firm with ties to the Kremlin, and authored by a shady foreign spy whose relationship with the FBI was terminated because he lied to them.

Treason, by any other name, is still treason.

There are 73 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Go think Comey is laying the groundwork for an insanely plea. BTW it is not possible to give his book less than 4 stars on Amazon.

    • #1
  2. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Ah the 4 star comic Columbo that I know. Your first joke in the OP gets my “Funny of the Month” award. I knew when i saw that photo of Comey standing there that it was vaguely familiar. And how right you are – that book and its cover should be replaced with the mugshot info.

    • #2
  3. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    If he was only making a fool of himself it would be one thing, but he is making life harder for those at the FBI. Then again, that could be a blessing.

    • #3
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    LOL good one. 

    • #4
  5. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    The background should read,  Barnes and Nobler, since Comey’s there….

    • #5
  6. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    How about now?

    • #6
  7. carcat74 Member
    carcat74
    @carcat74

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    Go think Comey is laying the groundwork for an insanely plea. BTW it is not possible to give his book less than 4 stars on Amazon.

    I heard about that on Rush’s show Friday.  I’m an amazon prime member, so I went to try posting a one star rating.  No, I didn’t buy his book–just read enough excerpts to know I don’t want to buy it.  I got a two line message saying I couldn’t post a review, because of possibly causing a negative skewing of the result.  So I tried a 5 star rating—same answer.  Called Amazon, was told since I didn’t buy the book FROM THEM, I couldn’t post a review.  Not buying it just so I can trash it!

    • #7
  8. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Covering one’s genitals is a sign of feeling vulnerable.

    • #8
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Columbo:
    Here’s Mollie’s concluding paragraph:

    That [Comey’s firing by Trump] led to Comey leaking multiple memos in order to get a special counsel appointed out of revenge. That special counsel has utterly distracted multiple agencies and embroiled all three branches of government at the highest levels. All over a document that was secretly funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, contracted by a Democrat research firm with ties to the Kremlin, and authored by a shady foreign spy whose relationship with the FBI was terminated because he lied to them.

    Mollie’s message needs to be trumpeted (pun intended) from the mouth of every Republican running for office.  They should highlight all this turmoil we have today is due to the work of the Democrat-Mainstream Media machine, which should be touted as a single organization hell-bent on turning this nation into a third-world has-been (seen all the homeless pictures from California lately?) . . .

    • #9
  10. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Stad (View Comment):

    Columbo:
    Here’s Mollie’s concluding paragraph:

    That [Comey’s firing by Trump] led to Comey leaking multiple memos in order to get a special counsel appointed out of revenge. That special counsel has utterly distracted multiple agencies and embroiled all three branches of government at the highest levels. All over a document that was secretly funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, contracted by a Democrat research firm with ties to the Kremlin, and authored by a shady foreign spy whose relationship with the FBI was terminated because he lied to them.

    Mollie’s message needs to be trumpeted (pun intended) from the mouth of every Republican running for office. They should highlight all this turmoil we have today is due to the work of the Democrat-Mainstream Media machine, which should be touted as a single organization hell-bent on turning this nation into a third-world has-been (seen all the homeless pictures from California lately?) . . .

    Our message should be a simple choice:  more economic prosperity or endless political investigations that find nothing? You choose, America.

    • #10
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    The list of real journalists whom I can trust has gotten very small. I’ll look to you @columbo to keep us current!

    • #11
  12. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The list of real journalists whom I can trust has gotten very small. I’ll look to you @columbo to keep us current!

    Sharyl Attkisson, Peter Schweitzer, …..

    • #12
  13. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Jonathan Chait rebuts Mollie’s absurd conspiratorial premise:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/republicans-believe-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html

    • #13
  14. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Jonathan Chait rebuts Mollie’s absurd conspiratorial premise:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/republicans-believe-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html

    Chait provides an alternative perspective that should be read to those of both Hemingway and York.  Fine.  But that’s all it is.  I wish that you’d taken the time to to discuss Hemingway’s “absurd conspiratorial premise” in the thread devoted to it. 

    • #14
  15. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    C

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Jonathan Chait rebuts Mollie’s absurd conspiratorial premise:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/republicans-believe-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html

    Chait:

    Suppose that Comey decided not to tell Trump about the Steele dossier, even though its findings had been taken seriously by U.S. intelligence, and both Congress and the former president had already been briefed on it. Would Trump’s defenders today be holding up Comey’s silence as evidence that he did the right thing by withholding this information from the new president?

    Chait seems to be asking what Comey should have done with the dossier. The answer is when the FBI asked Steele to provide evidence of the credibility of his sources and instead of doing so went to the press with his uncorroborated allegations, Comey should have done what he did:  cut off contact with Steele. 

