As part of his upcoming book tour, James Comey is scheduled to appear on some tough, hard hitting news shows in April. He will share his experiences on such impressive venues as Stephen Colbert, George Snuffleupagus, and The View. He seems to me to be an especially fine fit on The View– Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar- what more could a former FBI Director want? It’s hard to imagine the former Number One G-man in the country demeaning the FBI any worse than that.
This book tour is fraught with risks:
But far more significant could be the implications of Comey’s written words and upcoming media interviews for special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.
His book, “A Higher Loyalty,” represents an official statement on key parts of the federal Russia probe—including the question of whether Trump may have sought to obstruct justice, a question Mueller is investigating. Legal experts warn that Comey’s own words could complicate court proceedings or a Congressional impeachment debate triggered by Mueller’s findings.
Prosecutors like Mueller generally cringe when a witness speaks at length in public before a case has wrapped up. Comey’s blockbuster book and accompanying media tour, which kicks off in primetime on Sunday, will also expose him to the watchful eye of Trump allies and defense lawyers ready to exploit any inconsistencies in his accounts to their clients’ benefit.
“I’d have a conniption if I knew one of my witnesses was going to be writing a book,” said Nick Akerman, a former assistant U.S. attorney and Watergate prosecutor.
“From a prosecutor standpoint, you want a witness who hasn’t gone out and made lots of statements that can be used to cross examine him,” Akerman added. “What he puts in there, he’s got to realize that’s his story and that’s what he’s sticking by.”
Comey is setting the stage for what could be a very interesting time. I just watched an interview Maria Bartiromo held with former Attorney General Michael Mukasy during which a couple of interesting points were raised. Mukasy said that there are FBI publication guidelines- an FBI agent or a former FBI agent cannot write about substantive issues in pending investigations, especially without approval from the Bureau. Mukasy also noted that Comey dropped charges against hillary before it was public knowledge that obama communicated with hillary on her server with a code name.
One bombshell out of the book was Comey’s admission that the investigation into Hillary Clinton was politically biased:
Chris Wallace has called the book “bitchy.”
And it could hardly be more bitchy.
The 6-foot-8 Comey describes Trump as shorter than he expected with a “too long” tie and “bright white half-moons” under his eyes that he suggests came from tanning goggles. He also says he made a conscious effort to check the president’s hand size, saying it was “smaller than mine, but did not seem unusually so.”
Trey Gowdy calls the book “beneath the dignity” of the FBI:
“I can’t think of anyone who’s done a better job of politicizing the FBI than he has in the last 36 to 48 hours, by talking about tanning bed goggles and the length of a tie,” Gowdy said on Fox News. “That is beneath the dignity of the offices that he held.”
Among other things, Comey’s book mocks Trump’s physical appearance by saying he had “bright white half-moons” that he thought came from tanning goggles.
“I’m really disappointed, whether or not the intelligence community vetted this book,” Gowdy said. “I hope he let them do it so he’s not disseminating classified information. My guess is he did.”
“But the writing of the book in general and then some of the things that he’s talking about are just frankly beneath the dignity of some really important offices he once held,” he said.
It only gets worse. Comey said that it was possible Trump was with the peeing hookers:
Ex-FBI Director James Comey said “it’s possible” President Trump was with hookers “peeing on each other” in Moscow, according to excerpts of a new interview released Friday.
“I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013,” Comey said in a “20/20” episode set to air Sunday. “It’s possible, but I don’t know.”
He doesn’t know, but he repeats the inflammatory salacious accusation. He continues to spread unverified information. Hold that thought. Then he insulted Trump for wanting it disproved.
“And I remember thinking, ‘How could your wife think there’s a 1 percent chance you were with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow?’” Comey said. “I’m a flawed human being, but there is literally zero chance that my wife would think that was true. So, what kind of marriage to what kind of man does your wife think [that] there’s only a 99 percent chance you didn’t do that?”
Trump then said he might order Comey to investigate the accusation:
Trump told Comey, “I may order you to investigate that,” but Comey advised caution.
“I said, ‘Sir, that’s up to you. But you’d want to be careful about that, because it might create a narrative that we’re investigating you personally, and second, it’s very difficult to prove something didn’t happen,’” Comey recalled on “20/20.”
Yet despite any evidence that it did happen, Comey sees fits to continue repeating it. That brings me to what I find to be most damning of this prissy prig. The Daily Caller:
Former FBI director James Comey wrote in his new book that classified information could have “cast serious doubt” on Loretta Lynch’s ability to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email server in 2016.
