Standard Trump bullshit: when you feel attacked (which is almost always with him), attack back. It’s nothing more than a sop to his base, who will buy whatever bullshit he serves to them. It’s got no more teeth than a dentureless whale.
Trump’s lawyer says he is going to file a complaint of some sort.
I wonder why he gave them to his friend instead of leaking them himself.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not about it being illegal. It’s about creating that impression in the minds of the low information base.
Trump may not have explicitly claimed it was illegal, but he’s spent a lot of energy excoriating the FBI et al for not going harder after leakers, and now he’s called Comey a leaker. This is only two dots that need to be connected to draw a picture.
The complaint is administrative, not legal.
According to Comey, to place a degree of separation between himself and the press so he wouldn’t get hassled by them. You’re welcome to say “No, he’s lying” but that’s Comey’s testimony.
No, not really. This is a stupid position to take, IMO. At the very least such a discussion can shed light on whether or not any arguments that what took place was illegal have any weight.
And since we’re talking about an acton that has been described as “leaking” and all the context that holds, which is almost always in a criminal context, this discussion is not only a natural one to have, it sheds light on whether or not the descriptor is accurate and why (or why not).
Apparently he figured it would turn into even more of a circus.
ETA: Ninja’d!
Right. But it doesn’t follow that the “complaint” is a criminal matter. It’s been suggested that it’s some sort of administrative proceeding, with consequences limited to government employment records.
Some leaks are illegal and some are not. Trump is opposed to them all, but that doesn’t mean they’re all the same, legally.
The question remains: who is creating this impression?
As always, the person claiming that some action violated the law bears the burden of identifying that law.
Why would one presume that? I regularly write memos memorializing meetings and calls that I participate in during the course of my employment. It would never occur to me that they did not belong to my employer and that I could not take copies with me if I left (much less leak them).
True.
Uhhh…
True.
Despite Trump’s obvious love of leaks when they’re from Russia and involved Clinton emails, I don’t think it’s at all clear that he knows some leaks are legal and some are not. This is not, to the best of my knowledge, a distinction he’s ever made. And I’d bet good money that some of his Twitter followers draw the obvious inference from his tweets that he wants Comey investigated for leaking.
And it’s not like his camp is doing anything to stop these inferences.
His attorney said:
Well, he’s (was) the head of his agency and I assume you’re not. That said, rather than me trying to defend his innocence, I’ll wait on someone else to prove his guilt. The law cited looks like an extremely thin thread, with the complaint there being that he “stole” something rather than he leaked something. Which would be like if Comey went out and shot three people and I tried to argue that he broke the law because he had the agency’s pen in his pocket (thus taking an “item of value”) rather than addressing the actual supposed crime in question.
That’s correct - just because Trump or his lawyer says it’s illegal doesn’t mean it is illegal. They don’t get to decide.
You didn’t ask “is it illegal” - you asking who was claiming that it was.
AFAICT it wasn’t illegal - maybe t was improper or self-serving or merely an attempt to cover the Comey ass. Like I said, DC loves leaks (of things about the other party).
Regards,
Shodan
Correct, I’m not the head of any agency. But, the government has all sorts of policies regarding its records that would not necessarily exempt agency heads. (And, the FBI is part of the DOJ, so I presume that any policies on the subject comes from Main Justice, of which he was not the head).
I think it’s unlikely that what he did was illegal. And I’m not sure what remedy there would be for violating department practices (he can’t get rehired, maybe). But I found his explanation that he thought that the memo was his personal property to do with as he wished to be rather odd.
Insurance.
I just saw this article on the AP, and I thought it was particularly hilarious how the current segment ends (bolded):[
](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-09-13-52-51)Jill Colvin, you totally fucking rock!
Understood. But if the complaint itself is not a criminal matter, then it doesn’t follow from their filing a complaint that they were claiming that it’s illegal.
LHOD pointed to some inference from the lawyer’s comments, and it’s a valid inference though not more than that. Your pointing to the complaint filing doesn’t seem to be even an inference.
Trump is a liar. Which is more important to consider?
The current CNN title bar: FIRED FBI CHIEF LEAKING TRUMP MEMO TO PRESS: LEGAL?