[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Comments on Kasowitz statement, which was downright infuriating to read.

I am Marc Kasowitz, President Trump's personal lawyer.

Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today's hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference. This was never disputed. However, he also noted that a senior FBI official expressed concern that this was misleading, because obviously an investigation of the campaign would also involve the candidate himself. Honestly, Comey saying Trump wasn't personally being investigated is too cute by half. He also admitted that there is no evidence that a single vote changed as a result of any Russian interference. Given that Russia's involvement was largely a matter of propaganda and message-driving, it would be impossible to refer to evidence, unless Mr. Kasowitz has developed a mind-reading machine.

Mr Comey's testimony also makes clear that the President never sought to impede the investigation into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election, and in fact, according to Mr. Comey, the President told Mr. Comey "it would be good to find out" in that investigation if there were "some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong." And he did not exclude anyone from that statement. It's not at all surprising that Trump would be willing to throw his advisors or others under the bus if it meant extricating himself from a difficult position, as he does this sort of thing all the time. But it's equally clear that this paragraph is a lie. Comey was very clear that in his view, the President was attempting to impede the investigation by urging him to drop the Flynn matter, and of course the President himself said that his firing of Comey was intended to relieve pressure related to Russia. It never would, but he's not smart enough to know that.

Consistent with that statement, the President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that that Mr. Comey "let Flynn go." As he publicly stated the next day, he did say to Mr. Comey, "General Flynn is a good guy, he has been through a lot," and also "asked how is General Flynn is doing." Admiral Rogers testified that the President never "directed to do anything . . . illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate" and never "pressured to do so." Director Coates said the same thing. The President likewise never pressured Mr. Comey. The telling analogy was to Henry II and the murder of Thomas of Beckett. It would be obvious to anyone that being invited to a one on one dinner with the President where he repeatedly tells you he wants loyalty, followed by a meeting where he says he "hopes" you'll drop a matter, is pressure. It's pressure in traditional mafioso style, really. This should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of judgment.

The President also never told Mr. Comey, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty" in form or substance. Of course, the Office of the President is entitled to expect loyalty from those who are serving in an administration, and, from before this President took office to this day, it is overwhelmingly clear that there have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications. Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers. This is an obvious lie: Comey did not provide any information to the press while employed as FBI director. His release of information to a Columbia professor on the advice that it should be provided to the NYT took place when he was a private citizen. At that stage he owed no obligations to anyone, much less the President who'd just fired him for doing his damned job. This is top level slimy. It's also a pretty obvious deflection from the demand for loyalty, which is unequivocally inappropriate.

Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President. The leaks of this privileged information hugely important point: what form of privilege is being alleged here? Executive privilege? Because that requires that the withholding of information be in the public interest, and information about the President urging an FBI director to drop an investigation is the exact opposite: it should be disclosed for public interest reasons. began no later than March 2017 when friends of Mr. Comey have stated he disclosed to them the conversations he had with the President during their January 27, 2017 dinner and February 14, 2017 White House meeting. Who are these "friends"? Are they also employees of the FBI, who he informed in order to ensure that they could corroborate his story by stating that he informed them about the conversation contemporaneously? Because that's just covering your bases. It's certainly not a leak.Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he leaked to friends his purported memos of these privileged conversations, one of which he testified was classified. He also testified that immediately after he was terminated he authorized his friends to leak the contents of these memos to the press in order to "prompt the appointment of a special counsel." Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, I don't believe he made this claim. I'm fairly sure that he said that the tweet about tapes simply made him realize that there might be more than simply a "he said, he said" dynamic here. I think he said that he asked that the memo be leaked shortly before going out of town with his wife. the public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey's excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory. We will leave it the appropriate authorities to determine whether this leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated. There is no basis whatsoever for "investigating" this. This would likely be an abuse of office, which is probably why this is phrased as it is, i.e. "we will leave it to X to decide if..." Again, fairly slimy.

In sum, it is now established that the President was not being investigated for colluding with the Russians True or attempting to obstruct that investigation. Not at all true. No testimony was provided to that effect and if such an investigation were extant, it would likely have been initiated by Mueller, who was appointed post-Comey firing and he'd know nothing about it. As the Committee pointed out today, these important facts for the country to know are virtually the only facts that have not leaked during the long course of these events.

As he said yesterday, the President feels completely vindicated I'm sure the President feels he's never done a single thing wrong in his entire life, but the testimony today did nothing whatsoever to vindicate him. and is eager to continue moving forward with his agenda with this public cloud removed.

Thank you.