Comey testimony ‘out of line’?
Comey testimony ‘out of line’?
During Wednesday’s press briefing, Tony Snow implied that James Comey’s testimony was somehow inaccurate, claiming he “gave his side of what transpired that day.” Today, spokesman Tony Fratto suggests Comey may have been “out of line” for discussing a classified program:
Q If you won’t comment on that issue because of the classified nature of the program on which it was focused, it seems like you might think that Comey was out of line in discussing it.
MR. FRATTO: You can draw conclusions.
Q I mean, is there any possibility that Mr. Comey will be charged with divulging classified information for discussing this? I mean, if the President is not willing to discuss this, and it’s improper to do so, then wasn’t it improper for Mr. Comey to discuss this?
MR. FRATTO: I think that would be a question for the Department of Justice.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Intimidation. You’re doing a heck of a job, Fratto.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pmJust because its illegal doesn’t mean its not classified
hmmmmmm…..
May 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pmThat’s good…Gonzo going after Comey for testifying against him.
We really do live in a third world shithole now. Banana Republicans.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:33 pm“I mean, if the President is not willing to discuss this, and it’s improper to do so, then wasn’t it improper for Mr. Comey to discuss this?”
No, no, no, Tony. The President won’t discuss it, because it’s personally incriminating, not because it’s improper to do so. The proper thing to do is to tell the truth, which is what Comey did.
Don’t they teach basic principles of right and wrong in Republican Sunday schools?
May 18th, 2007 at 3:33 pmWhat did they expect, Comey to lie under oath? Oh…yeah. Scratch that and retract it. Doh.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:36 pmHow can the converstation be classified if it happened in a non-classified location in front of someone who didn’t have the proper clearances (Mrs. Ashcroft)?
May 18th, 2007 at 3:37 pmThe prospect of Gonzales getting away with lying to Congress about the extent of the NSA domestic surveillance programs is enough to make you barking mad.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:38 pm“President is not willing to discuss this”
Yeah, because he doesn’t want to incriminate himself!
May 18th, 2007 at 3:38 pmIntimidation. You’re doing a heck of a job, Fratto.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:38 pmIt would be just like these Nazi thugs to prosecute an honorable man.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:38 pmoops sorry folks
May 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pmGod, Snow would have us believe we live under the Third Reich. This is absolutely disgusting. The entire GD WH needs to be thrown out on the street!
May 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pmFratto didn’t suggest it; the questioner suggested it. And who was that questioner?
May 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pmI read what Comey said in his testimony.
He was very careful not to mention anything secret, and he was quite clear about that. Several times he said he would not discuss any specifics of the surveillance program because it was classified.
Looks like the Repuke goons are trying to intimidate Comey. Typical tactic for them, look what they did to Joe Wilson.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pmHow can the converstation be classified if it happened in a non-classified location in front of someone who didn’t have the proper clearances (Mrs. Ashcroft)?
Comment by bob (not the hacker) — May 18, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Details, details, bob. No doubt Andy Card, channeling the President, conferred all necessary security clearances on Mrs. Ashcroft, while simultaneously denying them to James Comey. In Washington speak, this is called “inventing reality”.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pmDon’t they teach basic principles of right and wrong in Republican Sunday schools?
These guys don’t have time for Sunday school — they have to rush right out after the services to catch their photo op.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pmThe truth is now “out of line”…Orwell must be turning in his grave.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:41 pmWRONG- Comey went out of his way to point out he was not divulging any classified info. Here is a transcript & audio of the entire hearing available on the net:
audio:
http://www.netrootsmass.net/extras/Senate_Committee_Hearings/20070515-Preserving_Prosecutorial_Independence.mp3
transcript:
May 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pmhttp://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/comey.transcript.pdf
A visit to a hospital bed by two thugs is classified! Afraid not.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:43 pmDing ding ding ding ding.
