Amid the escalating legal tension in Miami today, James Comey, former FBI Director, engaged in an insightful dialogue with Paul van Zyl, Co-Founder and Chief Creative Officer of The Conduit, a private social club in London. While the meeting was initially intended to promote Comey’s latest novella, it soon shifted towards a nuanced discussion on the critical matters related to Donald Trump’s legal proceedings.

“It’s So Readily Distinguishable”: Comey on Clinton and Trump Cases

In a straightforward comparison of the Hillary Clinton email saga and Trump’s current predicament, Comey remarked, “It’s so readily distinguishable that anyone who can’t readily distinguish it is not interested in doing it.” According to Comey, the Clinton case involved having classified conversations over an unclassified email system, a far cry from Trump’s alleged hoarding of classified documents and obstruction of justice.

“The special prosecutor actually focuses on the period between when Donald Trump received a grand jury subpoena and when the FBI had to go search to retrieve the information,” Comey elaborated. “So they’re both about classified information. Really, the similarities end there.”

“Very Bad For Donald Trump That She’s the Judge”

Probed by van Zyl about the role of the current judge in the proceedings and Trump’s strategic approach, Comey speculated, “I have an educated punch that it’s very bad for Donald Trump that she’s the judge.” He also theorized that Trump would likely attempt to draw out the proceedings, both as a fundraising strategy and potentially to ponder the possibility of a self-pardon. Despite this, he pointed out that the government will likely want to expedite the process and that Southern District of Florida is a fast jurisdiction, raising the potential for a trial by the year’s end.

“Trump Is In Big Trouble Inside the Courtroom”

James Comey, in his interview, laid bare the stark reality facing former President Donald Trump in his current legal battle, underscoring the gravity of the situation. A resolute Comey warned, “I read the indictment; by the way, Trump is in big trouble inside the courtroom.”

“Courtrooms Demand Truth, Unlike Press Conferences'”

Delving into the nature of legal proceedings, Comey contrasted the freedom Trump has enjoyed at press conferences with the unforgiving reality of the courtroom. He remarked, “You’ve all seen this. You can say whatever you want with a hairdryer running out of your face at a press conference outside. But you can’t in an American courtroom or a British courtroom.” This statement is particularly poignant, given Trump’s well-documented history of utilizing press conferences to push his narrative.

However, Comey, with his extensive legal background, pointed out that the courts are an entirely different battlefield. There, he stated, “if you are a lawyer making false statements, setting things you don’t believe, and the witnesses all testify under the pain of perjury.” The implication here being that Trump, regardless of his public image or political influence, will be subjected to the same rigorous standards of truth and evidence as any other defendant.

And therein lies the crux of the problem for the former President, as Comey sees it. “The reason I say it that way is he will make a lot of effort outside the courtroom, but inside the courtroom, if he’s able to find a good lawyer, they will tell him: Whoa, you’ve got a real problem!” Comey emphasizes that Trump’s ability to navigate the impending storm will hinge significantly on the quality of his legal counsel and his willingness to face the truth.

Shifting gears to the hypothetical situation of Trump being convicted and still running for president, Comey confirmed, “The good news is, yes, you can still run for President. You may not be able to vote for yourself, but you can still run for President.” A sentiment that casts a light on the complexity of the U.S political landscape.

Van Zyl then asked how Comey would address the erosion of the perception of justice in Western democracy, particularly in the United States. To which Comey responded, “I think it’s important to show it to the American people. It’s working. This is what accountability looks like. No matter how it turns out, this is regular order.”

Link

Embed

Copy and paste this HTML code into your webpage to embed.

The Future of Law Enforcement and AI Threats

Towards the end of the discussion, Comey also addressed the future of law enforcement and the potential threats of AI and technology, admitting that the legal frameworks were not prepared to deal with the amount of data individuals leave in their daily lives. “I don’t know the answer, but it’s a question that I would be asking probably nearly every day if I was still there,” he concluded.

Full Audio Recording of the conversation

Transcript

Paul van Zyl

I want to turn … to what’s happening in Miami today, and just generally all the various threads that Donald Trump is facing in relation to the handling of classified materials. You’ve obviously, I should imagine, looked at it with care. Two things,  
one is, could you distinguish, if there is a distinction between the Hillary email matcher and what he’s done?

