President Trump's presentation that the Thursday declaration of previous FBI executive James B. Comey was an "add up to and finish vindication" in spite of "such a variety of false articulations and untruths" was the kind of recklessly triumphant and inexactly grounded as a general rule explanation we've generally expected from the president. It was news that turned out somewhat later, news about arrangements to document a protest against Comey for a disclosure he made amid that Senate Intelligence Committee hearing meeting, that may wind up being all the more harming to the president.
CNN and Fox initially revealed that Trump's outside advice, Marc Kasowitz, arrangements to document grumblings with the examiner general of the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee about Comey's declaration. At issue was Comey's disclosure that he gave a reminder archiving a discussion with Trump to a companion to be imparted to the New York Times.
As the news broke, I was on the telephone with Stephen Kohn, accomplice at a law office concentrated on informant assurance. We'd been discussing where the limits lay for Comey in what he could and couldn't do with the data about his discussions with the president. Kohn's reaction to the tale about Kasowitz, however, was instinctive.
"Here is my position on that: Frivolous showing off," he said. "Most importantly, I don't trust the reviewer general would have ward over Comey any more, since he's no longer a government worker." The overseer general's occupation is to research wrongdoing by representatives of the Justice Department, which Comey is at no time in the future, on account of Trump — however the IG would be able to examine a charge of criminal unfortunate behavior.
"Be that as it may, second," he kept, "starting an examination since you don't care for someone's declaration could be considered deterrent. Also, in the informant setting, it's both confirmation of striking back and, under a few laws, could be an unfriendly retaliatory act itself."
At the end of the day, Comey, here, is a worker who is blowing the shriek, to utilize the figure of speech, on his previous supervisor. That manager needs to rebuff him for doing as such. That is risky — particularly if there's no confirmation that Comey really damaged any law that would trigger discipline.
This is the place my unique line of request to Kohn returns into play.
Comey testified under oath that, following a conversation with Trump in the Oval Office, he wrote a memo documenting what was said. Last month, he provided that memo to a friend and asked that it be shared with the New York Times.
That, as described, is not illegal, Kohn said.
“Obviously you can report on a conversation with the president,” he said. “What the president does isn’t confidential or classified.” There is the principle of “executive privilege,” which protects the president’s deliberative process as he does his job. But that wouldn’t cover a conversation like the one between Comey and Trump.
In a piece he wrote for The Post on Thursday, Kohn described a 2003 case involving Robert MacLean, an air marshal who was fired for leaking information about a Homeland Security Department decision. That case established a relevant precedent for the Comely question. The Supreme Court determined that the DHS rule prohibiting leaks was insufficient cause for firing in the whistleblower context, since it wasn’t a law. By extension, even if Trump tried to argue that Comely violated executive privilege, that, too, is not codified in law.
If the information in that memo Comey gave to his friend was classified, the situation changes. But in his testimony, Comey described how he protected classified information in memos he wrote documenting conversations. There’s no indication, despite Trump’s lawyer’s cleverly worded statement on Thursday, that Comey crossed that important legal line.
Comey gave nonclassified notes about a conversation he had with the president to a friend with the express purpose of releasing that information to the media. In Kohn’s eyes, there’s nothing remotely illegal about that — making the new “frivolous grandstanding” from Kasowitz particularly problematic.
“The constitutional right to go to the press with information on matters of public concern, as long as you’re not doing it in a way that will bring out classified information,” Kohn said, “the reason why that is protected constitutionally is that the courts — including the U.S. Supreme Court — have ruled that the public has a constitutional right to hear this information.” In other words, it’s constitutionally protected speech.
It’s also worth noting that Trump’s tweeted attacks on the veracity of Comey’s testimony are also unlikely to bear much fruit. Making a mistake in testimony is not in itself illegal. When Comey made such a mistake last month, the FBI corrected his statement after the fact. Perjury requires a demonstration of intent, that the person meant to lie. That would be a difficult case to make legally.
We can securely accept, however, that Trump's group knows that Comey likely didn't damage any laws, and that they are essentially utilizing these contentions as an apparatus for undermining the parts of his declaration that they didn't care for. How they're doing it, however, could exacerbate their issues.
Kohn outlined the new minefield into which Trump and his legal counselor may be strolling.
"They realize that they're not going to get anything out of Comey on this, on the grounds that there's no confirmation," he included. "Be that as it may, they're unmistakably attempting to make a chilling impact. Not a chilling impact on ordered data. … This is a chilling impact on individuals not to discuss discussions they had with the president that are not named a matter of law."
Refresh:
There's an admonition, however. Tom Devine, lawful chief for the Government Accountability Project brought up in an email after this article was initially distributed that Comey himself isn't secured by the Whistleblower Protection Act since he was both a presidential nominee and a delegate of the FBI, a position which doesn't fall under the demonstration's domain.
Devine considers, however, that another government law may apply to Comey. U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1513 makes it a government offense for any individual who "with the aim to strike back, makes any move destructive to any individual, incorporating obstruction with the legal work or business of any individual, for giving to a law requirement officer any honest data identifying with the commission or conceivable commission of any Federal offense." Whether or not Comey is a real observer in an elected examination is the key question here; given the uniqueness of the conditions, there is a considerable measure of fluffiness.
