Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, July 10, 2017

President Trump took another shot at former FBI Director James B. Comey in a Monday morning Twitter message that misstated a key element of a story published in a Capitol Hill newspaper. Trump's early morning tweet pushed a talking point that has been gaining credence in some conservative media outlets -- that Comey leaked classified information in memos that recounted conversations he had with the president. Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION to the media. That is so illegal! 6:40 AM - 10 Jul 2017

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Trump's tweet appeared to be responding to a segment of Fox & Friends, a show he regularly watches, which had reported on an article that appeared this morning in the Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper. The Fox & Friends segment aired a few minutes before Trump's tweet.

Comey has previously testified that some of the memos he wrote included classified material and others were unclassified.

The one memo that Comey is known to have made public was entirely unclassified, he testified. No evidence has emerged to contradict that.

The article in the Hill did not suggest otherwise. It reported that Comey had written seven memos in total and that at least four of them included classified material, which is consistent with Comey's testimony.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

First of many Distraction Tweets since Jr has basically admitted to attempted treason.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-10 12:42 PM | Reply

The mind of a dementia patient is sad.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-10 12:44 PM | Reply

You aren't telling me that the POTUS is lying about this are you?

The American People would never stand for that! Even rwingers wouldn't.... oh, never mind.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-10 12:54 PM | Reply


apropos cartoon...
www.realclearpolitics.com

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-07-10 02:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Kill ‘Fox & Friends' before it's too late
By Erik Wemple July 10

Back when regular people watched "Fox & Friends," it was bad enough to warrant killing the show. Back in those pre-Trump-presidency days, the program merely distorted the news in ways that reflected poorly on President Barack Obama.

The republic managed to survive the awfulness.

Now? President Trump takes his cues from the dreadful morning program on Fox News. Or miscues. Like this one: see link

Again, "Fox & Friends" and Trump prove what a noxious combination they've become. The former churns out questionable information or mere pro-Trump cheerleading, and the latter amplifies it. Thus far, this symbiosis has clarified just what "Fox & Friends" is -- a propaganda mill -- and the type of media coverage the president fancies -- straight-up sycophancy.

The relationship, however, contains the makings of an eventual disaster, the outlines of which we can't begin to fathom. Who, after all, knows how Trump will interpret the next slanted report from the program?

How will he further distort its garbage? And what will be the implications?

Left to its own devices, "Fox & Friends" could do far more damage, unless it's killed.

www.washingtonpost.com

BBQ-ing would be a humane way to end their (our) pain... maybe we could even get JeffyJ to do the honors.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-10 04:39 PM | Reply

Comey Friend Responds to Trump Tweet About ‘Illegal' Leaks

President Donald Trump went after former FBI director James Comey on Twitter Monday, accusing him of breaking the law by leaking classified information to the news media.

But that isn't true, according to Comey's friend, Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman, who received some of the memos and shared some elements with reporters.

www.nbcnews.com

#6 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-07-10 05:34 PM | Reply

Comey made clear in his Senate testimony that the memo he gave to the press, detailing his February 14th meeting with Trump, was specifically written to exclude classified information.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.): I found it very interesting that, that in the memo that you wrote after this February 14th pull-aside, you made clear that you wrote that memo in a way that was unclassified. If you affirmatively made the decision to write a memo that was unclassified, was that because you felt at some point, the facts of that meeting would have to come clean and come clear, and actually be able to be cleared in a way that could be shared with the American people?

Comey: Well, I remember thinking, this is a very disturbing development, really important to our work. I need to document it and preserve it in a way, and this committee gets this but sometimes when things are classified, it tangled them up.

Warner: Amen.

Comey: It's hard to share within an investigative team. You have to be careful how you handled it for good reason. If I write it such a way that doesn't include anything of a classification, that would make it easier for to us discuss within the FBI and the government, and to hold onto it in a way that makes it accessible to us. thinkprogress.org

I hope Comey eventually sues Trump for defamation.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-07-10 05:41 PM | Reply

Tony- Comey broke administrative rules and possibly intel handling laws, period. It does not mean he will be charged but he is dirty and a liar.

It just goes to show the corruption in the prior administrations Justice Department.

#8 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-10 07:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Tony- Comey broke administrative rules and possibly intel handling laws, period. It does not mean he will be charged but he is dirty and a liar.

