The Briefing Room
General Category => Trump Legal Investigations => Topic started by: mystery-ak on April 12, 2019, 01:59:41 pm
-
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.â€
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.
more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-scoffs-at-barr-testimony-claims-surveillance-is-not-spying (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-scoffs-at-barr-testimony-claims-surveillance-is-not-spying)
-
I don't think it's going to work this time, Comey.
-
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.
-
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 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.