"Memo" to James Comey: You Could Have a Big Problem!
Michael Flynn provided the Vice President with a misleading summary of a phone conversation he had with the Russian Ambassador to the United States. Flynn’s deception was then evident, when what he had said about the call was compared to a recorded version that was in the possession of U.S. intelligence services. Flynn’s misstatements to the Vice President cost him his job. He has since come under an expanding criminal investigation by the FBI and reportedly is the Target of a federal grand jury. Mr. Comey, following his testimony this week, could very well face a similar situation.
On May 12, President Trump famously tweeted that meetings at the White House may be recorded. The tweet was labeled by the Media as a veiled threat by the president, aimed at chilling Mr. Comey from leaking self-serving, inaccurate statements in retaliation for President Trump firing him. Leakers, seemly from FBI executive management and in collusion with Mr. Comey, then revealed Mr. Comey had authored memos documenting all his meetings with the president. The press immediately seized on the memos, teasing their possible contents as hidden treasure troves of ammunition to stir-up controversy against the president.
However, a crucial observation was missed by Mr. Comey's FBI leakers and the media pundits, but immediately recognized by experienced investigators: if White House tapes do exist, their contents could be compared to Mr. Comey’s alleged memos about those meetings, and to his testimony to Congress. If the tapes contradict the spin in Mr. Comey's memos or testimony, then the White House tapes would be reliable evidence to launch investigations of false statements or perjury by Mr. Comey, very much like the intelligence agency tapes that originally had landed Mr. Flynn in hot water.
So here's Mr. Comey’s big problem: he writes his spin in FBI official Memos about White House meetings, but only writes memos about contacts with one carefully chosen elected official. Then, later his memos are compared to unexpected White House audio recordings of those meetings that turn-up. If his spin is proven to be inaccurate, misleading or untruthful, for instance it leaves out pertinent things Mr. Comey or the president said, it’s a big, big problem for him. Mr. Comey needs to look no further than Mr. Flynn’s predicament to learn about the extreme perils of unexpected recordings turning-up to compare to what you have previously claimed during official government inquires. Having spun self-serving memos, omitting material parts of conversations, and placing them into the FBI official records, well, that could be considered a crime. To testify in front of Congress, under oath, adopting the false narrative in your secretly kept, misleading memos, well, that could be considered perjury. Those circumstances would be worthy of a grand jury investigation. And don't make the amateur mistake of thinking recordings might somehow back-up a written account of a meeting. They never do, there are always points of difference. The FBI itself finally recognized this after seventy years of clinging to policy that allowed agents to write summaries of post-arrest statements given by subjects. Now, by strict policy, the FBI must make every effort to audio record an arrested subject's statement. They are not permitted to take notes and then write a report later in such an important matter as a post-arrest statement. Clear principles of fairness exist for that policy having been forced on the FBI. Obviously, principles of fairness that Mr. Comey chose not to apply to the president.
Under what legal authority, do you Mr. Comey, get to personally pick-and-choose which elected officials to create one-sided official FBI files about”? "Isn't that what J. Edgar Hoover did?