Author Topic: Comey scoffs at Barr testimony, claims ‘surveillance’ is not ‘spying’  (Read 589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 303,363
  • Gender: Female
Comey scoffs at Barr testimony, claims ‘surveillance’ is not ‘spying’

By Brooke Singman | Fox News

Former FBI Director James Comey joined the chorus of Democratic critics complaining about Attorney General Bill Barr’s testimony this week that “spying did occur” against the 2016 Trump campaign, claiming he has no idea what the Justice Department leader is talking about -- and saying he “never thought of” electronic surveillance as “spying.”

Comey sought to draw a distinction between surveillance -- which was authorized against a Trump adviser -- and spying during a cybersecurity conference in California on Thursday, echoing Democratic lawmakers who have accused Barr of going too far in his Senate testimony this week.


Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 36,033
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
I don't think it's going to work this time, Comey.

Offline ABX

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 I know this isn't going to be a popular comment but there are specific legal definitions that aren't as broad as just dictionary definitions many pundits are harping on.

The legal definition of spying (ok, espionage) is "the crime of spying on the federal government and/or transferring state secrets on behalf of a foreign country."

Surveillance is simply: "observation and collection of data to provide evidence for a purpose."

Spying may be surveillance but surveillance may not meet the legal definition of spying. It depends on who the spying is done on behalf of. Surveillance for law enforcement purposes isn't legally spying. Survellence on behalf of a foreign government is.

If Comey is sticking to the pure legal response (which he should) he is correct. This isn't a layman's discussion but a law enforcement discussion.

Online Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,985
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
    • The Conservative Fist
A disctinction without a difference Comey. Rationalizing it's use doesn't change what it is.

But Comey doesn't care. He think's he's some kind of Pope who's words are holy gospel.
The Conservative Fist: - follow me and I'll follow you.

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,274
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
The Usual Suspect's definition diversion, would mean the Watergate Break-in thieves, would be home free, too?

No I think not. Oppo research might be normal. Buying falseified dossiers, in order to fool the FISA Court, to approve surveilance, spying, phonetapping, etc.

Wouldn't it be  something if Nunes' referal resulted in Grand Jury indictments of Clapper, Comey, Brennan, and others.

The aforementioned are acting confident, no contrition, planning to brazenly go offensive.

Remember Nixon's AG John Mitchell served prison time.

It is NOT unprecedented.
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo