Former FBI Director, James Comey is expected to testify in front of
the Senate Intelligence Committee today. He's however released the full
text of his opening remarks that he intends to deliver before the
committee.
Here is the full text
of the prepared remarks that aimed a dagger blow at Donald Trump saying
the President had demanded his loyalty, pressed him to drop a probe
into ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn and repeatedly pressured
him to publicly declare that he was not under investigation.
Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
James B. Comey June 8, 2017
Chairman
Burr, Ranking Member Warner, Members of the Committee. Thank you for
inviting me to appear before you today. I was asked to testify today 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, 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 New York. I was there with other
Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new 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 important, for a variety of reasons, to alert
the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it
was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the
media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC
should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from
the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to
compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a
defensive briefing.
The
Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this
portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because
the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence
responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize
potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it
made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were
concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new
President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was
conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.
It
is important 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, criminal prosecution is used to
disrupt intelligence activities.
Because
the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known,
counterintelligence 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, 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 do so if
circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower,
based on PresidentElect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him
directly asking the question, 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 second time, briefly, 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, 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, seated at a small oval table in
the center 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 strange 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 previous year, he would understand if 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, 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 branch.
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, 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 anybody’s 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, the President said, "I need loyalty, I expect
loyalty." I didn’t move, 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, I explained why it was so important 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, the President returned to the subject of my job,
saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard
great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others.
He then said, "I need loyalty." I replied, "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, 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 material I had briefed him about on January 6,
and, 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 counterterrorism 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, Deputy Director of the CIA, Director of the
National CounterTerrorism Center, Secretary of Homeland Security, 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 quite a few others in the room,
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 last person to leave was
Jared Kushner, 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, the
President began by saying, "I want to talk about Mike Flynn." Flynn had
resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t
done anything wrong 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, 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 close the
door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed.
The
President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a
good guy and has been through a lot." He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done
anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice
President. He then said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting
this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this
go." I replied only that "he is a good 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, 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 wrong, 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, it was
very concerning, given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative
agency.
The
FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect
the investigative team with the President’s request, which we did not
intend to abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one-on-one
conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account. We
concluded it made little 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, who would also not be long in the
role. After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely
held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our
investigation progressed. The investigation moved ahead at full speed,
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,
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 do with Russia, had not
been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was
being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to "lift the
cloud." I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as
we could, and that there would be great benefit, if 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 previous week – at which I had, 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, "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 correct, should that change.)
The
President went on to say that if there were some "satellite" associates
of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but
that he hadn’t done anything wrong 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, saying he hadn’t 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 do, and that we would do 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 do 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,
which was the traditional channel.
He
said he would do that and added, "Because I have been very loyal to
you, very loyal; 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 do and the call ended.
That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.
10 comments:
My message to the Yanks,
Your COLLEGIATE voted DT, you love him, please ENJOY HIM now.
Wanna kick him out? Wait till 2020!
Hmmmmmmmn interesting....... This comes guy tall thoe no be small
this news outlet is so against the president donald trump that they are willing to say just about anything and do anything to make sure that he finally gets impeached.
want to get a bigger penis? click here now
Linda so u expect me to read dis so long a letter this is America bullshit it don't concern me
hmm
-D great anonymous now as Vivian Reginalds
Personally, I don't see anything implicating about this statement. For Christ sake, they should leave this man alone to this job as PLUS!
DJT is a business person. Certain government ethical relationships are not clear yet to him as he has to learn on the job. How I see it
I smell lies, and then plot to impeach trump
I don't know how long it will take Trump to throw in the towel. This is way out of his league. He needs to go back to his old rich life where he could talk to everyone around him like they were toddlers and keep making billions the old capitalist ways.
Ah ah linda in dis fastin n u want me to read all this ah ah odaju gun ooo
Post a Comment