Trump Lawyer Threatens To Report A Former FBI Employee To The Inspector General
from the IT-GOES-ALL-THE-WAY-TO-THE-TOP dept
President Trump served up plenty of responses to former FBI director James Comey's testimony before the Senate. Some he served up himself, like his contradictory claim Comey was lying about everything, but somehow vindicating Trump at the same time. Some were served up by his legal representation, which weren't much better despite being composed by an actual lawyer and not being limited to 140 characters.
The most extraordinary thing to come out of the hearing the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held Thursday may not be former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony, but the baffling, typo-riddled response to that testimony issued by Donald Trump’s personal attorney Marc Kasowitz.
Perhaps the most irresponsible aspect of Kasowitz’s press release was the suggestion that Comey might have violated the law by relaying his account of unclassified conversations with Trump to the press, via a friend. As a veritable chorus of legal scholars, including our own Steve Vladeck, have already observed, this is arrant nonsense. Indeed, it is so clearly false that it’s hard to see how a minimally competent attorney could have made it in good faith——though it will doubtless make perfectly serviceable chum for the cable news shows.
This only scratches the surface, however. The whole document is so remarkable for both its sloppiness and disingenuousness that it’s worth going through paragraph by paragraph.
...Which Julian Sanchez then does. I wholeheartedly encourage you to click through and read the entire evisceration, which shows Trump's lawyer denying claims Comey never made and conflating private conversations with classified documents.
That leads to another one of Trump's lawyer's more ridiculous assertions. It wasn't covered directly in the press release, but apparently Trump (and his lawyer) believe they can somehow punish someone Trump has already fired.
President Donald Trump's outside counsel will file a leak complaint regarding former FBI Director James Comey's leaked memos with the Department of Justice, a source close to the outside legal team tells NBC News.
Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz will file the complaint with the DOJ's Inspector General and the Senate Judiciary Committee after Comey testified Thursday that he allowed a personal friend to leak an unclassified memo of his conversations with the president to news outlets in hopes it would trigger the appointment of a special counsel.
Cue the laughter. If Kasowitz wanted this threat to have any weight, he probably should have pulled the trigger before Trump fired Comey. At best, an investigation might make it harder for Comey to return to the FBI, something I doubt Comey has any interest in doing.
Furthermore, the underlying conceit -- that's there's anything to file a formal complaint about -- is severely flawed.
“Any complaint on what Jim testified yesterday, in my opinion, would be frivolous for the following reason,” said [Lawfare Editor Benjamin] Wittes in an interview with Yahoo News Deputy Editor Daniel Klaidman. “First of all, Comey was very clear that the memo that he wrote was intentionally written in unclassified form so that it would not be bound up in classification rules. So if the claim is that he’s admitted to leaking classified information, that’s simply factually false.”
[...]
“The real issue is whether the president has a reasonable expectation of confidentiality when he fires somebody and then lies about the circumstances in which he did that, and that strikes me as a matter in which to ask that question is also to answer it,” said Wittes. “The proper answer to Mr. Kasowitz’s complaint is laughter."
As any law enforcement official can tell you, privacy expectations in shared conversations only stretch as far as the other participants are willing to take them. Even in an executive branch setting, an informal conversation does not instantly become classified or top secret or whatever it is the president wishes it was the moment it ends.
There also is no leak. Comey's personal memorializations of conversations with someone unrelated to an ongoing investigation are not the sort of thing that can be leaked -- at least not in the context being used by Trump's lawyer. Comey can hand out copies of these memos to whoever he wants, because they're his recollections, not FBI investigative documents.
If Trump is seeking someone to blame for Comey's actions, he has no one to blame but himself. It's become apparent Comey was fired for not pledging his allegiance to Trump, rather than for any genuine misdeeds related to his job as FBI director. Once Trump unceremoniously shitcanned Comey, any hope Comey might keep his conversational memos secret was lost forever. These statements by Trump's lawyer are legal grandstanding. There's nothing in them of substance. But there doesn't have to be. The assertions appeal to Trump's base, and to President Trump, that's all that really matters.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, donald trump, fbi, inspector general, james comey, leaks, mark kasowitz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Having listened to the lawyer's press conference live I can tell you it feels like Comey committed crimes, also that Trump is exonerated. But that is the key point, it only felt like it due to the choice of words the lawyer used and the appearance of being an expert on this subject due to being a lawyer.
Once you actually look at the content you realize it is complete hogwash but by then it is too late. Both sides have already formed their opinion on the matter and it's very hard to change how someone feels on a controversial subject. It's not till you stop and analyze the situation that any progress will be made towards the truth. Which is the goal of Trump and his lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do we finally hear the sound of Trump falling?