James Comey

Well, let’s start with that. It’s so readily distinguishable that anyone who can’t readily distinguish it is not interested in doing it.  The Clinton case involved this: It wasn’t about the private server that’s gotten lost in all the noise over it. It was about she was having conversations on an unclassified email system about the subjects that were classified. And so those conversations could still be done in email, but they would have to be done on an email system that is built and regulated to permit secret or top secret conversations. I think what she would say is that I get that, but my staff, State Department had terrible technology, and so we often try, because we couldn’t get to a secret system, we would try to talk around the subject. We didn’t do this work. The intelligence community turned out a number of the emails went too far and crossed over to discuss, in eight cases, top secret topics and a couple of dozen other secret topics. That’s what the case was about, not about retaining documents. There was no proof of obstructive conduct on her part, no proof of false statements on her part.

That was the case. Now, I encourage you all to read the indictment that the special prosecutor filed because it’s what’s called in the states a speaking indictment. You now know, if you read that indictment, what all the evidence will be at the trial. There are pictures there, there’s excerpts from tape conversations. The story is laid out there. I don’t know, Jack Smith, but I’m guessing he did that for a reason to offer transparency, say, This is what this is about, for those who are interested in understanding what it’s about. It’s about an enormous amount of material, actual documents classified at very high levels, consistently more sensitive information than discussed in the Clinton emails. And then, most importantly, this case is about obstruction. The special prosecutor actually focuses on the period between when Donald Trump received a grand jury subpoena and when the FBI had to go search to retrieve the information. And so this case is really about obstruction of justice and flaunting of the law. And there was no evidence of that, no consideration of charge of that in the Clinton case. So they’re both about classified information. Really, the similarities end there. And I read the indictment; by the way, Trump is in big trouble inside the courtroom.

And you’ve all seen this. You can say whatever you want with a hairdryer running out of your face at a press conference outside. But you can’t in an American courtroom or a British courtroom – heaven help me – if you are a lawyer making false statements, setting things you don’t believe, and the witnesses all testify under the pain of perjury. And so the reason I say it that way is he will make a lot of effort outside the courtroom, but inside the courtroom, if he’s able to find a good lawyer, they will tell him: Whoa, you’ve got a real problem! If you put this in a script, someone would reject it, right? Put in the prospect of the President may be convicted, sentenced to prison and still run for President, we may face that in the United States.

Paul van Zyl

A lot has been made of the current judge in the matter. Will she remain the judge of the matter? And how much influence she will have in the matter? She’s being sympathetic to Donald Trump both as an appointee, but on the subject matter here. How relevant do you think it will be and how determinative may it be?

James Comey

I don’t know. I have an educated punch that it’s very bad for Donald Trump that she’s the judge. Because the decision she made, and this is in a high confidence read, but reasonable confident, that the decision she made brought her professional humiliation, which no judge wants to experience. And so if Trump has a thoughtful lawyer, I don’t know that he does, but if he has a thoughtful lawyer, they’ll be worried about her trying to recover some of that reputation by bending the other way to avoid being seen as doing any favors for Donald Trump. So I don’t know. I don’t know whether she’ll recuse herself. I’m not sure there’s a basis for it, but she knows that not only public opinion, elite opinion among lawyers, and the views of the conservative, strongly Republican Court of Appeals that sits above her that smacked her for the way she handled that all will weigh heavily on her as she thinks about this case.

Paul van Zyl

If you’re Donald Trump, are you trying to string this along or you’re trying to expedite it? And how that time going to impact the political process?

James Comey 

I have to imagine he’ll look to stretch it out as long as possible, both because it’s a great fundraising vehicle for him and also because he may contemplate the prospect of needing to pardon himself, which is a really interesting idea because a pardon in the United States Supreme Court has said that accepting a pardon is an acknowledgement of guilt. And so as two steps, a President has to pardon a person. And then when the person receives it and says, I accept this, it’s an admission. General Ford carried language on a piece of paper to that effect in his wallet for his whole life after he pardoned Nixon, telling himself reasonably that this is actually an admission by Richard Nixon that he committed crimes. So how does that work in the context of pardoning yourself? I don’t know. But his interests, I think, are to stretch it out and the governments are to move it, move it and to get it trialled. And that’s possible in the Southern district of Florida. It’s a very fast jurisdiction, very different from Manhattan. So I could see it being trialled by the end of this year. It’s not a complicated case.