ABC News reports, “Comey writes that he felt obligated to take more of a personal role as the public face of the investigation rather than deferring to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch – in part because of something involving Lynch that he cryptically refers to as a ‘development still unknown to the American public to this day.’”
That’s bad enough, but here is where Comey proves what a louse he is:
Comey also wrote that “the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation.”
Comey is not inclined to use or disclose “unverified material” against Clinton, Lynch or Obama, but did use unverified material to secure a FISA warrant for Carter Page in order to spy on Donald Trump and he is all too happy to repeat unverified gossip.
James Comey is a disingenuous, egocentric prissy prig. Trump was right to fire him. Having this kind of person at the helm of the FBI is very disturbing.
James Comey is David Hogg all grown up. An arrogant, narcissistic, self-important, treasonous, Obama-humping pr*ck.
Trump can’t stop Mueller’s investigation, nor can he stop 850,000 copies of Mueller’s book from hitting store shelves this coming Tuesday. He can, of course, continue his hysterical anti-Comey Twitter tirade and keep Comey in the news, which will probably boost the man’s book sales enormously.
@Greg: Trump could fire Mueller, he has the authority, Muellers investigation is a ruse. Comeys book, from the few excerpts I read, makes him sound like a pathetic weakling a piss pants frightened by his own actions that he knew would come to light. It is MSM that keeps promoting his self destructing book.
You make a great point that James Comey had a big problem with using “unverified material” against Clinton, Lynch or Obama BUT he had NO problem with using unverified, and unvarifiable material against Donald Trump.
As he said something about how there was a chance that Trump had urinating prostitutes on a bed in Russia I thought to myself, and he, Comey, might have an equal chance that monkeys might fly out of his butt.
Despite reading that this man is married to Patrice & has had 5 children with her, I still think he is so prissy, emotional and wimpy that he swings both ways.
His boyfriend who he shared leaks to is suspect.
As are his loving sidelong glances at Obama.
@Greg: actually, the judicial department can stop Mueller and Comey in their tracks. If either one uses government documents in their book with out the Judicial department approval, the book can be stopped and at funds from the book will go to the government. Arrogance is usually the downfall of most arrogant people. Mueller and Comey are right up there being full of arrogance. Greg is right up there in ignorance. He has no idea as to what he doesn’t know and that is quite a lot!
No, Trump DOES NOT have that legal authority. That’s spelled out in no uncertain terms in C.F.R. § 600.7 (d):
That regulation was created in 1999, specifically to prevent a president under formal investigation from firing a troublesome investigator.
The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has previously recused himself on matters having to do with Mueller’s investigation, so he can’t fire Mueller. The only person who could is the next in line and the person who appointed him: Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.
Lots of luck with that, given the shabby treatment Rosenstein has been getting from Donald Trump.
If Trump attempted to fire Mueller he would be committing an illegal act. Apparently this has been explained to him or he would have already made such an attempt.
That observation should be passed on to Donald Trump. Hubris will be the end of him.
Trump and Comey deserve each other–couple of egocentric clowns–twitter away you two bimbos.
Mueller is the adult in the room.
@rich wheeler: Tell that to Steven Hatfill.
Much the same criteria Mueller used to formulate his “investigation” team.
Nothing about this “investigation” is about seeking and rectifying a crime. It is about perception and destruction, about reversing election results liberals and establishment Republicans didn’t like. One would think Comey, if he was actually concerned justice being served, would hold fire and allow justice to be served. But, as we have seen, this is not Comey’s first concern, either. Comey’s primary interest is Comey’s popularity… and money.
However, no one should be deluded into thinking that if the left had the power and opportunity, they could have Trump strung up by his thumbs… or worse… regardless of how tainted the information, investigation, investigators or witnesses has been. The Nazis did it, the Soviets did it and the Chinese did it.
Yet he could never bring himself to say it was “possible” Hillary knowingly allowed classified information to be illegally stored on an unsecured email server… even though that is exactly what she did.
Well, Mr. FBI, if one travels the world regularly and was in Russia at the time and someone presented “intelligence” data that says one did these things, there is a strong possibility those accusations would be difficult to explain away.
Something every liberal knows all too well and uses for full effect.
@Greg: Why don’t you make some of your fellow whiny, crybaby liberals aware that Trump can’t fire Mueller so they will quit screaming at the sky about it.