Not really. With one third of the public thinking President Trump is going a fine job, with the alt-right press still willing to tell not just out and out lies but lies that don't have any self consistency, with a congress giddy with the possibilities of even more tax cuts for the wealthy friends and passing laws against people for no other reason than they don't like their skin, religion, who they have sex with, or status, nothing will happen to President Trump.
A better question is not if Mr. Trump is falling, but whether or not our nation is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not a Leak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not a Leak
Not all cover ups involve classified information but when the cover up is exposed, it is usually called a leak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: not a Leak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: not a Leak
Whether it is called a leak or not, what is the difference - who cares - what is the point and why bother making it? There must be an ulterior motive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
No argument is required, just a few headlines:
"Comey Debunks NYT Report About Trump Campaign Having Repeated Contacts With Russians"
"So far, Jim Comey is disappointing the witch-hunters"
"Chris Matthews (MSNBC): Trump-Russia collusion theory 'came apart' with Comey testimony"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
None of the quoted sections of Comey's testimony support those headlines. They've had to cherrypick through the conversation, and run some spin on them, to interpret things this way. To the rest of us, Comey's testimony made Trump look less trustworthy than ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
And with Muller now heading the Special Prosecutor, he's likely to subpoena Trump, he'll likely have to take an oath to tell the truth. Trump is doomed then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
Nah he will just cross his fingers every time he speaks. His lawyer told him that was a legally binding version of the first amendment and he will be completely absolved of all possible perjury claims because he was no longer under oath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
Second: Please re-read the Comey testimony because he was very specific is his wording. Absolutely nothing said absolves the campaign of wrongdoing. Just because Trump himself was not under investigation as a specific time does not mean he was not a target of a future one. Several key members of his staff were clearly under investigation and there is ample evidence they did perform nefarious acts. They clearly went after all of the underlings to build a strong case to go after a President. That takes time. The wheels of justice are slow, but they do grind forward,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
So the FBI has a department of future crime? Who Knew?
The FACT is that the whole Trump-Putin story was lie cooked up by the Clinton machine on the day after the election, as documented in the book 'shattered'.
Oh, and by the way, it really is a crime to release FBI documents to the press without going through normal channels.
Stop trying to make Trump/Russia and Trump Obstruction happen. It's not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
"The alternative FACT is that the whole Trump-Putin story was lie cooked up by the Clinton machine on the day after the election"
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
No, don't be silly. He meant that if some evidence surfaces from current investigations that implicate Trump, then he will be investigated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
What crime would a person be charged with? What FBI documents were leaked? What was classified in those documents that made releasing to the media illegal? Where specifically does it say that releasing unclassified portions of documents as illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
So what we really have is a he said, he said. And while Comey may have those who believe he is a boy scout who is impeccably honest, his actions say otherwise.
Additionally, Trump may be uncouth, rude, obnoxious, inexperienced, and narcissistic, but he is still entitled to the presumption of innocence.
I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that supports ANY of the claims against him. And I would love to see some, trust me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
However the more sources of good evidence you have linked together then it approaches impossible to dismiss as circumstantial. Which is why prosecutors may have some evidence of a crime but don't take it to court because they feel it is not enough to convict. So they wait and gather more.
I don't know if the FBI has enough yet but I'm sure they will eventually find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
You didn't read the Minority Report that was leaked back in 2002?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt skips admitting was never anything backing its 8 months of Trump-Russia allegations, goes to whining that a lawyer is over-reaching.
When making a press conference you answer a question with a question and then answer your own question (Zootopia). Or in Trump's case you answer an accusation with a response to a non accusation and don't look back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
'It's our policy not to comment on ongoing investigations, unless it's in my best interest to do so.'
That Comey?
No integrity, and willing to jump into cesspool-level politics. That smell isn't roses.
Trump comes out smelling better, despite having a track record. It's not so much that he lies. It's that what he says has no relation to the truth.
Remember, a clock that spins backwards is right four times a day, while a stopped clock is only right twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you should follow your own advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where does it say that this blog only deals with technology? Certainly nothing in its stated remit and posting history. Strange, it only seems to be the Trump fanboys who whine like this whenever legal issues are raised. I don't see it on non-tech articles dealing with other legal matters.
What's the matter, can't stand that the orange buffoon hasn't delivered? Or, is it just dawning on you how much of an embarrassment he is for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Trump fanboys whine" "orange buffoon" "embarrassment"
This is Techdirt Counter Intelligence in action! First stupidity about the meaning of "Tech", then idiotic statements unrelated to anything, and (I predict) next accusations of mental problems, profanity, and then censorship.
Some simple questions - is it now OK for all FBI employees to take government documents and secretly send them to the press to promote their own agendas? What kind of precedent is this?