Paul van Zyl

And if you’re convicted and in prison, can you run for President?

James Comey 

The good news is, yes, you can still run for President. You may not be able to vote for yourself, but you can still run for President. So this is the world we live in.

Paul van Zyl

So I want to take a step back because if he is convicted, there will still be 50 % of his party who will regard him as a hero and would vote for him anyway. You could make the argument the other way around. But our politics has become so fractured, and our justice systems have been so weevilled up from the inside. And we all admit that.  … If you had the power to do it, how would you begin to re-architect the erosion of the perception of justice in Western democracy, generally in the United States, in particular?

 James Comey 

That’s a hard question, obviously, even in normal times, but when you have a large percentage of the population that doesn’t want to hear that because each point you would make, they would see an attack on their identity because millions of Americans were trapped. It’s very hard to admit as a human when you’re wrong. It’s harder still to admit when you’re wrong and it touches on your identity. It’s harder even than that when it’s your wrongs on your identity and you were fooled. I’ve had fraud cases where the victims came and spoke for the fraudster at the sentencing, even after he had pleaded guilty because they couldn’t admit to themselves what they had done. And I think the January sixth images whispered from TVs to millions of Americans, You fool. Look what you did. You fool. And most people cannot take that. Most people turn away, try memory bullet because the cognitive dissonance is so painful. And so you’re going to have a large part of the audience that actually feel sorry for it. They can’t hear that because it’s too painful. But for the rest, which I would estimate is high as 70 % of Americans, the key is, again, to offer as often as possible transparency about how it’s working.

I actually think America passed its stress test in the wake of the 2020 election. It did in large part because the legal system showed itself to be extraordinary at all levels. Democrats, Republican judges, it didn’t matter. The reason that Donald Trump was 0 in 60 is because the courts threw open their doors and said, We are the land of evidence. Bring us the evidence. And there was none. And so courts at all levels said, Not only no, but hell no. And then sanctioned lawyers for false statements, held people accountable for false statements. I don’t know what will happen with the Manhattan DA’s office, but I love that the American people get to see this is what accountability looks like. This is the rule of law acting. I wish there could be cameras in federal courts because I like the American people to be able to see. This is how it goes. This is an ordinary case with an extraordinary defendant, but the system works. And both the law and the culture around justice in the UK and the US goes down into the Earth’s mantle. And that’s a consulting thing, but only consults people if they understand it. And so, again, my world is a justice world as often as possible, I think it’s important to show it to the American people. It’s working. This is what accountability looks like. No matter how it turns out, this is regular order.

Paul van Zyl

… If you were back in your old job, what would you be doing to prepare for AI fuel crime that is almost certainly going to occur?

James Comey 

By asking people smarter than I to come and tell me how they’re thinking about how we’re preparing ourselves. Law enforcement was seriously threatened and challenged during my time as director by a ubiquitous, strong encryption, which is both a wonderful thing and a challenging thing because it protects our privacy, our information, which I love. It also allows bad people to communicate in ways that judicial authority can’t reach. This is that on steroids because this is the question of what is real? Is it who is doing it and where? How? What can I trust? What is evidence? What is fakery? I don’t know what the answer would be, and I think it’s important as a director to realize it’s not your job to know, but to make sure that the organization is thinking about it and preparing for this. I don’t know because I’m not there, but I would bet that they are really struggling even to come up with a framework for how they will think about this. I know the courts are very concerned because this takes the notion of deep fakes and makes it exponentially more challenging. Evidence rules in both of our countries require authentication, require a competent witness to testify that this is what it appears to be.

What does that mean in the context of an AI created document or video? I don’t know the answer, but it’s a question that I would be asking probably nearly every day if I was still there.

(…)

Even as FBI director, I worried that our legal frameworks and our Civil Liberties frameworks were not prepared to deal with the amount of dust that you and I leave wherever we shop, wherever we walk, wherever we go. In the United States, all of that information is still treated as if we voluntarily provided it to a store, a business, a transportation network. And so the government doesn’t need heightened authority to obtain it. It’s treated as if it’s like your bank record. But it paints such a rich, pointilist picture of your existence. I don’t think that framework makes sense any longer. I didn’t when I was director. As I said, we haven’t even figured out this problem, and now the problem has just gotten larger on us. So enjoy your day.