Lordy, There Were Tapes
No, not of Stormy Daniels and Trump — though there appear to be tapes of that too! But of Trump’s conversations with Jim Comey.
Here’s another section of the Democratic report on all the things HPSCI didn’t investigate.
After firing FBI Director James Comey on May 9, 2017, President Trump tweeted on May 12, 2017: “James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” On June 9, 2017, the Committee sent White Counsel Donald McGahn a letter requesting that, “the White House inform the Committee if there exist now, or at any time have existed, any recordings, memoranda, or other documents within the possession of the White House which memorialized conversations between President Donald J. Trump and former FBI Director James Comey.” On June 23, 2017, the Committee received a response letter from the Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs referring the Committee to “President Trump’s June 22, 2017, statement regarding this matter” as its official response. The letter quotes in full the President’s statement that was made in the form of successive tweets on Twitter, in which the President stated that he has “no idea whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings” of his conversations with James Comey and that the President “did not make” and does “not have any such recordings.”
On June 29, 2017 the Committee sent the White House a second bipartisan letter urging the White House to appropriately and fully comply with the Committee’s June 9 request and clarifying that, should the White House not respond fully, “the Committee will consider using compulsory process to ensure a satisfactory response.” The Committee made clear that the President’s statement on Twitter, and the White House’s letter referring to the President’s statement, were only partially responsive to the Committee’s request. By only referring to the President’s statement, the White House’s letter did not clarify for the Committee whether the White House has any responsive recordings, memoranda, or other documents.
The White House responded that same day—June 29, 2017—stating: “To clarify, the White House’s previous response to your letter advising you that the White House has no recordings, together with the President’s public statements on the matter, constitute our response to your request.” As the Minority made clear to the Majority at the time, the White House’s two responses are woefully inadequate and sidestep the Committee’s explicit requests by not acknowledging or addressing (1) whether “recordings, memoranda, or other documents” at “any time have existed” within the “possession of the White House which memorialized conversations between President Donald J. Trump and former FBI Director James Comey”; and (2) whether any memoranda or other documents “exist now” in the White House’s possession memorializing the same.
The Minority has a good faith reason to believe that the White House does in fact possess such documentation memorializing President Trump’s conversations with Director Comey.
Subsequent press reporting revealed the existence of a memorandum reportedly composed by President Trump and Stephen Miller that referenced President Trump’s communications with Director Comey. The Committee should subpoena to the White House to produce all responsive documents.
Effectively the passage notes the following:
- June 9: HPSCI members from both parties sent a request for tapes or memoranda
- June 23: The day after Trump tweeted that he didn’t know if there were tapes, the White House responded that the President didn’t make tapes
- June 29: Members from both parties sent a letter noting the WH response did not state whether it had any recordings or memoranda
- June 29: The WH responded the same day stating that it has no recordings (and remaining silent about memoranda)
That’s when the Republicans got cold feet. Having been given an answer allowing for the possibility that tapes had been made (and destroyed), and a memo was written up about the conversation.
Maybe that’s the one McGahn was hiding in his safe, the one John Dowd complained about?
The debate in Mr. Trump’s West Wing has pitted Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, against Ty Cobb, a lawyer brought in to manage the response to the investigation. Mr. Cobb has argued for turning over as many of the emails and documents requested by the special counsel as possible in hopes of quickly ending the investigation — or at least its focus on Mr. Trump.
Mr. McGahn supports cooperation, but has expressed worry about setting a precedent that would weaken the White House long after Mr. Trump’s tenure is over. He is described as particularly concerned about whether the president will invoke executive or attorney-client privilege to limit how forthcoming Mr. McGahn could be if he himself is interviewed by the special counsel as requested.
The friction escalated in recent days after Mr. Cobb was overheard by a reporter for The New York Times discussing the dispute during a lunchtime conversation at a popular Washington steakhouse. Mr. Cobb was heard talking about a White House lawyer he deemed “a McGahn spy” and saying Mr. McGahn had “a couple documents locked in a safe” that he seemed to suggest he wanted access to.
Even more interesting than what this does for the obstruction case against people like McGahn, it suggests Trump continued his habit of taping his meetings from his practice earlier in his career.
That might be as significant for our understanding of the June 9, 2016 meeting as it is for any meetings Trump had with Comey.
How is the Republican response to Trump not obstruction? (Speaking specifically of the majority report that closed the investigation finding “no collusion”?)
Speech and Debate clause, i think
“The Minority has a good faith reason to believ” requires some parsing .
It suggests that they have been provide with information on the matter which has not been shared with the Republicans.