    Then, he should have independently corroborated the allegations, or failing that, thrown the dossier in the trash as the unreliable Democrat oppo research that he should have known it was. 

    Chait seems to be arguing that the fact that instead of doing these things, the hyper-political Obama security apparatus briefed Pres. Obama and congress on the unreliable political oppo research, somehow legitimates the dossier.

    I guess Chait is right that the dossier was already newsworthy enough without the Comey briefing of Trump. However, I would argue that the story was the Obama administration’s shameful use of political oppo research to investigate political opponents, not the fact of the briefing itself.

     

    • #15
  16. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Jonathan Chait rebuts Mollie’s absurd conspiratorial premise:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/republicans-believe-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html

    Chait provides an alternative perspective that should be read to those of both Hemingway and York. Fine. But that’s all it is. I wish that you’d taken the time to to discuss Hemingway’s “absurd conspiratorial premise” in the thread devoted to it.

    Agreed, and I’d like to take the time to rebut Chait point by point, because he is guilty of what he accuses Mollie Hemingway of doing:  leaving out context, but I’d rather take a nap. 

    • #16
  17. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):
    I guess Chait is right that the dossier was already newsworthy enough without the Comey briefing of Trump. However, I would argue that the story was the Obama administration’s shameful use of political oppo research to investigate political opponents, not the fact of the briefing itself.

    It was newsworthy but was it newsworthy enough?  We’ve certainly learned that nothing is more newsworthy in the eyes of CNN than something even more negative about Trump.

    And Chait’s treatment of York’s piece strikes me as rather simplistic, so that has to figure into evaluating his perspective as well.

    • #17
  18. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Jonathan Chait rebuts Mollie’s absurd conspiratorial premise:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/republicans-believe-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html

    Chait provides an alternative perspective that should be read to those of both Hemingway and York. Fine. But that’s all it is. I wish that you’d taken the time to to discuss Hemingway’s “absurd conspiratorial premise” in the thread devoted to it.

    Factually Mollies premise is absurd given that CNN already had multiple “hooks”. Mollies  conspiracy theory is that Comey’s informing Trump about the dossier was an operation intended to give CNN a news hook to report on it. CNN already knew that multiple areas of government had been briefed on the document. 

    • #18
  19. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    C

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Jonathan Chait rebuts Mollie’s absurd conspiratorial premise:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/republicans-believe-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html

    Chait:

    Suppose that Comey decided not to tell Trump about the Steele dossier, even though its findings had been taken seriously by U.S. intelligence, and both Congress and the former president had already been briefed on it. Would Trump’s defenders today be holding up Comey’s silence as evidence that he did the right thing by withholding this information from the new president?

    Chait seems to be asking what Comey should have done with the dossier. The answer is when the FBI asked Steele to provide evidence of the credibility of his sources and instead of doing so went to the press with his uncorroborated allegations, Comey should have done what he did: cut off contact with Steele.

    Then, he should have independently corroborated the allegations, or failing that, thrown the dossier in the trash as the unreliable Democrat oppo research that he should have known it was.

    Chait seems to be arguing that the fact that instead of doing these things, the hyper-political Obama security apparatus briefed Pres. Obama and congress on the unreliable political oppo research, somehow legitimates the dossier.

    I guess Chait is right that the dossier was already newsworthy enough without the Comey briefing of Trump. However, I would argue that the story was the Obama administration’s shameful use of political oppo research to investigate political opponents, not the fact of the briefing itself.

     

    This is a fine answer to a question Chait didn’t ask. 

    • #19
  20. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Jonathan Chait rebuts Mollie’s absurd conspiratorial premise:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/republicans-believe-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html

    Chait provides an alternative perspective that should be read to those of both Hemingway and York. Fine. But that’s all it is. I wish that you’d taken the time to to discuss Hemingway’s “absurd conspiratorial premise” in the thread devoted to it.

    Factually Mollies premise is absurd given that CNN already had multiple “hooks”. Mollies conspiracy theory is that Comey’s informing Trump about the dossier was an operation intended to give CNN a news hook to report on it. CNN already knew that multiple areas of government had been briefed on the document.

    Comey seemed to have intimate knowledge of CNN’s motives at the time. I will defer to his expertise. 

    • #20
  21. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Jonathan Chait rebuts Mollie’s absurd conspiratorial premise:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/republicans-believe-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html

    Chait provides an alternative perspective that should be read to those of both Hemingway and York. Fine. But that’s all it is. I wish that you’d taken the time to to discuss Hemingway’s “absurd conspiratorial premise” in the thread devoted to it.

    Factually Mollies premise is absurd given that CNN already had multiple “hooks”. Mollies conspiracy theory is that Comey’s informing Trump about the dossier was an operation intended to give CNN a news hook to report on it. CNN already knew that multiple areas of government had been briefed on the document.