Did Comey said that the reason he made his "memos" was because he knew IN ADVANCE that Trump would lie? Is it EVEN POSSIBLE that Comey, that is, the same Comey who acted (completely inappropriately) as judge and jury and pardoner in chief for Hillary Clinton could LIE? Could he be LYING? Not possible in your version of the universe, right?
I hope he gets a jail cell next to Hillary, that would be poetic justice.
"Where does it say that this blog only deals with technology?" Duh! TCI (Techdirt Counter Intelligence) In Action Again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Possibly we get the expanded scope of the site from the very easy to get to "about Us" page:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It just adds to the comedy, guys like this think they're announcing some kind of problem with Techdirt, but they're just announcing that they can't be bothered to do the most basic research - and then expect the rest of us to take their bare uncited assertions about complex subjects seriously!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The "Tech" in Techdirt is for "Technology", right, genius?"
You should avoid sarcastically calling someone 'genius' while demonstrating your own far-from-genius abilities.
"...is it now OK for all FBI employees to take government documents and secretly send them to the press to promote their own agendas?"
A personal memo is not a government document, so that's a strawman argument.
"Did Comey said that the reason he made his "memos" was because he knew IN ADVANCE that Trump would lie?"
No he didn't. Perhaps watch the actual testimony instead of misquoting him to make yet another a strawman argument.
"Is it EVEN POSSIBLE that Comey, that is, the same Comey who acted (completely inappropriately) as judge and jury and pardoner in chief for Hillary Clinton could LIE? Could he be LYING?"
Whatever your opinion of Comey's past actions, there has never been any accusation of lying. Trump on the other hand has a long and well-documented history of outright and easily disproved lies. So it's pretty easy to take a punt of who's being the more honest here.
"I hope he gets a jail cell next to Hillary, that would be poetic justice."
Hey, whatever fantasies get you off I guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, you think that the Congo and North Korea are democratic societies because they have the word in their official names? You think that Carphone Warehouse can only sell car phones and not mobiles or tablets? You think that IHOP only sell pancakes and not any other food because they only have pancakes in their name?
Are you really that stupid, or is acting like it the way you get your kicks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Keep up the attitude. It is contributing to Trump winning again in 3.5 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to view things in the latter way, so which are you? Government action, or counter insurgency? Who is paying *your* bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
TCI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why doesn't Fox News only report about foxes.
I know you're probably trolling, but why don't you read what Techdirt is about first so you look less like an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"tech"- yeah, not such a tech story.
"dirt"- BAM! There is dirt ALL OVER this story!
It's like for some people "tech" in the name is a treasured campaign promise, and "dirt" is the ignored and unloved follow through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump Classifying Documents
Doesn't the president have that power and wouldn't that make Comey a "leaker?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump Classifying Documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump Classifying Documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trump Classifying Documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trump Classifying Documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump Classifying Documents
trying to classify information retroactively and after it had already been released
To be fair, multiple government agencies were already essentially doing this with FOIA requests long before Trump made an entrance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump Classifying Documents
* 2,000 e-mails were “up-classified” to their correct status as Confidential upon review of the emails by the agency from which they originated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump administration tag line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you see the memos?
Did you see these memos? Were these the ones (by his own testimony) that Comey wrote in his FBI car on the secured FBI computer while being paid by the FBI? Those memos, I think anyone would agree, are not COMEY memos, the are official government records created as part of his government official duties.
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did you see the memos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did you see the memos?
1. Sarcasm, poor humor
2. Personal insults, sexual or toilet imagery
3. Silly lady logic
4. Change the subject to Shiva
5. Censor
I think you are employing TCI:1, right?
What's next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Did you see the memos?
"1. Sarcasm, poor humor"
You clearly have a poor grasp on reading comprehension by ignoring all of the evidence people have given you showing you are wrong.
Crap that's less sarcasm and more just reality. Let me try again:
You seem like a very good person to have a long lunch with.
Much better.
"2. Personal insults, sexual or toilet imagery"
______
\ \.
|`\_____\
|` | |
| | |
__-====-__ _| | |
(~< >~> \ | |
!~~-====-~~/----`+----/
\ \___ /
>------\ \ <
<_________________>
"3. Silly lady logic"
Feel free to imagine I am whatever you want me to be. If it makes you feel any better you can imagine me dressed as Wonder Woman while you are reading this.
"4. Change the subject to Shiva"
I genuinely don't know enough about shiva to make a dumb joke. but I guess you have encountered this frequently enough to make your top five list. So I need to go back to my training. I clearly missed in important TCI class.
"5. Censor"
%^&%%^^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see the memos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see the memos?
Still TCI:1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see the memos?
TCI - Technical & correct information.
Or you can use,
TCI - totally cool information.
Either way, yep Techdirt has it!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see the memos?