Wot? You mean, like, in language-type words, in or derived from English? Is there some Zodiacal coding involved?
Seems to me that the invasive species count is thicker than usual in this particular thread.
I don’t know how you come to that conclusion. It could well mean the GOP majority members acted in bad faith on information they had available to them.
No. Maybe it is simple. As in, the Dems can read and parse English, as opposed to Pubs that can only see what they want to see. See Nunes.
The Minority has a good faith reason to believe that the White House does in fact possess such documentation memorializing President Trump’s conversations with Director Comey.
I think it might be a transcript; best case scenario. Otherwise, it could be some note taking by one of the sycophants which, if the case, is likely skewed in Trump’s favor.
I’m not convinced there is anything at all.
If McGahn is actively hiding requested materials, he is a bigger scumbag than I suspected. But he can’t hide whatever he has from Mueller, can he? He is under investigation himself and doesn’t have attorney/client privilege with Trump.
Recall some were at meeting (TT, 2016-06-09) but allegedly not paying attention.
Yes, it could be transcribed to paper.
I think HPSCI Dems need to step back.
They may be inadvertently screwing up an op.
Trump intentionally got Comey in the room alone. If there is a tape, or transcript, etc, it was surreptitiously done by the Trump camp. And not to bolster Comey’s side of things.
Yes, Trump camp. Thinking of 2017-02-14 meeting where others were there.
At least initially. Someone may have recorded.
(The Venn between TT meeting and this meeting would be a tell)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/comey-testify-trump-asked-loyalty-drop-flynn-investigation/story
Comey also detailed his version of a Feb. 14 meeting, where he says Trump asked him to drop any investigation into former national security adviser Mike Flynn after dismissing other advisers, as well as the attorney general, from the Oval Office.
[But, perhaps, this is all about intel that corroborates Comey notes?]
[I.E., HPSCI Dems can read the ‘stuff’ at SCIF that Nunes just overlooked in his rush to judgement?]
Nunes is ridiculous.
When you say intel, are you thinking of bugged rooms, or an active phone? If that is the case, it wouldn’t seem to be the possession of the WH, and hidden.
True. Both.
Isn’t phishing for Metadata fun?
To be clearly as obtuse as possible, I am not talking about your run-of-the-mill Metadata, like email addresses, phone numbers, and ip addresses.
Think meta-metdata.
Why does “June 9” keep coming up as a relevant date? In multiple years? Does Trump have a numerology problem?
Let’s hope June 9, 2018 is the day he’s done
Hi bmaz OT, but couldn’t resist. Hope your Cards do well with Bradford. He’s ok when he’s got time, but he really does not like to get hit (with good reason). Can the O line protect him?
It should be noted that there at least some presidents since Nixon have used recording devices, including Obama, but it’s been out in the open for things like video conferencing and archiving media interviews.
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/13/528222995/the-shadowy-history-of-secret-white-house-tapes
The statement that Trump has “no idea whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings” of his conversations with James Comey and that the President “did not make” and does “not have any such recordings” is obviously a solipsistic dodge. They were saying that it was theoretically possible the recordings were deleted in a Rosemary Woods incident or hacked by the 400 pound basement guy — who can ever be sure of anything in this world except one’s own existence?
And as far as Trump not making any recordings, Nixon’s secret tapes were voice activated, Obama’s open recording was done by a guy with a microphone. Of course Trump wouldn’t physically push any buttons himself.
You can see why Trump’s lawyers are desperate to keep him from testifying. There is simply no way he wouldn’t perjure himself by giving the most misleading answers possible on the grounds that he was technically telling the truth.
“… There is simply no way he wouldn’t perjure himself by giving the most misleading answers possible on the grounds that he was technically telling the truth…”
plus, as the old saying goes, president trump is the kind of guy who would choose to tell a lie when the truth was more convenient.
oh no! i’ve lived thru this once. i never imagined i’d have to go thru it again – 45 years later – with another criminal-conduct-impaired republican prez.
By comparison, Tricky Dick was a veritable paragon of rectitude. But only by comparison. Also, Nixon was smart enough to have Kissinger, criminal that he is, as his NSA. Twitterboy wouldn’t even listen to Kissinger explain the kindergarten stuff.
Kind of puts Trump’s nomination of Gina Haspel to be the next CIA director in a different light. Here’s how I suspect a tape of Haspel’s interview with Trump might have recorded things:
I suspect that part came after some version of: “I need your loyalty.”
Maybe taped? (For transcription and later destruction.)