Exactly. Not only does it make the conversation NOT classified, but it is also illegal. You know, like outing an undercover CIA agent or breaking FISA.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:43 pmComment by xenon — May 18, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
7,
You’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, Bush has enablers in congress – nearly all of the Repugs and even some Dems (Hi, Joe!) that don’t mind being lied to and constantly disrespected.
If congress weren’t so corrupt, Bush would have been impeached years ago.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:45 pmAshcroft was the one who did most of the talking in that hospital room.
If anybody violated the secrets law, he did.
Comey says Ashcroft gave an “eloquent” dissertation on why the surveillance program is unconstitutional.
Ashcroft pushed the Patriot Act on us, which was full of Constitutional violations. So if he thought this surveillance was unconstitutional, it must have been a whopper.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:47 pmIt is time to IMPEACH Cheney, Bush, Gonzo, etc.
IMPEACHMENT has the votes in the HOUSE right NOW…
The “goose-steppers” may not CONVICT in the Senate (neither was Clinton convicted…),
but it would force BushCrimeCo, Inc. to turn over ALL the documents
requested, or face charges of Obstruction and
Contempt of Congress
BushCrimeCo, Inc. already IS in contempt, but
IMPEACHMENT becomes the “teeth” needed to ENFORCE THE LAW!!
May 18th, 2007 at 3:53 pmA question for the dept. of Justice. That’s rich.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:59 pmUnfortunately Chimpy will never get Chimpeached. The Dems don’t have enough votes, and pretty soon, they won’t have enough time.
Chimpeachment is a long process. Nixon’s took a year and we didn’t even get to impeach him, he quit first.
Besides, we only impeach Presidents for lying about a blowjob in a deposition for a civil suit that got dismissed.
We don’t impeach Presidents for destroying the Constitution, okaying torture, lying to start a war, suborning treason, or a laundry list of other crimes…if they’re Republicans.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:05 pmWell Tony “Snow-Job” charge the man if he broke the law. You idiots in the White House said the same thing about Richard Clark when he pointed out he lie to the america people.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pmSo, it’s a question for the department of justice whether Comey’s testimony about the head of the dept. of justice was “out of line”?
Interesting conflict of interest there…
May 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pmUnfortunately Chimpy will never get Chimpeached. The Dems don’t have enough votes, and pretty soon, they won’t have enough time.
Bullzhit!!
They HAVE the votes to IMPEACH in the HOUSE!!
Impeachment would GUARANTEE that BushCrimeCo, Inc. would have
to produce the REQUESTED material, or risk
Obstruction and Contempt of Congress.
IMPEACHMENT is the “TEETH†needed to ENFORCE THE LAW.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:09 pmPerhaps the answer is to subpoena Gonzo, Card and Ashcroft to provide sworn testimony in front of the relevant House and/or Senate committee(s) to help clarify matters?
May 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pmI agree with #29. It does warrant being pushed.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:17 pmMR. FRATTO: I think that would be a question for the Department of Justice.
Well, it would be if the US had a functioning Department of Justice!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:18 pmActually, I think the Dems need 60% in the House to Chimpeach, because theres a 60% vote requirement in the procedure to get anything up for a vote, iirc.
Before drawing up articles of impeachment on Nixon, Congress held Watergate Hearings. This is what Congress should do now. Hold hearings and get all the facts out into the open. At least then it is all on the record.
Nixon quit because he knew he would get kicked out. If Congress holds hearings, Chimpy may do the same.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pmPerfect, TripMaster Monkey. Orwell was so ahead of his time.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pmMR. FRATTO: I think that would be a question for the Department of Justice.
Which part of the Department of Justice would that be? The part that’s run by incompetent loyal Bushies who don’t know shit from Shinola when it comes to investigating corruption, actual courtroom prosecutions, and any notion of ethical behavior? Or would it be the other part–the competent part–the part that they’ve been trying to get rid of.
Do you think Gonzales could answer that question? Could he remember the answer? Could he remember answering it afterwards? Or would he shove that responsibility off on someone else, too, so he could continue tonguing Bush’s sphincter?
