Posted on 01/23/2018 2:55:22 PM PST by markomalley
A friend of former FBI director James Comey who leaked sensitive FBI memos to The New York Times in the wake of Comey’s firing in 2017 now claims to be Comey’s personal attorney. Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia University, told The Federalist via phone on Tuesday afternoon that he was now personally representing Comey.
The revelation comes in the wake of news that Comey was interviewed by the special counsel’s office last year. According to The New York Times, the line of questioning from the office of special counsel Robert Mueller focused on memos that Comey wrote and later leaked after he was fired from his job by President Donald Trump. A review of FBI policies governing the handling of sensitive government documents suggests Comey violated FBI policy by leaking the memos, which were produced on government time, using government equipment, and directly related to his official government responsibilities, according to Comey’s own testimony before Congress.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote in a letter to the Department of Justice on January 3 that at least one of the memos Comey provided to his friend was classified.
“My staff has since reviewed these memoranda in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI, and I reviewed them in a SCIF at the Office of Senate Security,” Grassley wrote. “The FBI insisted that these reviews take place in a SCIF because the majority of the memos are classified. Of the seven memos, four are marked classified at the ‘SECRET’ or ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ levels.”
“If it’s true that Professor Richman had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information,” Grassley noted in the letter.
Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records. The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny. Richman’s legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman was merely a friend.
“I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter,” Comey testified last June in response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). “Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons.”
“But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,” Comey continued. “And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.”
“Who was that?” Collins asked.
“A good friend of mine who’s a professor at Columbia Law School,” Comey responded.
Despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, Comey never characterized Richman as his attorney, nor did he suggest that his directions to Richman to leak the memos to the media were privileged attorney-client communications. The news that Richman is now representing Comey raises questions about whether the special counsel may be investigating Comey and Richman for their roles in leaking classified information to the news media in order to get revenge on Trump for firing Comey.
The tactic of using attorney-client privilege to shield potentially illegal communications from law enforcement scrutiny is not a new one. During the FBI investigation of then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s potential mishandling of classified information, Cheryl Mills, one of Clinton’s top government aides at the State Department, also claimed that she could not testify about her communications with Clinton on the matter because she was also serving as Clinton’s personal attorney.
“I have nothing to say about any of this,” Richman responded, when asked directly whether attorney-client privilege was being asserted in order to shield his communications with Comey regarding the deliberate leaking of classified documents to the media.
Richman was first licensed to practice law in the state of New York in 1986, according to public records, and his current law license in that state is valid through October 2018.
then, once you expose illegal acts (leaking) having transpired through any now alleged attorney client privilege, then you pierce that, too, right? Depends on the Judge, of course, and whether Comey gets a full Clinton swamp attorney ala David Boies and simply used his “friend” errh “attorney” for these purposes.
“”Trump Groveled and backed down. Its time people call it as it is...””
Trump Groveled? Expletive delete.
“I cannot understand who is advising Trump? “
I’m praying for Trump and for our country and for God’s mercy for a while longer... Everyone should see pretty clearly the hell we are in for soon when all these Godless people finally get their way.
I get frustrated with these conservative one-level people who can only see the surface and only if it has rhinestones in it. But then it is also useful to have the right dumping on Sessions. It makes the outcome yet more devastating when it comes out.
I get frustrated with these conservative one-level people who can only see the surface and only if it has rhinestones in it. But then it is also useful to have the right dumping on Sessions. It makes the outcome yet more devastating when it comes out.
Hey, Comey is an attorney, he can say he is the personal attorney for Richman and they can protect each other!! /s
Going with a quasi spousal type deal where neither can be compelled to testify against the other????
The high-paid Clinton parasites are like 4-headed aliens from outer space:
<><>one head in govt,
<><>one head in the Clinton Foundation,
<><>one head soaking up govt intel,
<><>another head inhaling tax dollars.
They Clintonistas romped all over the State Dept like it was their personal playground grabbing at dollar opportunities. Huma had four jobs....Cheryl Mills flitted in and out of the Foundation...as did other Clinton factotums.
When did they ever do any actual govt work? The Clinton suck-ups are not content w/ six-figure govt salaries, expense accounts, housing and clothing allowances and free travel. Sucking off the backs of hard-working taxpayers is the name of the Clinton game. The opportunistic Clintons grab anything that isn't nailed down. They became multi-billionaires overnight selling off US ntl security to the highest bidder.
=====================================
SOURCE: abovetopsecret.com
PUBLISHED: Sep, 2 2015
Hillary State Department / Clinton Foundation Connection
Then-Secy Hillary was "soliciting" Clinton Foundation "donations" to somebody directly associated to Hillary's then Counselor and Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills. An email has been uncovered that casts some suspicions. Right after the disastrous Haiti Earthquakes in January 2010, aide and crony, Cheryl Mills, pointed Hillary in the "right direction" by telling her about a proposal that involved help for Haiti......the "proposal" came from Mills' live-in David Domenici, father of her children.
Of course (smirk) Hillary had nothing to do with shady crony activities while she was Secretary of State. And none of her close associates did either.
It was for the good of Humanity. They "accidentally" made a buck on it.
====================================
Hillary Proposes Clinton Foundation $$$ To Cheryl Mills’ Domestic Partner For Haiti Project
Less than a week after the devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010, the Secretary of State — in charge of America’s response to the devastating earthquakes in Haiti — requested a proposal from her opportunistic Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills about teacher training in Haiti. Her parasite DA kicks in and Mills dutifully forwarded a multi-million dollar proposal for rebuilding schools in Port-Au-Prince along with developing and training a “Teachers Corps” with 500 American teachers in Haiti.