Sessions is recused in matters related to Russia. So far, NOTHING has been related to Russia, just money laundering and the accusations by porn stars… all BEFORE the campaign. I wouldn’t be too confident.
I know you sore losers think you have the perfect set-up; an endless, open-ended “investigation” led by a puppet who assembled a team of biased, bigoted Trump-hating ideologues that make up details and leak them to serve their political agenda and if Trump or the DOJ does anything to rein it in, it will be characterized as “obstruction”, but the general, non-liberal, objective public is not buying it.
Why does Lynch contradict Comey about their conversations about the Hillary investi… uh, “matter”? Who is lying? If Comey was so sensitive to obstruction, why didn’t he make public her efforts to candy-coat the investigation in Hillary’s favor? Since Comey dealt in “possibilities”, why didn’t he exert every effort to verify the information that could “cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation”, especially if the person all this doubt, suspicion and investigation was the most likely person to become President and have access to EVERYTHING? Does he not actually CARE about the “moral capability” of the President? Did he simply fear the retribution of Hillary more than he honored his sworn duty and, if so, WHY would he stand by and allow such a person to escape justice?
Your Mr. Comey appears to be quite the shitbird.
Like I said…
James Comey: I’ve Struggled with My Ego My Whole Life
@Deplorable Me, #10:
If Trump supporters would stop asserting that he has such a power, there would be no need to point out that he does not.
Encouraging Trump to fire Mueller is encouraging him to put himself above the law. Of course people will react to that. We know from the past what it can lead to.
@Deplorable Me, #10:
The scope of Sessions’s recusal is most definitely NOT limited to Russia.
If you doubt that, you can read Sessions’s own official recusal statement here. Everything under investigation is in some way related to the campaign.
Everyone that values justice, the Constitution and rule of law wants to see Mueller fired. However, you whiny leftists, first, convince yourself he is going to do it then, second, go off screaming at the sky because he is “going” to do it. Don’t you feel silly?
Well, it most definitely IS. The investigation was supposed to be directed at the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians. Sessions was an early supporter of the Trump campaign, so he recused himself. Now, Mueller is off on adventures as much as a decade BEFORE the campaign. If Sessions so chooses, he can take full control of that investigation… and FIRE Mueller, if he felt like it.
Accusations of money laundering ten years before the campaign has nothing to do with the campaign. Neither does saying the word “pussy” ten years ago. And, neither does the dubious accusations of a porn star from ten years ago. Unless, of course, she comprised some of Mueller’s favorite spank-material. The Hunt for Red November is dead and gone. As I said, and then was verified by the flood of leaks as soon as anything could be deemed damaging to Trump, had there been any hint of evidence about Russian collusion, Muellers band of pirates would have leaked it, along with all their favorite embellishments.
@Deplorable Me, #14:
It’s stated in plain English. Try reading the sentence that follows again, from Jeff Sessions’s March 2, 2017 recusal statement.
That, regarding Mueller’s investigation, and all related DOJ investigations, is a fairly comprehensive recusal statement.
Who said the money laundering in question was all ten years before the campaign? I think they’re looking into far more recent events, directly related to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
AGAIN not everything that happened anywhere at whatever period of time is connected to the campaign. The campaign didn’t start in 2009.
And looking, and looking, and looking… for a year, not to mention the years of illegal surveillance and investigations carried out by Obama. They haven’t found anything. Nothing. So, they are reaching back a decade. Not finding anything there, they’ll reach back further. That ain’t the campaign. That’s hoping and wishing, fishing and hunting. Sessions can absolutely dis-recuse himself, and he should. Then, he should end this stupid, wasteful, anti-American witch hunt.
If there’s nothing serious to hide, why have Trump & Company been doing everything possible to destroy the credibility of everyone involved in the investigation?
Such as, what? Making them all text each other about how much they love Hillary, hate Trump and need an “insurance policy” in case Trump wins? Employing nothing but liberal partisans? Leaking everything they can to the corrupt liberal media? The only people destroying their credibility are those on Mueller’s team themselves… and Mueller for choosing them.
@Deplorable Me: l@Greg: Mueller and company have a history of destroying lives with investigations that go nowhere. The courts even reinstated Scooter Libbys law license based on Mueller poor investigation
Look at the anthrax investigation.
