|
This column continues to share the widespread media skepticism about the Justice Department’s ability to secure a conviction in its case against former FBI Director James Comey. But that doesn’t mean Mr. Comey’s reputation is going to be enhanced by this episode. Mr. Comey has pleaded not guilty. This week in a motion to dismiss the charges that he lied to Congress and obstructed a congressional inquiry, his lawyers rolled out a number of arguments that will strike many as technical and unpersuasive, some hilariously so. On the first count of the indictment for an alleged false statement to Congress, Mr. Comey’s lawyers argue right off the bat that the charge “seeks
to punish Mr. Comey for seconds of testimony he gave in response to compound and ambiguous questioning.” What does the length of an answer have to do with its truth or falsity? As for the “compound and ambiguous questioning,” Mr. Comey’s attorneys are referring to those posed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) at the fateful 2020 Senate committee hearing at the heart of the case. Agree with Sen. Cruz or not, it’s not often that he gets accused of not expressing himself clearly. Was there really much doubt about the information Mr. Cruz was seeking? The senator was following up on a May 2017 Comey appearance on Capitol Hill at which Mr. Comey was responding to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa). Here’s the relevant excerpt from the
transcript: GRASSLEY: … It is frustrating when the FBI refuses to answer this committee’s questions, but leaks relevant information to the media. In other words, they don’t talk to us, but somebody talks to the media. Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?
|
