Did Mueller suborn Comey's "Personal Document" response?

The key expression in Comey's response on whether his memos were personal or government property is "recollection, recorded," defined in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Did Mueller suggest using that legal term? When?

Contact Editor
Mark Langfan, | updated: 08:56

Mark Langfan
Mark Langfan
Mark Langfan

From the very second on May 9th, 2018, that President Trump dropped the hammer on FBI Director James Comey and fired him, Comey became a private-citizen. From that very second, Comey did not have the right to keep an FBI-embossed plastic cup, let alone vital governmental documents personally marked by Comey himself as “FOUO” “For Official Use Only.” 

And, from May 17th, the day Robert Mueller was “authorized” as Special Counsel until June 8th, 2018 the day Comey testified under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee, it is now widely reported that Mueller and Comey consulted with each other as to Comey’s likely June 8th testimony

It is also clear that Comey and Mueller specifically knew Comey’s memos were marked “For Official Use Only” and were government property when Comey testified before the Senate that they were Comey’s “personal document[s]” he “could share with the media as [he, Comey] wanted to.” 

So, the question is now joined: Did Special Counsel Mueller suborn Comey’s [likely highly perjured] June 8th testimony as to the “personal” versus the “governmental” ownership of the Comey memo documents?

Let’s review exactly what Comey testified under oath to on June 8th:

Under Republican Senator Roy Blunt’s questioning:

“BLUNT: So you didn’t consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document? You consider it to be somehow your own personal document that you could share with the media as you wanted to?

COMEY: Correct. I...

BLUNT: Through a friend?

COMEY: ... I understood this to be my recollection, recorded, of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it very important to get it out.”

The Trump legal team needs to immediately investigate exactly what role Mueller had in Comey’s testimony concerning “Government documents” that Comey testified were his own private “personal document[s]."  Or more specifically, did Mueller suggest Comey’s clearly legally prepared answer that the documents were his “recollection, recorded.”  This would be even greater perjury because Comey wrote these memos in real-time, and not after Comey was fired.  So, Comey’s testimony that the memos were his “recollection, recorded” is actually an additional evidence of a conspiracy of the Mueller Team and Comey for Comey to commit perjury.

Now, it is clear Comey delivered all his memos to Mueller as late as May 17th, 2018 when Mueller was first authorized.  Anyone looking at the memos cannot miss the bold governmental markings on the documents themselves.  So, Mueller’s first issue would be coming up with a way to explain Comey’s retention of the memos and Comey’s post-firing release of the memos to persons not authorized to receive the documents. 

The key is that Comey transmitted the documents after he was fired.  This is critical because whatever authority Comey may have had before May 9th, the day Comey was fired. Comey clearly had no legal authority to possess the governmentally marked documents, let alone transmit them to a private person with directions to release the contents to the media.

Additionally, Comey’s reference to “recollection, recorded” seems to be an obvious Mueller/Comey prepared “attempted” explanation to explain Comey’s illegal post-firing possession and transmission of the memos.  The problem is that the “recollection, recorded” answer only makes the documents more “government” property than Comey’s “personal property.” 

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, section 803(5) “recorded recollection” is defined as: A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

For sake of discussion, let’s assume Comey intended these documents to be “recollection recorded” when he wrote the memos in real-time. If so, if Comey may actually intended these memos, when he wrote them as FBI Director, to be future “recollection recorded” documents, he intended these documents to be used in future legal proceedings.  What’s more governmental, they would be likely be used in criminal or impeachment legal proceedings involving the President of the United States. As such, his memos are even more definitively governmental documents and governmental property. In fact, Comey’s claim that they were “recollection recorded” documents only makes the memos more urgently governmental property than if he hadn’t intended them for future legal proceedings. 

If Comey is only now coming up with the “excuse” that the memos were “recollection recorded,” it’s an excuse that shows Comey knew and knows that his memos were always “governmental property,” and that he knows he’s currently prevaricating.  Mueller and Comey likely knew the memos were government property and just made use of legal jargon that didn’t and doesn’t make “FOUO” marked documents any less government property.  In any event, Comey’s current claim that the memos were “recollection recorded” doesn’t make the memos any less the government’s property. It militates making them more “governmental property.”

The only conclusive point is that with Comey’s testimony and the new information that Mueller prepped Comey for the testimony, it is inconceivable that between May 19 and June 8th, Comey did not conspire with Mueller to come up with the exact legal formulation of “recollection recorded”  in orderr to find a legal way to parry the legal claim that the memos were governmental property and therefore, Comey wasn’t allowed to release them post-firing.  And, as such, it is highly conclusive that Mueller aided, abetted, and was invested in Comey’s untruth on June 8th concerning the specific point that the Comey memos were Comey’s “personal property,” and not “government property.”

An immediate criminal investigation must be commenced to determine whether Comey and Mueller conspired for Comey to commit perjury in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on the specific and exact question of whether the documents were “personal” or “government" property.

 








top