Post the relevant statute and rules or STFU. Comey did not divulge any classified information to anyone. The only memo he showed to his friend was the one released to the media and per his sworn testimony was NOT CLASSIFIED.

Do you really think a career FBI official with an impeccable record of service doesn't know the protocols and laws himself? You are engaged in a personal attack based on nothing but the fact Comey understood that Trump's personal behavior toward him was unethical if not illegal.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-07-10 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

Tony

Now you know it is perfectly acceptable for anyone in the Trump administration to bend ethics rules right up to the breaking point as long as it is to THEIR advantage (financially and politically) and no one can take them to court and prove it is illegal (which in this case they obviously cannot or Trump would already have the DOJ bring Comey up on charges).

But apparently it is NOT fair for anyone else to even remotely use such tactics against Trump & Co.

Comrade Prolax is just getting a bit desperate as the investigative noose slowly tightens around Trump's neck and the nasty smell of COLLUSION with the Russians is squeezed out his butt.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-07-10 09:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Tony- rant all you want, Comey screwed-up and if you are worth your salt you know its been posted on many sites with the administrative and legal statutes.

If Comey was so honest and forthright why did he allow Jutice to obstruct the Hillary case as Comey admitted too.

Your cute when you get flusteted.

#11 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-10 09:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Donner if that is as you have just admit you fell for a scam.

It's okay, there's a sucker born every minute.

#12 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-10 09:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's okay, there's a sucker born every minute.

#12 | Posted by Prolix247

Indeed!

And apparently there were a crapload of you who fell for The Scam and voted for four years of it just like newbie suckers on Nov 8, 2016.

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-07-10 09:37 PM | Reply

Your allowed you opinion but sans proof you are making yourself look silly.

So I will ask again.

Where is the proof the DNC server was hacked by Russians?

#14 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-10 09:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#14

Donald's going to prison.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2017-07-10 09:50 PM | Reply

Where is the proof the DNC server was hacked by Russians?

Investigators are looking into it and they can't believe what they are finding.

#16 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-07-10 10:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

#16

They had to travel all the way to Hawaii, I hear.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2017-07-10 10:20 PM | Reply

#14

www.washingtonpost.com

#18 | Posted by et_al at 2017-07-10 10:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

...there's a sucker born every minute.
#12 | Posted by Prolix247

A great quote from one of the few elected Republicans to ever tell the truth.
Like Donald, Barnum knew to switch parties when he ran for office. He knew where the suckers are.

#19 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-07-11 08:45 AM | Reply

Trump Rage-Tweets False Claim....

Could have stopped right there.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 10:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Post the relevant statute and rules or STFU. Comey did not divulge any classified information to anyone. The only memo he showed to his friend was the one released to the media and per his sworn testimony was NOT CLASSIFIED.
Do you really think a career FBI official with an impeccable record of service doesn't know the protocols and laws himself? You are engaged in a personal attack based on nothing but the fact Comey understood that Trump's personal behavior toward him was unethical if not illegal.

#9 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Don't be so sure about that. This is written by a friend of Comey's:

Second, even if we assume the report is accurate (as I am inclined to do), it indicates that at least four of the seven memos contain classified information -- not that all of them do. Comey testified that he gave at least one memo to an intermediary, a law professor at Columbia. (Full disclosure: The professor is a friend and former colleague of mine. I have not discussed the Comey memos with him.) The intermediary disclosed at least a portion of the memo to the New York Times. Thus, we do not know whether Comey gave all, some, or just one of the memos to the intermediary; we do not know whether the one memo we can be sure the intermediary got contained classified information; and we do not know whether the portion the intermediary shared with the Times was classified. It is certainly possible that classified information was transmitted to persons not authorized to have it. But at this point, that has not been established.

www.nationalreview.com

To make the claim that the memo wasn't marked classified is an obfuscation. Some documents are born classified regardless of whether or not they are marked as such. A lot of Comey's actions over the past 16 months have been highly improper. Does that mean he shared classified information with someone who shouldn't have had access? No. But, we do know that 5 of the 7 memos (If The Hill's reporting is accurate) contained classified information and we do know that Comey shared at least 1 memo with a person who wasn't authorized to view classified information.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 10:55 AM | Reply

To make the claim that the memo wasn't marked classified is an obfuscation. Some documents are born classified regardless of whether or not they are marked as such.

