judiciary.house.gov/...
The James Comey transcript from yesterday’s hearings just dropped. It features the desperate hobbling of invalid canards as “lame duck” GOP representatives search for nonsense related to their favorite shibboleth — jailing HRC for emails stolen by… wait for it… Russians who were solicited by GOP supporters. And even Pizzagate makes an appearance, as does the Trump meme of the Strzok — Page romantic liaison. More useful is the entering of Trump tweets as official statements from POTUS*.
They’ll try again in two weeks.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. President Trump has kept up his drum beat against his former lawyer. Most recently, the attacks were in response Mr. Cohen's plea deal with the special counsel's office in which he admitted to lying about the Trump Tower Moscow project in contact with Russian Government officials during the 2016 campaign.
The President responded within hours tweeting, quote:
-
Michael Cohen asks judge for no prison time. You mean he can do all of the terrible unrelated to Trump things having to do with fraud, big loans, taxes, et cetera, and not serve a long prison term? He makes up stories to get a great and already reduced deal for himself and get his wife and father-in-law who has the money, question mark, off scot(sic)-free. He lied for this outcome and should, in my opinion, serve a complete sentence.
I would like to draw on your years of experience as an organized crime prosecutor and senior DOJ official and head of the FBI to unpack some of the prosecutorial methods that are under attack by the President.
First, why do criminal defendants such as Michael Cohen decide to change course and flip?
Mr. Comey. I can only answer that in general not about the case in particular.
Mr. Raskin. In general.
Mr. Comey. Because they conclude that it's in their self-interest to try to obtain a reduction in their sentence by providing substantial assistance to the people of the United States by helping solve other crimes.
Mr.Raskin. Yes. At certain points, I think the President has meditated the possibility of making it a crime to flip or saying it should be against the law to flip. What do you make of that suggestion, as a prosecutor?
Mr. Comey. It's a shocking suggestion coming from any senior official, no less the President. It's a critical and legitimate part of the entire justice system in the United States.
Mr. Raskin. Does the government routinely grant defendants who cooperate with the government and render honest testimony reduced sentences in exchange for their cooperation?
Mr.Comey. Routinely, the prosecutors ask the judge to take that substantial assistance into account and reduce their sentences.
Mr.Raskin. Okay. So it's not directly up to the prosecutor --
Mr.Comey. Correct.
Mr. Raskin. -- but they will recommend to the court, if the person follows through --
Mr. Comey. Right, if they tell the truth and provide substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of others.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. You know--
Mr. Comey. That's how we make mob cases, terrorism cases, child abuse cases, drug cases, kidnapping cases. It's essential to the workings of our criminal justice system.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.It may be difficult to extricate ourselves from the last couple of years, but if we were to go back to a more innocent time, would you agree that it's dangerous or would you disagree that it's dangerous to have a sitting President commenting on active criminal proceedings and investigations and trying to interfere in them?
Mr.Comey. I think we have become numb to lying and attacks on the rule of law by the President, all of us have to a certain extent, and it's something we can't ever become numb to.
Mr. Raskin. Okay.I will close with that. Thank you very much, Director Comey
p.185
judiciary.house.gov/...
So even if the Russians helped make the cheese, the rat-frackers need to be held accountable.
Mr. Cummings. If someone were to impede or prematurely halt the special counsel's Russia investigation, how severe would the implications be to our national security, in your opinion?
Mr. Comey. Well, in my opinion, it would undermine our national security by not holding accountable people who might have been involved in either the Russians or people who worked with them, first. And second, it would send an absolutely appalling message about the rule of law in this country of ours.
Mr. Cummings. And would there also be severe implications for our democracy and the rule of law?
Mr. Comey. Yes. The Russians' goal was for everyone in the world to have doubt about the nature and credibility of the American democracy, to dirty it up so it's not a shining city on the hill. So their attack had implications for that, the role of the American democratic experiment. And if someone were to order it stopped, the investigation into that, it would have a similar effect.
Mr. Cummings. You stated it was, quote, "obvious," end quote, that any Americans helping the Russians interfere with our election is a big deal. And I agree. Can I ask you to spell out in as basic terms as possible why that would be a very big deal? I also think it is a big deal that the President's campaign chairman and his national security advisor both pleaded guilty to committing crimes. Michael Flynn and the President's national security advisor pleaded guilty to having lied to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian Government, about sanctions. So the national security advisory lied about his contacts with the foreign government over a national security issue.How serious of a national security risk is it to have the national security advisor lying about his contacts with a foreign government adversary to the FBI and the American people?
Mr. Comey. Mr. Cummings, I don't think I can answer the last part of that question because it touches on the work of the special counsel. I can answer the first part, which is, the reason it's a big deal is you have an adversary nation attacking America. If Americans in our country are assisting them, it's aiding and abetting the enemy in attacking our country. We take it seriously when people were helping German saboteurs infiltrate Long Island during World War II. We take it seriously when scientists are selling secrets to the Soviets about our nuclear capabilities. I take it just as seriously if there are Americans who were -- and I'm not saying that there were -- but if there were Americans who were assisting this attack on our democracy, it's of the same type, which is why I said it's so obvious.
p.86
judiciary.house.gov/...
For those needing a reminder of the “stolen DNC emails”. meant to be obscured by some imagined HRC emails that were deleted, a few references: