APP - A question for James Comey

[canceled.2021.1]

If President Trump really did ask James Comey to drop the investigation and James Comey really did take a memo, wouldn't that memo be potential evidence in an impeachment trial? And wouldn't it be inappropriate for Comey to share it with "associates"? Why didn't James Comey go straight to the Department of Justice? Wouldn't that have been the more appropriate action?

 

[Jarod]

I share your question...

My only guess at an acceptable answer is that Comey was investigating... he was building a case, and he decided, "Well, I am not intimidated. I don't want to tell my staff because they might be. Ill just add this memo as part of the evidence when I present the findings to the A.G."

Once Comey was fired however, he lost control of that memo so he made sure it was leaked before it was destroyed.

 

[Jarod]

Another point I thought about...

Who should Comey report it to? Jeff Sessions had already recused himself... There was no Deputy Attorney General because Susan Lynch had been fired... Maybe the Republicans in Congress, they were in the tank and reporting directly to Rump. The Democrats in Congress?

It appears he did report it to several others in the FBI.

 

[Teflon Don]

Another point I thought about...

Who should Comey report it to? Jeff Sessions had already recused himself... There was no Deputy Attorney General because Susan Lynch had been fired... Maybe the Republicans in Congress, they were in the tank and reporting directly to Rump. The Democrats in Congress?

It appears he did report it to several others in the FBI.

That is pretty thin. Given the level of scrutiny Trump has had since the start of his Presidency, there was nothing stopping Comey from coming clean as soon as it happened. I mean if he really thought that what Trump did was that egregious he should have done something right away. That is what makes this so suspect to me. Comey's timing is no less suspect. It is convenient that this comes out AFTER he is fired.

If he was truly mounting evidence than I am sure that there is a way evidence is handled. I am no expert on the chain of custody, but I would have to think that it would not be protocol for Comey to keep something that is part of an ongoing investigation away from his counterparts and those investigating. If he was leading the investigation, he could have come clean with his subordinates.

I don't buy that line of reasoning. It doesn't hold up.

 

[Micawber]

If President Trump really did ask James Comey to drop the investigation and James Comey really did take a memo, wouldn't that memo be potential evidence in an impeachment trial? And wouldn't it be inappropriate for Comey to share it with "associates"? Why didn't James Comey go straight to the Department of Justice? Wouldn't that have been the more appropriate action?

I did not have any immediate thoughts on "appropriate," but I checked the ABA model rules, (I don't know where they have been adopted, that's ez to look up, and they are aspirational unlike DRs- much use of "should" and "should not") It confirmed my gut that the answer is that no rule says a prosecutor should not disclose potential evidence. The important rule is that prosecutors should and must in fact, disclose exculpatory evidence to the opposition. Now, if the evidence is such that during a prosecution the evidence is itself making an extrajudicial statement that may bias a jury or trier of fact judge, then it's a no no.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Another point I thought about...

Who should Comey report it to? Jeff Sessions had already recused himself... There was no Deputy Attorney General because Susan Lynch had been fired... Maybe the Republicans in Congress, they were in the tank and reporting directly to Rump. The Democrats in Congress?

It appears he did report it to several others in the FBI.

That is pretty thin. Given the level of scrutiny Trump has had since the start of his Presidency, there was nothing stopping Comey from coming clean as soon as it happened. I mean if he really thought that what Trump did was that egregious he should have done something right away. That is what makes this so suspect to me. Comey's timing is no less suspect. It is convenient that this comes out AFTER he is fired.

If he was truly mounting evidence than I am sure that there is a way evidence is handled. I am no expert on the chain of custody, but I would have to think that it would not be protocol for Comey to keep something that is part of an ongoing investigation away from his counterparts and those investigating. If he was leading the investigation, he could have come clean with his subordinates.

I don't buy that line of reasoning. It doesn't hold up.

I did not have any immediate thoughts on "appropriate," but I checked the ABA model rules, (I don't know where they have been adopted, that's ez to look up, and they are aspirational unlike DRs- much use of "should" and "should not") It confirmed my gut that the answer is that no rule says a prosecutor should not disclose potential evidence. The important rule is that prosecutors should and must in fact, disclose exculpatory evidence to the opposition. Now, if the evidence is such that during a prosecution the evidence is itself making an extrajudicial statement that may bias a jury or trier of fact judge, then it's a no no.

Good thing I never became a lawyer. I'd fall asleep at my desk everyday at work.

 

[Micawber]

Good thing I never became a lawyer. I'd fall asleep at my desk everyday at work.

It has its moments. ..checks clearing... throwing people out of their homes... freeing serial murderers on technicalities. ...billing a client for the 42nd file review this month.... sandbagging the opposition.... frivolous appeals to allow client move funds...
did I mention buxom paralegals?

Cuz surface planing teeth is so glamorous?