If you are ever in any serious trouble, you could do a lot worse than have James Comey testify on your behalf. And if you ever study to be an actor, you could do a lot worse than take notes from Mr. Comey’s testimony before Congress.
The former F.B.I. director, who spoke yesterday before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the events leading up to his firing by President Trump, was so earnest he did not sound like someone who was trying to be earnest. In his navy suit and plum colored tie, his quick, clipped answers to the questions posed by the panel, “Yes,” “No,” “That’s correct,” were so matter of fact that they did not sound like someone trying to be matter of fact.
If you ever study to be an actor, you could do a lot worse than take notes from Mr. Comey’s testimony before Congress.
As he talked about his one-on-one dinner with Mr. Trump, his hopes that there were tapes of their conversation, his leaking of a memo, Mr. Comey kept himself still and grounded—but not like someone who was trying to appear still and grounded. The former director rarely looked down or glanced around the room, a signifier of shiftiness, but not in the manner of one who was trying to keep a forward gaze and seem unshifty.
In other words, he didn’t seem like he was acting—the greatest compliment you can give an actor. Because if you are testifying before Congress on matters that could bring down a president, regardless of how true your testimony is, you are going to start playing some version of yourself. You are going to perform. It’s not that Mr. Comey told a bunch of lies and covered them up with a prize-winning performance. It’s that facts can sound like lies when you tell them under pressure. Mr. Comey, who has had experience testifying before Congress, didn’t buckle to the pressure.
James Comey didn’t seem like he was acting—the greatest compliment you can give an actor.
Actors often talk about “dropping in” to a character. Tom Hanks was really “dropped in” to Captain Miller in “Saving Private Ryan.” He knew his lines so completely, he owned the words and actions so thoroughly, there was little space between him and the World War II soldier. You believed him.
Or Judi Dench in “Shakespeare in Love.” Ms. Dench’s stillness was her most powerful asset. Stillness is an actor’s great weapon that allows us to focus on the words, on the character. Ms. Dench completely owned every moment she was on screen. When you let yourself be utterly still, people can see you. Really see you. You are not bringing your performance to them. With radical stillness you are drawing them into yourself.
A director once told a company of actors that the most important thing an audience is asking during a play is, “What happens next?” But if an actor is self-indulgent in his “moments,” he in essence stops the play and makes the audience focus on him. If an actress puts too much into her character, makes it showy and fantastic beyond what the character demands, you may admire the actress but miss the story. Is “Twelfth Night” about Viola or about the actress playing Viola? The actress should be the channel through which the story is told, not the story herself.
And so with James Comey. As he implied that the president tried to quash the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, he was mostly still, centered. He got his words out and made it about the testimony, not about him. For the most part he underplayed, which works for television. The version of himself he “portrayed” on camera was probably the actual version of himself.
Even his more impassioned, speechy moments, “I hope we love America equally” and “we remain that shining city on a hill,” were kind of sweet and earnest. An F.B.I. director! A man who can train 10,000 guns on your everyday scruffy and peaceable anti-capitalist was sort of adorable! He earned his dramatic moments with a testimony of grounded truth-telling. The Secretive Lawman, the Lord of Infiltration, the Emperor of Subterfuge, (the Destroyer of a presidential campaign?) was so real and likeable.
In a deeply skeptical age, I suppose we still want someone to believe in. (Maybe because it is such a skeptical age.) Perhaps, like a lot of actors, Mr. Comey has been playing a role (the Upright G-man) for so long that he doesn’t truly know who he is. Either way, I commend his testimony to the performers out there. For a few hours, James Comey gave us something to believe in—even if we believe only because we are desperate for integrity, whether it’s an act or not.
Comey, under oath, admits that he is the "leaker" -- who do you want in your foxhole?
He leaked his own memo. Nothing classified. A story he had a right to tell. He told it in a way designed to put in motion an investigation that will protect the Constitution and the future of our democracy. God willing. He's welcome in my foxhole any day. In spite of the mess with the emails.
Kathy
That was not "his own memo" .....that was and is government work product generated in the course of Comey'S duties as Director, on government time using government computers. The law is clear he is not allowed by law to use that memo for any purpose not in the line of his duties as Director and the law excludes a personal purpose (defending himself) whether still in or out of office.
In addition he has signed a Confidentiality and Non Disclosure Agreement with he FBI covering any and all matters that arose out if his conduct of his office as Director of the FBI.
He may have dictated the memo but it is legally NOT HIS Memo. It is not a personal diary entry of the equivalent.
His recent Testimony was an epic misstatement of the law as was his prior original statement in the Clinton investigation.