    As I noted above, it’s a matter of perspective whether one last juicy hook was even better.  Mollie is advancing a theory and it certainly should be taken as such.  But, if nothing else, the CNN story following Comey’s first meeting with Trump makes it less than absurd.

    • #21
  22. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Jonathan Chait rebuts Mollie’s absurd conspiratorial premise:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/republicans-believe-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html

    Chait provides an alternative perspective that should be read to those of both Hemingway and York. Fine. But that’s all it is. I wish that you’d taken the time to to discuss Hemingway’s “absurd conspiratorial premise” in the thread devoted to it.

    Factually Mollies premise is absurd given that CNN already had multiple “hooks”. Mollies conspiracy theory is that Comey’s informing Trump about the dossier was an operation intended to give CNN a news hook to report on it. CNN already knew that multiple areas of government had been briefed on the document.

    As I noted above, it’s a matter of perspective whether one last juicy hook was even better. Mollie is advancing a theory and it certainly should be taken as such. But, if nothing else, the CNN story following Comey’s first meeting with Trump makes it less than absurd.

    That, and that the CNN reporter covering the DOJ was Valerie Jarrett’s daughter.

    • #22
  23. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):
    I guess Chait is right that the dossier was already newsworthy enough without the Comey briefing of Trump. However, I would argue that the story was the Obama administration’s shameful use of political oppo research to investigate political opponents, not the fact of the briefing itself.

    It was newsworthy but was it newsworthy enough? We’ve certainly learned that nothing is more newsworthy in the eyes of CNN than something even more negative about Trump.

    I have to admit some ignorance here:  is it customary for the president and the congressional intelligence agencies to be briefed on uncorroborated, raw intelligence? I mean, at that point the dossier was little more than rumor and innuendo. If that’s the kind of intelligence that POTUS and the intel committees usually hear from the intel chiefs, then the fact that they were briefed on the dossier was not newsworthy. But I tend to assume that congressional and presidential briefing materials are made of stronger stuff than this.

    And Chait’s treatment of York’s piece strikes me as rather simplistic, so that has to figure into evaluating his perspective as well.

    Yes, Chait totally glosses over York’s point and ignores the context of the loyalty demands. In the full context of Comey’s memo, the conversation basically went like this:

     

    1. Trump and Comey talk about whether Comey will continue as FBI Director or not.
    2. Trump asks specifically if the FBI leaks. Comey says it sometimes happens.
    3. Trump asks for “loyalty”.

      Here’s some context that Chait ignores:  the content of the last meeting with Comey (Jan. 6, 2017) did leak to the press, so Trump had reason to be suspicious of Comey. 

      In the context, Trump’s words can easily be interpreted as indirectly asking Comey if he leaked the Russia pee thing to the media. It’s possible that Comey misinterpreted and/or misrepresented that intent in his memo and later in the media. It’s also possible that Trump transitioned from the topic of FBI leaking to some sort of medieval/mafia demand for loyalty, but that just doesn’t make any sense to me in the context. Furthermore, Chait neither addresses the contextual aspect of York’s interpretation, nor makes an argument for his interpretation with regard to the immediate context of the conversation.  

     

    • #23
  24. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):
    I guess Chait is right that the dossier was already newsworthy enough without the Comey briefing of Trump. However, I would argue that the story was the Obama administration’s shameful use of political oppo research to investigate political opponents, not the fact of the briefing itself.

    It was newsworthy but was it newsworthy enough? We’ve certainly learned that nothing is more newsworthy in the eyes of CNN than something even more negative about Trump.

    I have to admit some ignorance here: is it customary for the president and the congressional intelligence agencies to be briefed on uncorroborated, raw intelligence? I mean, at that point the dossier was little more than rumor and innuendo. If that’s the kind of intelligence that POTUS and the intel committees usually hear from the intel chiefs, then the fact that they were briefed on the dossier was not newsworthy. But I tend to assume that congressional and presidential briefing materials are made of stronger stuff than this.

    And Chait’s treatment of York’s piece strikes me as rather simplistic, so that has to figure into evaluating his perspective as well.

    Yes, Chait totally glosses over York’s point and ignores the context of the loyalty demands. In the full context of Comey’s memo, the conversation basically went like this:

     

    1. Trump and Comey talk about whether Comey will continue as FBI Director or not.
    2. Trump asks specifically if the FBI leaks. Comey says it sometimes happens.
    3. Trump asks for “loyalty”.
      Here’s some context that Chait ignores: the content of the last meeting with Comey (Jan. 6, 2017) did leak to the press, so Trump had reason to be suspicious of Comey.

