This is political in nature but I believe there is a factual answer.
Trump says that Comey told him three times that he was not under investigation. Comey says he will not say what he and POTUS discussed. If Trump is lying about Comey’s reassurances wouldn’t that be important for the public to know? It seems very important to Trump to say “See? I’m not under investigation! That showboat Comey said so, three times. Maybe my people but not ME!”. If Comey never said that, what stops him from saying so? Is there a legal basis that prohibits Comey from discussing what was said or just a general understanding that such things aren’t done? Could he be forced to reveal the contents of that part conversation under subpoena?
I don’t see them being “classified” unless you think every discussion with the President is classified. I am sure parts that discuss national security matters would be “classified” but this part (discussion of whether Trump was under an investigation) wasn’t that.
Apart from which, the President can un-classify anything he wants.
The conversations themselves wouldn’t be automatically classified, but parts of it may have been. Comey could talk about the non-classified parts, or release redacted transcripts.
Big picture though, if neither of them wanted to disclose what was discussed they’d just claim executive privilege and be done with it. Congress can make demands, issue subpoenas, stamp their feet, but at the end of the day their only real power over the president not answering their questions is impeachment.
This is true only in the sense that millions of things are classified and no human being could know the contents of each and every one of them or even the existence of each and every one of them. No single computer system has them all either. Nevertheless, none of those things can legally be hidden from the President because of security if he asks to see them.
Generally, you don’t talk about an investigation that is in progress, classified or not. That’s why it was such a big deal that he spoke up about HRC’s email issue during the campaign. That’s probably where Comey is coming from right now.
But keep in mind that even if Comey did say Trump wasn’t under investigation, all that means is that he’s not being investigated yet. At some point, if evidence concerning Trump turns up during the investigation of other folks, then he absolutely will be under investigation. Saying he’s not under investigation right now, while the investigation is still ongoing, is nice* and all, but not too meaningful.
a) it harkens back to Nixon
b) fewer letters for the tweet.
What I can’t determine is
is he threatening that he (Trump) has recordings of the conversations that will be used if Comey talks to the press?
is he threatening Comey if Comey has recordings and Comey uses them to talk to the press? (in the effect of that Comey recorded the converations illegally).
SHouldn’t all presidential meetings be recorded at this point?
No. It is illegal for a federal employee to betray their own security clearance even if classified information known to them is leaked by someone else. The best example is Wikileaks.
This one, I think. Or closer to this one, since he doesn’t seem sure that said recordings exist. I think he’s implying recordings would prove that he’s truth-teller and Comey a liar (about future leaks). Which could be true. Or Trump could be saying this for public benefit - no recordings would ever actually be released, even if they existed, but it makes him look honest that he wants them to be.
Didn’t Trump say they met at dinner where Comey assured him he wasn’t a suspect? Maybe that’s what he means?
"**Mr. Comey did brief Ranking Member Feinstein and me on who the targets of the various investigations are. ** It would not be appropriate for me to reveal those details before the professionals conducting the investigations are ready. So, I will not answer any questions about who are targets of the ongoing Russia investigations. But I will say this: Shortly after Director Comey briefed us, I tweeted that he should be transparent. I said he should tell the public what he told Senator Feinstein and me about whether the FBI is or is not investigating the President.
On Tuesday, the President’s letter said that Director Comey told him he was not under investigation. Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s statement. Now Mr. Comey is no longer the FBI director. But the FBI should still follow my advice. It should confirm to the public whether it is or is not investigating the President. Because it has failed to make this clear, speculation has run rampant."
I mean more about the details of the conversation itself - that it occured, did Comey say X or Y - those things would not be ‘classified’ given that the President has already publicly aired one half of the conversation.
Incorrect again. It doesn’t matter what Trump said publicly. Comey can acknowledge “a” conversation existed but he still cannot disclose the that content of the conversation where it would violate his (Comey’s) own security clearance. An utterance or disclosure of classified information does not “unclassify” the information, until said information is formally declassified.
I understand that - but what part of this conversation (that Trump is or isn’t under investigation or if Trump asked for loyalty, or who requested the dinner, etc) would be classified?
Again - I am not talking about anything specifically classified being discussed.
Now - if Trump being under investigation is ‘top secret’ - then Trump himself shouldn’t be discussing it (with the media) either.
Classification is a word having to do with military and diplomatic secrets, right? I wouldn’t expect any of Comey’s conversation with Trump to be classified in that way.
Governed by the eithics of the FBI, on the other hand, yes.