What a bunch of f*cking clowns.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pmITMFA!!!!!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:32 pmthey’re trying to support Bush’s fumbled response to a reporter’s question about this yesterday by perpetuating the notion that talking about it may reveal sensitive information…
the question was, did Bush send Cardy and Gonzo to the hospital to get a bill reauthorized? what classified info will this reveal? it’s total BS, and Grotto knows it…
May 18th, 2007 at 4:33 pmIf real impeachment hearings were held, it would become abundantly apparent that large campaign donors (i.e., extremely wealthy individuals and mega-corporations) and policitians (W & Deadeye Dick among the largest beneficiaries) have long been loyal bedpartners. To further complicate matters, a number of these donors support Democratic candidates as well. If W and/or Deadeye were brought down, many others (and not necessarily just Republicans) could potentially go down with the ship as well. So, perhaps we are witnessing the present-day reincarnation (although this time in the political arena) of the Cold War phenomenon called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Amidst the confusion, although a lone dissenting voice such as Feingold is allowed (to create the appearance that a variety of opinions are still voiced), when the voting is completed, those who finance the campaigns will not be disappointed.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pmWeasels and snakes = Bushies.
Yeah, like ask the DOJ to rule against themselves!
Weasels and snakes.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pmActually, I think the Dems need 60% in the House to Chimpeach, because theres a 60% vote requirement in the procedure to get anything up for a vote, iirc.
Sorry, Tom, the vote has to be a SIMPLE MAJORITY for IMPEACHMENT.
The results of votes on Clinton’s IMPEACHMENT by the House on 12/19/1998 were:
228-206 on Perjury
221-212 on Obstruction.
the other counts failed to indict…
Neither of the above counts to IMPEACH Clinton were more than 10% majority.
Bottom line is:
IMPEACHMENT becomes the “teeth†needed to
May 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pmENFORCE THE LAW!!
MR. FRATTO: I think that would be a question for the Department of Justice.
Wow! The very department being investigated would be the department to answer the question of Comey’s possible impropriety and ‘illegal’ action.
Hummmm…Guess how they will respond! What a fricking joke this administration and government has become!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:53 pm“MR. FRATTO: I think that would be a question for the Department of Justice.”
…you mean to tell me, they’re still entrusting serious matters to the DoJ?
I’m scared.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pmSmells like another smoking Banana Republican attempt to cover up their criminality in their illegal and unconstitutional program of wiretapping of American citizens.
… that this nation, under corporate greed, shall have a new birth of fascism and that
the government of the Banana Republicans, by the Banana Republicans, for the Banana Republicans shall not perish from the earth.
Cheers.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:58 pm#37 Pete Bogs
they’re trying to support Bush’s fumbled response to a reporter’s question about this yesterday by perpetuating the notion that talking about it may reveal sensitive information…
Absolutely right. And when they do that, some reporter with balls–I guess that could only be Helen Thomas–should set them right back on the track and say “Nobody’s asking about the program. We’re asking about the decision to send Gonzales and Card to bypass the acting Attorney General and try to get an ailing John Ashcroft to sign off on something that they knew wouldn’t pass muster. Simple question: Who sent them?” Repeat as necessary.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:12 pmSeveral points:
I remember reading somewhere that you can’t classify stuff that was illegal. And certainly taking classified documents into an insecure hospital room is illegal.
Impeachment in the House requires a simply majority. Conviction in the Senate takes 2/3. I’m still on the fence about impeachment, because we don’t have the 67 votes in the Senate. Attempting and failing to secure a conviction would cost the Dems a lot of political capital.
I do like the idea of a trial as it would force Bush to take and oath and answer questions… unless he decided to skip the trial. Which would be a hoot and so totally like Bush.
