James Comey

James Comey’s baffling testimony (3) — Criminal intent

Featured image Yesterday, I watched James Comey’s testimony from start to finish (okay, I fast-forwarded through some of the questioning by Democrats). Comey came across well. In a better world, all government witnesses would answer questions as straightforwardly as he did. Yet, Comey’s testimony continued to baffle me. Scott and I have discussed his seemingly nonsensical contention that more than gross negligence is required to establish a violation of a statute that »

James Comey’s baffling testimony (2)

Featured image I found several points in FBI Director Comey’s testimony today (and his statement on Tuesday) baffling. I only saw parts of his testimony today; if I missed testimony addressing any of these points, please forgive me. Here are a few that baffle me. The imposition of an element of specific intent on section 793(f): where did this come from? Comey elaborated on this in his opening statement. I found it »

James Comey’s baffling testimony

Featured image I haven’t seen James Comey’s testimony before Congress this morning. However, Andrew McCarthy reports that Comey said the statute criminalizing gross negligence in mishandling classified information is invalid because it does not require proof of intent to improperly transmit classified information to places it is not supposed to be or to people not authorized to have it. According to McCarthy: The director claims that the statute has only been used »