# Grassley confirms Comey told him that Trump is not being investigated **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463 "2017-05-12T17:06:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/61 "2017-05-13T16:47:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > That’s the guy that said in reference to Obi Wan, “I like Jedi Masters who don’t get struck down;” who called Han Solo “low energy;” said Palpatine was “a smart cookie;” had an aide get in trouble for talking with Grand Moff Tarkin; and who talked about banning Wookiees but in the end suspended travel from Kashyyyk and said it was about galactic security. Right? Difficult to prove. All of the potentially relevant documents, e-mails, persons and planetary systems have been deleted. Also, there are unresolved court cases, most prominently, a suit from genetically-enhanced koala that seeks a ruling that the extermination of the _ewok_ was justified on the grounds of being insufferably cute. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/62 "2017-05-13T17:22:30Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > **Okrahoma** , do you think this reveals classified information: Why go to contrived examples? I gave mine in the post above, which is much closer to reality. 3 points. Care to answer my question there? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/63 "2017-05-13T17:41:41Z")
According to this article, Comey is willing to testify, but only in a public hearing. Hopefully public pressure will make this happen. > **[Comey willing to testify, but only in public: report](https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/fbi/333241-comey-willing-to-testify-but-only-in-public-report/)** > > James Comey is willing to speak to Congress following his sudden dismissal as head of the FBI earlier this week, but he wants the testimony to be public, according to a new report. Comey decli… ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/64 "2017-05-13T18:13:54Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Why go to contrived examples? I gave mine in the post above, which is much closer to reality. 3 points. Care to answer my question there? All three are leaks. Any person who has ever dealt with sensitive information knows that you neither confirm nor deny anything related to the classified matter. Three is a confirmation. Period. We know it is a confirmation because that’s what the text says in a plain reading, and on a functional level, you are using that statement as confirmation of Trump’s allegation. Ergo, leak. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/65 "2017-05-13T18:21:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > All three are leaks. Any person who has ever dealt with sensitive information knows that you neither confirm nor deny anything related to the classified matter. Three is a confirmation. Period. We know it is a confirmation because that’s what the text says in a plain reading, and on a functional level, you are using that statement as confirmation of Trump’s allegation. > > Ergo, leak. Indeed. It seems to me that a leak entails providing classified information that a person is not authorized to provide. Do you agree, **Okrahoma**? If so, I doubt the law is written to specify whether that information is provided in straightforward English, in a series of insinuations, in semaphore, in Pig Latin, or via interpretive dance: if you’re communicating classified information that you’re not authorized to communicate, you’re violating law. So, to your examples: > [@](#): > > 1. “Comey told me Trump is not under investigation” - an affirmative, clear repeating of what Comey said. Let’s stipulate this is a leak. Note that the individual words, individual phonemes wouldn’t be leaks; it’s their connection that makes them a leak. > [@](#): > > 1. “Comey told me who is being investigated.” - not an affirmative, clear repeating of what Comey said. > > 2. “I never heard anything that would contradict Trump’s statements (that he is not under investigation)” - not an affirmative, clear repeating of what Comey said. “Co” isn’t a leak. “Mey” isn’t a leak. “Comey told me” isn’t a leak. “Comey told me who is being investigated” isn’t a leak. But when you provide both statements, if they’re communicating the same idea as your first example, and if your first example is a leak, they’re equally leaky. Similarly, if Grassley said, “Omeycay oldtay emay Rumptay isay otnay underay investigationay,” that’d be a leak. Granted, I’m not an attorney, and I welcome correction with citations to the relevant statute and case law; but I’d be astonished if the law is formulated so sloppily that a person can get around the law via this sort of shenanigans. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/66 "2017-05-13T19:50:42Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > …If so, I doubt the law is written to specify whether that information is provided in straightforward English, in a series of insinuations, in semaphore, in Pig Latin, or **via interpretive dance** : … _shakes fist_ You have caused me to flashback to “The OA” /end of hijack ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/67 "2017-05-13T20:52:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > All three are leaks. Any person who has ever dealt with sensitive information knows that you neither confirm nor deny anything related to the classified matter. Three is a confirmation. Period. We know it is a confirmation because that’s what the text says in a plain reading, and on a functional level, you are using that statement as confirmation of Trump’s allegation. Your opinion. I disagree. Saying “I know nothing that contradicts that person’s statement” is not a leak. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/68 "2017-05-13T21:00:27Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Your opinion. I disagree. Saying “I know nothing that contradicts that person’s statement” is not a leak. No, it’s your opinion too. You have clearly stated that there is no logical way to interpret Grassley’s remarks other than “Trump is not a target of investigation”. Revealing that is giving away confidential information. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, dude. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/69 "2017-05-13T21:04:12Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > No, it’s your opinion too. You have clearly stated that there is no logical way to interpret Grassley’s remarks other than “Trump is not a target of investigation”. Of course. In a non-leak way. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/70 "2017-05-13T21:12:08Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Of course. In a non-leak way. Well, a “leak” is done anonymously so sure. But is it somehow more legal that he publicly revealed confidential information under his official letterhead? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/71 "2017-05-13T22:11:32Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well, a “leak” is done anonymously so sure. But is it somehow more legal that he publicly revealed confidential information under his official letterhead? He didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/72 "2017-05-13T22:20:24Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > He didn’t. …this is the title of your thread: “Grassley confirms Comey told him that Trump is not being investigated.” How did he confirm this without publicly revealing confidential information? ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/73 "2017-05-13T22:28:52Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > He didn’t. If it has been “confirmed,” as you hold it has, that is the sharing of classified information. If it is not the sharing of classified information, then it isn’t confirmed. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/74 "2017-05-13T22:36:10Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > _shakes fist_ You have caused me to flashback to “The OA” /end of hijack Oh lord…And here I thought this would be a thread I was gonna stay out of…now I got that stupid dance in my brain too…:smack: ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/75 "2017-05-13T22:46:40Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …this is the title of your thread: > > “Grassley confirms Comey told him that Trump is not being investigated.” > > How did he confirm this without publicly revealing confidential information? I already explained. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/76 "2017-05-13T22:47:43Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > If it has been “confirmed,” as you hold it has, that is the sharing of classified information. If it is not the sharing of classified information, then it isn’t confirmed. Which is it? It was confirmed without sharing classified information. As I explained. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/77 "2017-05-13T22:49:20Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It was confirmed without sharing classified information. As I explained. As you imagined. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/78 "2017-05-13T22:51:13Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It was confirmed without sharing classified information. As I explained. Then it was not “confirmed.” You are trying to make an implication (or your own inference, perhaps) into some sort of proof, and it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/79 "2017-05-13T22:58:52Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It was confirmed without sharing classified information. As I explained. If his being under investigation is classified, then confirming it - no matter how it was done or worded - is leaking classified information. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463/80 "2017-05-13T23:00:10Z")
> [@simster](#): > > If his being under investigation is classified, then confirming it - no matter how it was done or worded - is leaking classified information. Not in the way it was done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grassley-confirms-comey-told-him-that-trump-is-not-being-investigated/786463.md?page=5)