2. Why did you feel we needed to see ascii art of your toilet?
3. Next time please flush before immortalizing your commode (it looks crappy =).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see the memos?
2. First thing I thought of when he mentioned "toilet imagery". I went with my gut. :-)
3. I know! I got to get my pipes fixed. They were all over the place in that image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see the memos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see the memos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually…
personal device. He was justifiably careful to do so. ;]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually…
Seems shady at a minimum to claim they are personal for one reason, yet damning for another.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif is filing articles of impeachment based on testimony about this personal, on his own time, memo that no one has seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did you see the memos?
"Those memos, I think anyone would agree, are not COMEY memos, the are official government records created as part of his government official duties."
No I doubt many will agree, because it's a desperately weak argument. Surely you realize that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It has become apparent? It has become apparent to whom? First, only Comey spoke to "pledging his allegiance", that does not make it a fact. Second, it looks like Comey PLANNED to leak the memos FROM THE TIME HE CREATED THEM, and all bit admitted this under oath.
Trump has no one to blame but himself? TCI!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they are based on Trump's own words, actions and court documents.
Hide your head in the sand much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't even need to look at the media, just look at Trump's own tweets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All fake news by the dishonest media! Sad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Updated Techdirt Counter Intelligence Categories
Techdirt Counter Intelligence Categories:
0. Voice Identification and Background Check
1. Sarcasm, poor humor
2. Personal insults, sexual or toilet imagery
3. Silly lady logic
4. Change the subject to Shiva
5. Censor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Updated Techdirt Counter Intelligence Categories
TCI:0 There is no doubt about TCI:0, right? This very thread identified my voice, and I've often heard discussion of whether English is my first or second language, how I capitalize things, etc., how I change IP addresses, and so on. I think I have a whole "file" with the TCIT (Techdirt Counter Intelligence Team).
TCI:1 There are lots of examples of TCI:1, some very well meaning and funny, but a lot of it nasty and ill humored. Kind of a judgment call, reasonable people may differ.
TCI:2 There are simply too many examples of TCI:2, they are not censored, they seem to be not just tolerated but considered appropriate if you have a "toxic reputation"
TCI:3 is a judgment call, but I would say treating a captured terrorist leader with respect and ensuring his comfort and day in court sounds silly to me. Maybe that's just me.
TCI:4 Is seen a lot, no one disagrees wit that, right? The actual use of the name is hard to dispute (or understand).
TCK:5 Kind of speaks for itself. Easy to see long exchanges with profanity and disgusting images preserved and rational argument censored, no doubt because of a "toxic reputation".
That's a fair critique, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Updated Techdirt Counter Intelligence Categories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Updated Techdirt Counter Intelligence Categories
I mean looking at your writing I can only assume you failed a critical thinking class but still know a few buzz words.
If you think by putting what you do in the comments offends intelligent people I can only say keep trying. Don't worry with enough cranial exercise you might even be able to create logical arguments some day.
I'm proud to be able to see Techdirt be consistent from article to article over the years. It just shows how well thought out and balanced its critiques and arguments are. In the few cases that I have seen them wrong they correct themselves.
Keep reading you might even learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated Techdirt Counter Intelligence Categories
Silly Lady Argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated Techdirt Counter Intelligence Categories
Wow. I have no idea what you are talking about. A "Silly Lady Argument"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Who the hell talks like that? That's a really small bubble you live in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamsosmart/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated Techdirt Counter Intelligence Categories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It has become apparent? It has become apparent to whom?"
Anyone with half a brain who's been watching Trump's actions for the last few years. Rocket science this ain't.
"First, only Comey spoke to "pledging his allegiance", that does not make it a fact."
Nobody has ever said it is anything other than Comey's claim, and has no independent corroboration. But seriously, out of the two of them, who's got a proven track record as a serial liar?
"Second, it looks like Comey PLANNED to leak the memos FROM THE TIME HE CREATED THEM, and all bit admitted this under oath."
Obviously they were planned to be his record of events, to be released if necessary to protect himself if Trump turned on him, which he did. Not sure why you think that's a damming revelation, it's the smart think to do any time you may need to rely on your recollection of events. Smart people do it all the time in all walks of life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was also almost certainly at least somewhat illegal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448529/comey-memos-leaking-improper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“So long as he ensured the FBI had its own copy of the memos, and so long as the memos were not classified, Mr. Comey’s actions appear to be entirely lawful,” said Brad Moss, a lawyer who specializes in national security and security clearance law. "
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/337202-comey-followed-careful-plan-in-leaking-memos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"file the complaint with the DOJ's Inspector General and the Senate Judiciary Committee"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait...
At least we would be talking about Russian hookers instead of that guy who rides his horse shirtless.
And just think of all the campaign slogans that could have been....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]