      In the context, Trump’s words can easily be interpreted as indirectly asking Comey if he leaked the Russia pee thing to the media. It’s possible that Comey misinterpreted and/or misrepresented that intent in his memo and later in the media. It’s also possible that Trump transitioned from the topic of FBI leaking to some sort of medieval/mafia demand for loyalty, but that just doesn’t make any sense to me in the context. Furthermore, Chait neither addresses the contextual aspect of York’s interpretation, nor makes an argument for his interpretation with regard to the immediate context of the conversation.

     

    If that’s all it is then why didn’t POTUS just say so? Instead he denied even asking for Comeys loyalty in the first place. 

    • #24
  25. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

     

    I have to admit some ignorance here: is it customary for the president and the congressional intelligence agencies to be briefed on uncorroborated, raw intelligence? I mean, at that point the dossier was little more than rumor and innuendo. If that’s the kind of intelligence that POTUS and the intel committees usually hear from the intel chiefs, then the fact that they were briefed on the dossier was not newsworthy. But I tend to assume that congressional and presidential briefing materials are made of stronger stuff than this.

    And Chait’s treatment of York’s piece strikes me as rather simplistic, so that has to figure into evaluating his perspective as well.

    Yes, Chait totally glosses over York’s point and ignores the context of the loyalty demands. In the full context of Comey’s memo, the conversation basically went like this:

     

    1. Trump and Comey talk about whether Comey will continue as FBI Director or not.
    2. Trump asks specifically if the FBI leaks. Comey says it sometimes happens.
    3. Trump asks for “loyalty”.
      Here’s some context that Chait ignores: the content of the last meeting with Comey (Jan. 6, 2017) did leak to the press, so Trump had reason to be suspicious of Comey.
      In the context, Trump’s words can easily be interpreted as indirectly asking Comey if he leaked the Russia pee thing to the media. It’s possible that Comey misinterpreted and/or misrepresented that intent in his memo and later in the media. It’s also possible that Trump transitioned from the topic of FBI leaking to some sort of medieval/mafia demand for loyalty, but that just doesn’t make any sense to me in the context. Furthermore, Chait neither addresses the contextual aspect of York’s interpretation, nor makes an argument for his interpretation with regard to the immediate context of the conversation.

     

    If that’s all it is then why didn’t POTUS just say so? Instead he denied even asking for Comeys loyalty in the first place.

    I believe he denied asking for “personal loyalty”. Maybe, in the context of the conversation, he believes that both he and Comey understood that he was asking for something more akin to confidentiality. It’s very believable that Trump did not choose the optimal word to convey his meaning. It’s possible that Trump is denying Comey’s interpretation. 

    Furthermore, Comey has made this demand out to be a mafia-type loyalty pledge, when in fact the context of the conversation doesn’t support that interpretation.  

    • #25
  26. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    From NPR:

    NPR’s Scott Horsley joins us now from the White House. And Scott, what the president says about the Flynn matter of course directly contradicts what Comey told the Senate committee. How do we sort that one out?

    SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Robert, one of these men is lying. Comey says the president told him he hoped he could let the Flynn investigation go and that he took that as a direction from the president. Trump insists he didn’t say that. He also disputes Comey’s account of the private dinner the two men had where Comey said the president asked for that pledge of loyalty. Now, Comey was testifying under oath. ABC’s Jon Karl asked the president, would he be willing to do the same?

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

    PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: One-hundred percent – I didn’t say under oath. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say, I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? I mean think of it. I hardly know the man.

    HORSLEY: Remember, Robert; not long after he fired Comey, Trump tweeted that the former FBI director better hope there are no tapes of those – of their conversations. Comey didn’t seem worried by that. He said yesterday, lordy, I hope there are tapes. Trump was asked about that today. He didn’t really answer. He teased reporters, saying, I’ll tell you over a very short period of time.

    SIEGEL: Trump is contesting much of what Comey said to the Senate intelligence committee. But it’s interesting. He wants people to believe part of what Comey said. Explain which part.

    I’m not sure what POTUS is denying here, and I’m not sure he knows.

     

    • #26
  27. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    I haven’t even gotten to the point of understanding what’s wrong with asking for loyalty.  It appears to me that Trump critics can’t come up with clear evidence of obstruction, so this word has to be spun both expansively and negatively.  

    • #27
  28. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    I tend towards Occam’s razor. Trump has a history of demanding and favoring loyalty of his subordinates. 

    • #28
  29. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I haven’t even gotten to the point of understanding what’s wrong with asking for loyalty. It appears to me that Trump critics can’t come up with clear evidence of obstruction, so this word has to be spun both expansively and negatively.

    Personal loyalty to a politicians over loyalty to ones oath of office? One has a place in a Republic the other does not. 

    • #29
  30. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    I tend towards Occam’s razor. Trump has a history of demanding and favoring loyalty of his subordinates.

    Maybe he did demand loyalty, didn’t get it, fired Comey, had two scoops of Rocky Road, and then put more money in my paycheck. Hillary’s right:

     

     

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.