“On June 23, 2017, the Committee received a response letter from the Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs referring the Committee to “President Trump’s June 22, 2017, statement regarding this matter” as its official response. The letter quotes in full the President’s statement that was made in the form of successive tweets on Twitter, in which the President stated that he has “no idea whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings” of his conversations with James Comey and that the President “did not make” and does “not have any such recordings.”
– Does WH Legislative Affairs Office consideration of Trump’s tweets as an “official response” to an inquiry from a congressional committee have any bearing on the current litigation that involves POTUS Twitter use?
Betcha McGahn did not sign off on it.
Since the House Committee and Mueller’s office are in frequent contact (to make sure history does not repeat itself), Mueller has likely been all over this. Maybe the D’s on the committee are eager to advertise that fact?
Tapes. Torture. Treason. This brings back stuff that gives me an almost INSTANT HEADACHE! (And sad recollections of Mary…)
And here we are again!
I hope and assume Mueller and his Crew have 24/7 FBI protection.
I have started to worry about the possible poisoning of Mueller. I know it is somewhat paranoid because the Russians aren’t that stupid. But I still worry.
Mary!!!
“Since the House Committee and Mueller’s office are in frequent contact”
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
I would argue the opposite in fact.
Talking to HPSCI would lead to leaks.
@Rayne and @ Avattoir
Apologies if my typo ridden post earlier seemed dim witted or for some other reason was felt to be an unwelcome invasion on this thread.
It simply seemed to me that there are two readings possible of the last two paragraphs of quote from Minorty Report:
1 the “good faith reason to believe that such documentation exists” is what is set out in the final paragraph re press reports; or
2 that the press reporting is additional to whatever has given them a good faith reason to believe.
I simply wanted to raise the question for others to consider whether a they might be indicating that a source has provided them with information concerning such documentation.
The default of any such “good faith concern” would have to be to a rational construction from a mutually known objective set of facts, or else there’d be no reason to raise such (at least not from someone such as Schiff, who, recall, is a former AUS attorney – see eg his recent cw Preet Bharara on the latter’s podcast).
The alt construction you’re pressing is, unless based on … SOMETHING FCOL, objectively perverse. There’s more than one potential explanation for pressing such, but, again: without SOMETHING to point to that heads in a different direction than the facial meaning (even without factoring in the DoJ grounding of Schiff – AND OTHERS – on the panel’s minority), the most likely looking candidates for motivating that are 1. mischief and 2. some sort of mindset that enjoys entertaining fantasies and damn the associated irresponsibility.
schiff is leaving some breadcrumbs for journalists like marci to inquire about since gop shut it down…I have a hard time believing everything isn’t recorded in the White House..you cant go to the mall without being filmed a dozen times
Or ride the Metro.
There are two obvious Schiff scenarios but I don’t know which one it is.
1. Schiff may have heard rumors, doesn’t know anything for sure, doesn’t have anything concrete e.g., tapes or memos, and is trying to flush something/one out.
2. Schiff already has what he is alluding to or knows Mueller does.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the White House has a Deep Throat or two.
And it seems possible we’ll be surprised by a Mueller-McGahn reveal in an indictment at some point. McGahn is concerned not to erode Executive Privilege, as he should be, but he is also concerned that the Office of White House Counsel not become party to obstruction of justice, or that he himself becomes a party to it, like John Dean did.
Can I pick door number 4?
Metadata.
Flynn and gates should be able to provide a dam good insight into the coverup, especially flynn
“Of course Trump wouldn’t physically push any buttons himself.”
I certainly hope that’s true.
Theresa May’s Minister of Defense, Gavin Williamson – ambition aside – would be out of his depth in a car park puddle. About now, he’s looking up from the bottom of the Mariana Trench and seeing nothing but Russian trawlers on the surface and translucent Tory sharks down below.
Trump or Mnuchin, saying he’s going to impose sanctions is like Donald saying the check’s in the mail. It would not be prudent to rely on good faith implementation. More the opposite: Don’t trust, Verify.
@Avattoir
Clearly I have irritated you a great deal. That has never been my intention. Nor did I intend to impugn Schiff or the other members of the Minority. For what its worth I listened to the interview with Preet Bharara with considerable interest as both he and Schiff seem to me to be deeply impressive individuals : studious concientious, measured and utterly committed to the rule of law.
I have absolutely no desire to draw anyone into or engage in unseemly spats on this blog or anywhere else. I am taken aback that you consider what I have said to have been irresponsible: clearly I am missing something here. I do not want to further provoke you or anyone else by extending this particular discussion. I apologise for the offence given.