As for the time a trial takes. Yes, it could take a long time. But it doesn’t have to… if we’ve got the votes. All the Constitution requires is a trial in the Senate, but there is nothing about the procedures, save the Chief Justice is the judge. As long as you’ve got enough votes and if you don’t really care about fairness (like Bush deserves any), you could push through an impeachment and conviction in about 10 minutes, plus the amount of time it takes Roberts to walk across the street and sign the conviction papers. Not gonna happen, of course, but my point is that speed of the trial is really dependent on the remaining support Bush has in the Senate.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pmThe Preznit acknowledged that there was a program that he would not talk about – but that it’s saving lives.
This is more than comey divulged.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:21 pmFratto didn’t suggest it; the questioner suggested it. And who was that questioner?
Comment by penalcolony — May 18, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Exactly what I was wondering.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pmSo speaking the truth is out of line but breaking the law and violating the constitution should be protected. That is some weird republican bullshit.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:41 pmOMG, prosecute someone for telling the truth about something that happened. The only thing out of line that Comey did was to shine the light of day on the illegal actions of Bush, Gonzalez and Card. They are the ones who should be prosecuted.
One thing I find that is odd…why hasn’t anyone asked Ashcroft about that day? Is he in hiding?
May 18th, 2007 at 7:56 pmActually I read yesterday that Card and Gonzales were the ones who committed an illegal act. They discussed a classified program in an unclassified setting. I would love to see the two of them prosecuted for this crime.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pm>but that it’s saving lives.
I love this line…. If we banned cars, we could save an enormous amount of lives from auto accident deaths.. so what? (Yes, I know, this analogy is taking the enormous leap that Bush is actually telling the truth, which is doubtful).
If we changed the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing, to “guilty until proven innocent”, im sure that would save lives too, because more criminals (and more innocent people) would be in jail with this lower standard of proof. But thats not the way this country works chimpy. You want to bravely save more americans than will ever be killed by foreigners, then ban cars..and just tell us “its saving lives”….
Anybody wanna bet that this surveliance Ashcroft refused to sign off on was data mining of EVERYONE, both foreign and domestic? To be honest, I sorta thought Ashcroft was a fascist nazi.. but whatever this was must have “bent” the constitution more than even he found exceptable.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:06 pmThose were pre-arranged questions…..”Comey was out of line wasn’t he….He could possibly be charged with revealing secret information, right….? Give me a break. There was nothing there to suggest any of these questions. Just an attempt to frame the discussion as if something not right with Comey. What crap. Impede, delay, distract and gum it to death, right George?
May 18th, 2007 at 11:17 pm#51 – i took it the opposite way, as in the reporter was calling their bluff! DUBYA: I can’t talk about it because it’s classified REPORTER: Oh yeah? Well if it’s so classified, how come no one is pressing charges against Comey? DUBYA: Uhhhhhhhhhh
The Justice Dept. won’t press charges because he didn’t divulge anything (obviously) but saying that just deflects the need to immediately answer the question as to why no charges.
May 19th, 2007 at 7:31 pmOne of the most amusing while disgusting things of all the BushCo scandals is the rhetoric of those who try to defend the indefensible.
May 20th, 2007 at 9:42 amLoyal Republicans — stop towing the party line. You can remain a loyal Republican and still admit the ludicrousness that plagues Bush and his allies. Take a lesson from the Clintonites — when you’re wrong, you’re wrong. DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE just makes you sound, well, stupid. Comey did not reveal classified information — he only testified that BushCo will stoop to any level to subvert long-standing legal precedents. And that’s not classified because 70% of the American people already know that!
Go to the beginning! I have followed the events surrounding Comey’s several testimonies closely…What I find interesting is: Who is the reporter that would ask such a setup question. I never thought that Fratto would not answer the question because he might have thought Comey was out of line…It is precisely the kind of question that reporters use to help shape a discussion and provide, beforehand, justification for Cheney’s actions. That’s a real question. “When do you think Vice President Dick Cheney will resign now that, in sworn testimony, it has been revealed that he wanted to rip up the Constitution.”
June 7th, 2007 at 11:12 am