Libby’s license was restored after an 8-year suspension when the DC Court of Appeals concluded that he was “fit to resume the practice of law.” That didn’t have a damn thing to do with any imaginary inadequacy of Mueller’s investigation, which produced evidence adequate to convict Libby of a crime that carried a maximum sentence of 25 years. Based on that evidence, which resulted in a guilty verdict, the judge imposed a sentence of 30 months, along with a $250,000 fine. George W. Bush later commuted his sentence—which did not change the finding that he was guilty as accused—but left the $250,000 in place.
It took Donald Trump and his magical presidential fairy wand to produce a pardon, which served two purposes: venting, in the form of a petulant little-girl slap at Mueller, who is otherwise beyond The Mighty Donald’s presidential reach; and sending the message that if you perjure yourself in defense of The Mighty Donald, you too might receive similar absolution. This act was about as transparently self-serving as a debasement of one’s powers of office could get. As with all things obvious about Donald Trump, those motivations seem to have been totally lost on the Red Hat Brigade.
It was reinstated after Judith Miller recanted her testimony, stating the FBI had misled and deceived her (wow, where did THAT come from?).
Trump pardoned Libby because, as of the Obama administration, perjury is no longer a crime if it is committed to serve a political purpose (though, apparently, Libby never committed perjury).
The left has a long and storied history of abusing the legal system to further the liberal agenda.
A pardon does not reverse the original finding that the accused was guilty. Pardons don’t overturn convictions. Pardons only remove the adverse legal consequences that come of having been found guilty.
Trump restored nothing to Libby that had not already been restored. It was theater, a slap at Mueller, and a message to those currently under investigation concerning what Trump might do on their behalf.
Jennifer Rubin’s 2015 argument speculating on the significance of a single word isn’t particularly convincing. Her position that Libby was made a scapegoat isn’t without merit, however. He took on blame that should have gone to those above him.
McConnell: Senate won’t take up Mueller protection bill
@Greg: Wouldn’t it be stupid to have a law preventing Trump from doing something you say he can’t do anyway?
I guess no one advised Libby to just say he didn’t remember and destroy all the evidence. You know… what is now recorded as “the Clinton defense”.
@Deplorable Me: mueller works for the justice department. The justice department works for Trump. He can fire Mueller. May face citicism but has the power.
@Randy: Yeah, that’s the beauty of it. Mueller can do whatever he wants, wander around as it pleases him, leak false information and extend his little fantasy adventure as long as he wants and, while Trump COULD fire him, doing so would be yet another excuse to accuse Trump of this or that.
All politics. Justice be damned.
No, it wouldn’t, because Trump may attempt an end run around the law that prevents a president under investigation from firing his investigator.
McConnell has just set the stage for Trump to fire Rod Rosenstein. Since the U.S. Associate Attorney General slot is presently empty, the next in line to assume Rosenstein’s authority is Solicitor General Noel Francisco—a Trump appointee who has previously demonstrated hostility toward the FBI. Trump could then direct Francisco to fire Mueller, at which point he would have circumvented the law.
I think that would effectively destroy the GOP. With the election fast closing in, Congressional republicans would split on the issue of whether a president can be allowed to get away with this sort of bullshit. They’d have to decide between calls for impeachment or facing a massacre at the polls in November.
In my opinion, McConnell screwed up by giving Trump free rein to do this. Trump has a strong tendency to act impulsively, without fully considering the possible consequences. He may not even care about the possible consequences.
@Greg: You liberals seek out things to worry about, then convince yourselves they are about to happen and are critical. What you should worry about is your explanation of how you were so sure about Trump being guilty of collusion when there not only is no evidence he or anyone in his team colluded but there is no EVIDENCE that an investigation was even required. You should also worry about your only hope to power, the deep state insurrection against Trump and protecting Hillary, is exposed, falling apart and about to be prosecuted.
I think it’s Senate and House republicans who should be most worried about the consequences of McConnell blocking anything from coming to the floor. They should all know that the firing of Mueller would become a republican political disaster.
@Greg: I think who is worrying is the Democrats, worrying that this investigation without end or purpose is becoming a forgotten front and a joke, so Democrats need another issue to draw attention away from their failure to do anything but obsess about removing Trump from office because Hillary losing hurt their feelings.
So, dream up some fake legislation to prevent Trump from doing what he isn’t going to do anyway (CAN’T do, according to you) and, when the legislation fails, go off screaming at the sky over THAT.
All this does is provide further proof Democrats are infantile diaper-loaders who are the LAST people anyone should want as head of government.