Director James Comey is sworn in before testifying at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the “Oversight of the State Department” in Washington U.
S. July 7,2016. REUTERS/Gary CameronOusted FBI director James Comey offered the most detailed account yet of his role in the Russia investigation Wednesday in remarks prepared for his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. They offer fresh information about his role in the probe as well as his relationship with President Donald Trump.
The remarks were published on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s website. In those seven pages, Comey detailed his interactions with President Donald Trump on several occasions. WATCH LIVE: James Comey to testify in Senate hearing on Russia“I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo, or ” Comey wrote regarding his Jan. 6 meeting with President Trump. “To ensure accuracy,I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past.”Comey detailed a conversation he had with Trump shortly after the Inauguration where the former FBI chief said Trump asked him whether he wanted to remain FBI director. “A few moments later, the President said, and ‘I need loyalty,I expect loyalty,'” Comey wrote of his Jan. 27 dinner with Trump in the White House’s Green Room. “I didn’t trot, or speak,or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence.”On Feb. 14, the day after Michael Flynn resigned as national security adviser, or Comey said Trump asked him about the investigation into Flynn’s ties with Russia,saying, “‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, and to letting Flynn go. He is a beneficial guy. I hope you can let this go.'”Read the full statement below.
Statement for the Record
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
James B. Comey
June 8,2017
Chairman Burr, Ranking Member Warner, or Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to seem before you nowadays. I was asked to testify nowadays to describe for you my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump on subjects that I understand are of interest to you. I have not included every detail from my conversations with the President,but, to the best of my recollection, or I have tried to include information that may be relevant to the Committee.
January 6 Briefing
I first met then- President-Elect Trump on Friday,January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in fresh York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his fresh national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President-Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.
The IC leadership thought it well-known, and for a variety of reasons,to alert the incoming President to the existence of this fabric, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the fabric and we believed the IC should not maintain knowledge of the fabric and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, and we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.
The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally execute this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the fabric implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would execute it alone to play down potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to execute the briefing,the FBI’s leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a fresh President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.
It is well-known to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations are different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work. The Bureau’s goal in a counter-intelligence investigation is to understand the technical and human methods that hostile foreign powers are using to influence the United States or to steal our secrets. The FBI uses that understanding to disrupt those efforts. Sometimes disruption takes the form of alerting a person who is targeted for recruitment or influence by the foreign power. Sometimes it involves hardening a computer system that is being attacked. Sometimes it involves “turning” the recruited person into a double-agent, or publicly calling out the behavior with sanctions or expulsions of embassy-based intelligence officers. On occasion, and criminal prosecution is used to disrupt intelligence activities.
Because the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known,counter-intelligence investigations tend to be centered on individuals the FBI suspects to be witting or unwitting agents of that foreign power. When the FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will “open an investigation” on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted.
In that context, and prior to the January 6 meeting,I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should execute so whether circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, or I offered that assurance.
I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy,I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a moment time, briefly, or for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone.
January 27 Dinner
The President and I had dinner on Friday,January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House. He had called me at lunchtime that day and invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my whole family, or but decided to have just me this time,with the whole family coming the next time. It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I assumed there would be others.
It turned out to be just the two of us, or seated at a small oval table in the middle of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us,only entering the room to serve food and drinks.
The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found weird because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. He said that lots of people wanted my job and,given the abuse I had taken during the preceding year, he would understand whether I wanted to walk away.
My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position,meant the dinner was, at least in part, or an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly,given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive department.
I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten-year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, or I added that I was not “reliable” in the way politicians use that word,but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybodys side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.
A few moments later, or the President said,“I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I didn’t trot, or speak,or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.
At one point, and I explained why it was so well-known that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history,some Presidents have decided that because “problems come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.
Near the end of our dinner, or the President returned to the subject of my job,saying he was very happy I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, and Jeff Sessions,and many others. He then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, and “You will always get honesty from me.” He paused and then said,“That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” I paused, and then said,“You will get that from me.” As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase honest loyalty” differently, and but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.
During the dinner,the President returned to the salacious fabric I had briefed him about on January 6, and, or as he had done previously,expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.
As was my practice for conversations with President Trump,I wrote a detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with the senior leadership team of the FBI.
February 14 Oval Office Meeting
On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counter-terrorism briefing of the President. He sat behind the desk and a group of us sat in a semi-circle of about six chairs facing him on the other side of the desk. The Vice President, or Deputy Director of the CIA,Director of the National Counter-Terrorism middle, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General,and I were in the semi-circle of chairs. I was directly facing the President, sitting between the Deputy CIA Director and the Director of NCTC. There were fairly a few others in the room, and sitting behind us on couches and chairs.
The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the participants started to leave the Oval Office,the Attorney General lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me. The final person to leave was Jared Kushner, and who also stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him,saying he wanted to speak with me.
When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, or the President began by saying,“I want to talk about Mike Flynn.” Flynn had resigned the preceding day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything mistaken in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, or which he did not then specify.
The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with leaks of classified information – a concern I shared and still share. After he had spoken for a few minutes about leaks,Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him. The President waved at him to shut the door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed.
The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, or saying,“He is a beneficial guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything mistaken on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, and “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go,to letting Flynn go. He is a beneficial guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a beneficial guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”
The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock, and making my way through the large group of people waiting there,including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President.
I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be mistaken, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, or it was very concerning,given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative agency.
The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was well-known not to contaminate the investigative team with the President’s request, which we did not intend to abide. We also concluded that, or given that it was a one -on-one conversation,there was nothing available to corroborate my account. We concluded it made minute sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General’s role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, and who would also not be long in the role.
After discussing the matter,we decided to maintain it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to execute with it down the road as our investigation progressed. The investigation moved ahead at full speed, or with none of the investigative team members – or the Department of Justice lawyers supporting them – aware of the President’s request.
Shortly afterwards,I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to pass along the President’s concerns about leaks. I took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened – him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, or remained behind – was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply. For the reasons discussed above,I did not mention that the President broached the FBI’s potential investigation of General Flynn.
March 30 Phone Call
On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to execute with Russia, or had not been involved with hookers in Russia,and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could execute to “lift the cloud.” I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, or whether we didn’t find anything,to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.
Then the President asked why there had been a congressional hearing about Russia the preceding week – at which I had, and as the Department of Justice directed,confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. I explained the demands from the leadership of both parties in Congress for more information, and that Senator Grassley had even held up the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General until we briefed him in detail on the investigation. I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, or “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons,most importantly because it would create a duty to right, should that change.)
The President went on to say that whether there were some “satellite” associates of his who did something mistaken, or it would be beneficial to find that out,but that he hadn’t done anything mistaken and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.
In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, or saying he hadnt brought up “the McCabe thing” because I had said McCabe was honorable,although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe’s wife) campaign money. Although I didn’t understand why the President was bringing this up, I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.
He finished by stressing “the cloud” that was interfering with his ability to make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get out that he wasn’t being investigated. I told him I would see what we could execute, or that we would execute our investigative work well and as quickly as we could.
Immediately after that conversation,I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente (AG Sessions had by then recused himself on all Russia-related matters), to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later.
April 11 Phone Call
On the morning of April 11,the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I “get out” that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that “the cloud” was getting in the way of his ability to execute his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, or which was the traditional channel.
He said he would execute that and added,“Because I have been very faithful to you, very faithful; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would execute and the call ended.
That was the final time I spoke with President Trump. The post Read James Comey’s prepared statement before Thursday’s Senate hearing appeared first on PBS NewsHour.
Source: thetakeaway.org