I can assure you that if this self aggrandizing "leaker" was in your foxhole you would most likely drown!
What about the texts he sent to his wife on his phone? They corroborate what was in his memos. Are they legally his?
Beth
He was not allowed to say anything to his wife without breaching his confidentiality agreement----there is no exception for spouses. Further as an attorney Comey knows he is never allowed to disclose information which is confidential to his client , in this case the FBI.
However, even though he did breach those agreements in speaking to his wife she is not bound by the agreements and could talk about it.
Comey could not ask his wife to talk about what he told her and if she volunteered that information her statements could be used to prove his initial violations of the confidentiality agreement, and as proof of violation of applicable laws.
Interestingly enough if she did not volunteer the information then she could not be compelled to testify to prove her husbands violations.
Somehow, Stuart, I tend to thinking that Jim Comey, both an attorney and the director of the FBI, would be pretty clear about the legalities of what information was confidential to the FBI and could not be disclosed.
Of course he should have been.....the very point is that he ignored those rules , guidelines, policies and signed agreements.
I am a lawyer who dealt with legal ethics. Tune into almost any nationally known lawyer and you will find that for the most part he agrees with the comments above. See for example Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, both noted in the legal field for generally sound analysis. Both of these guys are also well to the end of the liberal spectrum.
Or Stephen Kohn, also a nationally known lawyer, who says that Comey broke no laws. See Washington Post article.
Beth
The vast majority of lawyers think just as Dershowitz.....who by the way was/is a feverent Hillary supporter.
You should know that Mr Kuhn makes his living encouraging and defending government whistle blowers......he certainly had not won them all. He gets a percentage of monies awarded to such whistle blowers.
Messers Dershowitz and Turley have no such "brief" .
I encourage you to personally read on line the definition and sweep of what the government has determined to be its work product subject to all of the rules, regulations and employment agreements prohibitions against disclosure without authorization. See especially clauses 2&3 of the FBI Employment Agreement
Again I remind you that as of today the FBI had refused to make these Comey memos , notes etc available to Congress. This should give you a big hint as to whether the FBI's official position is that Comey could release those memos on his own determination.
Comment withdrawn.
Mmmm. Well, yeah, in the sense that we all sort of wear an outer mask, a role. Is there even a possibility that one can be truly and honestly who they are when they have 2 thousand cameras pointed at them and know that their every move is being seen world wide on live streaming screens? It seems to me that one has to wear some kind of protective armor in such a situation. The vulnerability is extreme.
I don't know that many people could even do what Jim Comey did yesterday. Is it acting? Probably. Is it an illusion that I think that I saw something of the "real" Jim Comey? Is my believing him more a factor of my own bias than whether or not he was telling the truth? Can we trust our eyes and ears anymore?
Is Jim Comey a showboat? That humility of worrying aloud whether he was risking projecting something untrue while speaking of another person -- was that fake? The way he looked at every person when he spoke to them? Was that an act?
I read the phone texts that he sent to his wife during his entanglements with DT. They certainly look authentic to me.
Like you say, we are wanting to believe that integrity and civil discourse really exists, but we have been made skeptical by "the show".
In the end, I think that what it comes down to is that the only thing we can really be sure of is the teacher / guide within ourselves. A conscience, if you may. As we each reach more and more for honesty and authenticity in our own lives, we know too well how easily we can trick ourselves. One more time we get up and try once again to speak the truth and be real.
What smarmy article. Instead of discussing the issues, you chose to address the way they were put before the committee. I am both surprised and disappointed?
You are so wrong! Comey came across as a manipulator and a schemer. And, he is one of the "leakers." But, you show your bias. You are trying to spread "fake news." I think that you should use the Ignatian rules for discernment to analyze Comey's "testimony." You should at least try to be fair.
Joseph, what exactly is your point? Do you think James Comey's testimony was all an act? You do not believe his testimony was credible? The man was fired for doing his job and the man who fired him has been caught in lie after lie. So Comey carries himself well in a public setting. Is that reason to discount his testimony? I have been a long time subscriber and this article doesn't measure up to the usual integrity of America Magazine. I've read your article twice. If I have misunderstood your point, please clarify. Thank you, Wayne
I'll be brief and more charitable—I chose to assume that Mr. Comey was not "acting" but unlike our current Whitehouse corps including the POTUS, he was relaxed and natural because it is easy much easier to tell the truth, because you don't have to struggle to remember your parade of lies and coverup stories.
What an insulting article.