Regardless of whether Trump and his group might want to rebuff Comey for his declaration appears to be more clear.
Watch video click here
CNN and Fox initially revealed that Trump's outside advice, Marc Kasowitz, arrangements to document grumblings with the examiner general of the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee about Comey's declaration. At issue was Comey's disclosure that he gave a reminder archiving a discussion with Trump to a companion to be imparted to the New York Times.
As the news broke, I was on the telephone with Stephen Kohn, accomplice at a law office concentrated on informant assurance. We'd been discussing where the limits lay for Comey in what he could and couldn't do with the data about his discussions with the president. Kohn's reaction to the tale about Kasowitz, however, was instinctive.
 |
| Former FBI director James B. Comey testified he used a third party to share the details of his private meetings with President Trump. When Sen. Blunt (R-Mo.) asked Comey why he didn't share the memos himself, Comey said he worried the media was camping at the end of his driveway and he thought it would "be like feeding seagulls at the beach." (Photo: Matt McClain / The Washington Post/Reuters) |
"Here is my position on that: Frivolous showing off," he said. "Most importantly, I don't trust the reviewer general would have ward over Comey any more, since he's no longer a government worker." The overseer general's occupation is to research wrongdoing by representatives of the Justice Department, which Comey is at no time in the future, on account of Trump — however the IG would be able to examine a charge of criminal unfortunate behavior.
"Be that as it may, second," he kept, "starting an examination since you don't care for someone's declaration could be considered deterrent. Also, in the informant setting, it's both confirmation of striking back and, under a few laws, could be an unfriendly retaliatory act itself."
At the end of the day, Comey, here, is a worker who is blowing the shriek, to utilize the figure of speech, on his previous supervisor. That manager needs to rebuff him for doing as such. That is risky — particularly if there's no confirmation that Comey really damaged any law that would trigger discipline.
This is the place my unique line of request to Kohn returns into play.
That, as described, is not illegal, Kohn said.
“Obviously you can report on a conversation with the president,” he said. “What the president does isn’t confidential or classified.” There is the principle of “executive privilege,” which protects the president’s deliberative process as he does his job. But that wouldn’t cover a conversation like the one between Comey and Trump.
In a piece he wrote for The Post on Thursday, Kohn described a 2003 case involving Robert MacLean, an air marshal who was fired for leaking information about a Homeland Security Department decision. That case established a relevant precedent for the Comely question. The Supreme Court determined that the DHS rule prohibiting leaks was insufficient cause for firing in the whistleblower context, since it wasn’t a law. By extension, even if Trump tried to argue that Comely violated executive privilege, that, too, is not codified in law.
If the information in that memo Comey gave to his friend was classified, the situation changes. But in his testimony, Comey described how he protected classified information in memos he wrote documenting conversations. There’s no indication, despite Trump’s lawyer’s cleverly worded statement on Thursday, that Comey crossed that important legal line.
Comey gave nonclassified notes about a conversation he had with the president to a friend with the express purpose of releasing that information to the media. In Kohn’s eyes, there’s nothing remotely illegal about that — making the new “frivolous grandstanding” from Kasowitz particularly problematic.
“The constitutional right to go to the press with information on matters of public concern, as long as you’re not doing it in a way that will bring out classified information,” Kohn said, “the reason why that is protected constitutionally is that the courts — including the U.S. Supreme Court — have ruled that the public has a constitutional right to hear this information.” In other words, it’s constitutionally protected speech.
It’s also worth noting that Trump’s tweeted attacks on the veracity of Comey’s testimony are also unlikely to bear much fruit. Making a mistake in testimony is not in itself illegal. When Comey made such a mistake last month, the FBI corrected his statement after the fact. Perjury requires a demonstration of intent, that the person meant to lie. That would be a difficult case to make legally.
We can securely accept, however, that Trump's group knows that Comey likely didn't damage any laws, and that they are essentially utilizing these contentions as an apparatus for undermining the parts of his declaration that they didn't care for. How they're doing it, however, could exacerbate their issues.
Kohn outlined the new minefield into which Trump and his legal counselor may be strolling.
"They realize that they're not going to get anything out of Comey on this, on the grounds that there's no confirmation," he included. "Be that as it may, they're unmistakably attempting to make a chilling impact. Not a chilling impact on ordered data. … This is a chilling impact on individuals not to discuss discussions they had with the president that are not named a matter of law."
Refresh:
There's an admonition, however. Tom Devine, lawful chief for the Government Accountability Project brought up in an email after this article was initially distributed that Comey himself isn't secured by the Whistleblower Protection Act since he was both a presidential nominee and a delegate of the FBI, a position which doesn't fall under the demonstration's domain.
Devine considers, however, that another government law may apply to Comey. U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1513 makes it a government offense for any individual who "with the aim to strike back, makes any move destructive to any individual, incorporating obstruction with the legal work or business of any individual, for giving to a law requirement officer any honest data identifying with the commission or conceivable commission of any Federal offense." Whether or not Comey is a real observer in an elected examination is the key question here; given the uniqueness of the conditions, there is a considerable measure of fluffiness.
Regardless of whether Trump and his group might want to rebuff Comey for his declaration appears to be more clear.
Watch video click here
Comments
Post a Comment