And guess who the proposal came from? David Domenici, Mills’ husband and the father of her two children. The email gives no indication of any relationship between Mills and Domenici, but his online bio confirms it.
In a January 18, 2010 email, Mills noted; “…here are the ideas for the Haiti Education Corps that you asked for.” The following day, Hillary wrote back: “Great idea. No surprise. Let’s work toward solid proposal maybe to Red Cross and Clinton Foundation since they have unencumbered $.”
UPDATE: The tax-funded education project Mills connived for her live-in got failing marks in the aftermath of the Haitian $10 billion boondoggle.
CICA 2016
The State Department OIG report is half-baked but nonetheless devastating in laying out the violations of law and regulations by Hillary Clinton and her then-Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills. Judicial Watch plans to share this report with several federal courts considering our requests for discovery about the Clinton email issue. The OIG admits it still doesn’t know the extent of the inaccuracies and others of FOIA and correctly suggests that officials could be held in contempt of court for FOIA fraud. This is exactly why Judicial Watch is asking the courts for discovery, which could include putting current and former Obama administration officials under oath. Judicial Watch wants to know the facts behind Hillary Clinton’s and the Obama State Department’s purposeful thwarting of FOIA so we can be sure that all of the emails from her illicit email system are reviewed and released to the public as the law requires.
Judicial Watch is asking for discovery concerning Hillary Clinton’s emails in three separate FOIA lawsuits against the State Department:
Lawsuit against Secretary of State John Kerry to force action on Clinton emails
Lawsuit for records of talking points given to Ambassador Rice regarding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya
Lawsuit for records on State Department’s “Special Government Employment” status for Clinton aide Huma Abedin
Notably, the OIG specifically cites our Benghazi and Abedin FOIA requests listed above as being thwarted by the Clinton State Department’s FOIA fraud. The OIG report also points the finger at Hillary Clinton’s then-Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills for supervising an “incorrect” no-records response to the left-wing watchdog CREW’s request asking about Hillary Clinton email accounts! (Ironically, CREW was founded by the Clinton-gang as an alternative to JW!) We’ve seen this game before from Mills. Recall that Cheryl Mills was excoriated by a federal judge for another email scandal in our lawsuit against Hillary Clinton over the Clinton FBI (Filegate) scandal. We warned about Cheryl Mills back in 2009:
During the course of its “Filegate” litigation against the Clinton White House, which pilfered the private FBI files of former Reagan and Bush staffers, Judicial Watch uncovered more than 1.8 million email communications the Clinton White House withheld from Judicial Watch, federal investigators and members of Congress.
In this case, as is typical for Washington, there was a cover-up to match the crime. When White House computer contractor (and JW client) Betty Lambuth discovered the email communications, high-level White House officials instructed her to keep her mouth shut about the hidden e-mail or face dismissal and jail time. They issued the same threat to other White House contractors aware of the hidden email. (This makes the Bush administration email scandal, however troubling, seem like tiddlywinks by comparison.)
Judicial Watch’s discovery resulted in a six-month federal court hearing into the email scandal, during which Clinton officials were deposed, including Cheryl Mills. Mills was, in fact, aware of the missing White House emails but “assumed” someone else was handling the matter.
In an April 28, 2008, ruling in the email scandal, Judge Royce C. Lamberth called Cheryl Mills’ participation in the matter “loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco... Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.” (Unfortunately, Judge Lamberth ruled there was no evidence of a conspiracy or obstruction of justice.)
Loathsome and totally inadequate. Say hello to the new Chief of Staff for the Secretary of State, ladies and gentlemen.
Is it credible that Cheryl Mills and Hillary Clinton (who paid her lawyers every day to participate in that amazing email hearing before Judge Lamberth) were ignorant of email record-keeping issues?
Much of the media would have you think the Clinton email scandal is fading. Hardly. See the story below for more.
Retrieved Emails Show Top Clinton Aide Prioritized Advertising Design over the Deaths of U.S. Personnel in Benghazi
Attorney client privilege shields only actual legal advice and them only on matters that are not in themselves, crimes.
If Richman was Comey’s lawyer, which is a laughable assertion, wouldn’t it still be a crime to receive classified intel and another crime to release it to the press. It would seem Comey is trying to insulate himself from the crime and throw Richman under the proverbial bus.
The FBI is directing its MSM "owned" networks in a desperate attempt to throw chaff to deflect the AAM that is the FISA doc / FBI Secret Society. The AAM is going blow the wings off the FBI.
NO ONE wants to be the first in this den of thieves and traitors to step forward.
Protection is NOT assured, and these people will have you killed and not even think twice about it.
—
Just ask Seth Rich.
ANd if he was serving as Comey’s lawyer, he’d have a paper trail.....all signed, sealed and delivered....even bank records.
As FBI Director Mueller Helped Cover Up Fla. 9/11 Probe, Court Docs Show
God he’s dirty.
Yep, this move is to prevent him from having to testify.
Yep, this move is to prevent him from having to testify.
The Supreme Court will get to rule on the finding - may a coconspirator become the accused lawyer to protect the accused and self from testifying under attorney client privilege?
Would have been cleaner had they just married, we all know that law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.