BS.

In a review of the full transcript of the hearing Comey specifically explains the memo he created after his February 14 meeting with the president was crafted in such a way to be unclassified. It was this document, in the singular, that he arranged for a friend to leak to the New York Times.

Given that the memo was not classified, some legal experts assert the leak was not illegal. In an opinion piece in the Washington Post Stephen M. Kohn, a partner in a whistleblower-rights law firm argued:

"Comey's admission -- that he gave a memo documenting a conversation with Trump to a friend to be leaked to the press -- is also legal. Was the information classified or secret as a matter of a federal law? Absolutely not. Did he reveal a matter of public interest? Yes. Did Comey have a right to expose these facts anonymously? Yes."

Comey asserted that he felt the unclassified memos were, in fact, his personal "recollections" and thus his to disseminate:

"I understood this to be my recollection, recorded, of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it very important to get it out."

www.countable.us

The memo in question belonged to Comey. While his other memos did indeed contain classified information and have been turned over to Mueller, the one he discussed and disseminated through his friend was not and there isn't any indication of Comey sharing any classified information with anyone not having the requisite clearance needed to do so.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-07-11 11:18 AM | Reply

The memo in question belonged to Comey.

Not true. It was a government document. Like I said, it doesn't mean that what he did was illegal. I don't believe it was - he's too smart and experienced. It doesn't mean that his actions were proper though. They weren't IMO.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-11 11:23 AM | Reply

It was proper to expose an attempt at obstruction of justice. Crimes should not be covered up.

#24 | Posted by bored at 2017-07-11 11:58 AM | Reply

Et Al- how can they come to a conclusion when it is well known the never looked at the server.

#25 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-11 01:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

..there's a sucker born every minute.
#12 | Posted by Prolix247

A great quote from one of the few elected Republicans to ever tell the truth.
Like Donald, Barnum knew to switch parties when he ran for office. He knew where the suckers are.

#19 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-07-11 08:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is a misattribution of that quote. The only relation it had to PT Barnum was a quote by one David Hannum in reference to patrons continuing to pay Barnum for his display of a copy of the Cardiff Giant. en.wikipedia.org

Just trying to set the record straight - now back to the real subject of this thread.

#26 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2017-07-11 02:47 PM | Reply

Et Al- how can they come to a conclusion when it is well known the never looked at the server.

Seriously, are you not familiar with Section 702 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance?

Also, did you notice that a highly classified version of that document exists that contains details not publicly disclosed?

#27 | Posted by et_al at 2017-07-11 03:04 PM | Reply

EtAl- no I'm not familiar with it.

It is still the CrowdStrike interpretation no matter what classification it holds.

Nice trolling though.

#28 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-11 04:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

EtAl- no I'm not familiar with it.

In this context you should be. They don't need the server. They just collect the traffic.

#29 | Posted by et_al at 2017-07-11 04:53 PM | Reply

Et Al- how can they come to a conclusion when it is well known over at Fox News the(y) never looked at the server.

#25 | Posted by Prolix247

FTFY

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-07-11 06:46 PM | Reply

So how did you find out about this highly classified document and if it isn't public how do you know what it does or does not contain?

Are you secretly a master spy who is now leaking information or are you pulling sh$! out of your ass?

#31 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-12 03:06 PM | Reply

So how did you find out about this highly classified document and if it isn't public how do you know what it does or does not contain?

By reading the declassified version. You should try that sometime.

#32 | Posted by et_al at 2017-07-12 03:51 PM | Reply

Also, did you notice that a highly classified version of that document exists that contains details not publicly disclosed?

#27 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2017-07-11 03:04 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

By reading the declassified version. You should try that sometime.

#32 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2017-07-12 03:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG

How does reading the declassified version tell you what is or is not in the classified version?

#33 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-12 04:24 PM | Reply

... classified version of that document exists that contains details not publicly disclosed?
#27 | Posted by et_al

Are you really that dense? Second page, second bullet point. www.washingtonpost.com

#34 | Posted by et_al at 2017-07-12 04:41 PM | Reply

Note to Et Al:

If the public knows about it it has been publicly disclosed even if not by official channels

#35 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-12 05:04 PM | Reply

#35

You asked a question. I answered it.

#36 | Posted by et_al at 2017-07-12 05:23 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort