Grassley said, “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.”
Not to nitpick but one way to read Grassley’s statement is “Trump said Comey said…and we have nothing to contradict that.” They may well, indeed, have nothing to contradict Trumps version of what Comey said. How could they unless Comey supplied it? The statement would be accurate as far as that goes but not necessarily mean that they agree as to what Comey did or didn’t say. This may be reaching a bit but given the way politicians spin things, I wouldn’t rule it out.
I still haven’t seen a definitive answer to my OP. Comey can’t talk about the subject of any conversation with Trump w/o violating his clearance? And by saying, “I never said that” how would that be disclosing anything? Trump could say anything (“Comey admitted to being a pedophile”) and Comey’s lips would be sealed?
And how would Comey’s recording of Trump be illegal? In United States vs Johnson a District Court in Texas held:
"In a criminal prosecution, taped conversations between the defendant and another which were recorded without the defendant’s knowledge or consent but with the consent of the other party are admissible and do not violate the defendant’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971); Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963); United States v. Caracci, 446 F.2d 173 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 881 (1971). **The consent of one party to the conversation eliminates any claim of illegality as to the recording per se even when the government had participated in the recording. **United States v. Fanning, 477 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1006 (1974). The Fourth Amendment does not protect “a wrongdoer’s misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it.” Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 302 (1966). Where it is proper to testify about oral conversations, taped records of those conversations are admissible. Lopez, 373 U.S. at 387. See also United States v. Conroy, 589 F.2d 1258, 1264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 831 (1979) (“If the informant may reveal the conversation at a later time, he may contemporaneously transmit it to third persons”).
Is there some other law where it applies to the POTUS? I interpreted Trump’s Tweet as a threat that he had a recording. I find the “Comey better not have recorded me or else!” view far less likely but much more interesting.