Sean Penn once said,"At least when we're acting we know we're lying." Comey has run the FBI. He went to the deathbed of dying John Ashcroft to prevent a bullying of the old man into signing a document legalizing a program many in Justice deemed unconstitutional.
Yesterday it seemed he was acting only in the sense of taking action. I agree his stillness is commanding. And that he, as a "G-man" probably has developed an affect that projects calm command in his work Realm- which is not the safety of theater action but a daunting world of governing that includes responsibility for life and death.
For a living, I pretend I am someone else in order to entertain and illuminate universal truths. I do not have to take oaths or face possible imprisonment, just or unjust- if an enemy manages to twist my testimony my testimony -or I criminally
Because the world. Is suffering terribly, in global narratives, from confusing convincing "moral" performances with authentic moral action that is condemned because those actions are taken by imperfect people whose imperfections leave them ever vulnerable disregard, i am grateful for whatever impelled Comey to this moment.
If he needs to out on a "brave face" I get it.
But he knows he's not acting.
In a play, the illumination is called "spotlight." Comey was under an interrogation lamp. He knows there are consequences to what he says under oath. . Though as an actor I love so much of what is said here about acting, i am feverish to disconnect this situation our country is in - wits consequences of war or peace, life or death, democracy or dictatorship- from theater-the realm in which we show universal truths while ( to return to Sean Penn's observation) "we know we're lying." And so does our audience. .
This chase-your-tail style of writing fails to advance any argument. Given the seriousness of the issue, it is inappropriate.
Brother Joe, Really? Your acting and play-writing background, IMHO, got in the way of the utter gravity of Director Comey's testimony. Your column created a palpable air of suspicion around his responses, and by the time I finished reading this, I felt that I was supposed to believe that perhaps the man was lying after all.
The only line that veered in any way from that was this: "The version of himself he 'portrayed' on camera was probably the actual version of himself."
But you had to add "probably." Because, of course, no one can know for certain, right?
I'm trying really hard to be charitable here, for a zillion reasons, but I could not let this go unnoticed. I'm frankly disappointed.
To be fair, I'm guessing that you see life from the POV of an actor and playwright. So perhaps you look at everyone through that lens. And maybe that's all this was about -- your personal viewpoint based exclusively on your own life experiences and beliefs. And yes, it's one person's opinion, but I'm afraid that it appears that you speak for America Magazine, for the Jesuit community.
The obvious creation of suspicion around Mr. Comey's testimony, based only on the possibility that he might just be a really, really good actor, frankly, hurts.
The actual impostors on the stage are the president and his troupe of con artists.
Is this the best AMERICA MEDIA could produce at such a time in our history? I am enormously disappointed.
Maybe my prejudice is showing., but I don't agree with you. I don't believe Mr. Comey was acting at all. I watched the public hearing and I found him to be truthful. I understand why he wanted to cover himself with his memos. And I understand why we needed a special investigation into the matters at hand. I personally don't trust this president with the truth. I believe that he thinks he's telling the truth...like Kellyanne Conway says...his alternate truths. I have to admit I was disappointed in your article.
Sharon Brandy
There are thousands of articles available concerning the ethical, legal, and political implications of the Comey testimony. Brother Joe's take on it from the actors perspective was both interesting and thought provoking. Kudos to the Jesuits for publishing it.
I am surprised and saddened by this article. The perspective is interesting, but I think the slant -- especially as lead article -- trivializes what went on yesterday. Still shaking my head.
Comey's testimony Thursday was uplifting because it was truthful. It was the first time I could listen to someone from the government (formerly ) and believe what he said and feel he was a true servant of the people. That's why the so-called president couldn't keep him around.
I grew up in D.C. -- many , many years ago! -- and knew a lot of public servants, a group that included my father and other members of my family. I long for the old days when there was civility in government and in discussing it. The people I knew were principled, idealistic, polite and dignified. What a difference half a century makes!
I too will try to be charitable. After all James Comey has suffered these past weeks at Trump's hands, I could barely sit through this cynical article. He is no actor, showboat, crazy nut job, leaker or liar.
He is a beacon of light and truth in these very dark times who for me is a much needed hero. He has paid dearly for all the principles he upholds and is sorely missed by those he served. Sometimes the eye that beholds clouds the beam in the mirror as we project it onto others.
John Dean sees himself in James Comey's predicament, and I think Jesus knows it well too.
I probably better stop there.
Reading the article and comments are an interesting contrast. I see Comey as an honest person and respect those who disagree. However, the anger posted by those who disagree with Joe Hoover is a clear indication of our national unrest. Insult is the new normal. I blame Trump. By their words and deeds will you know them.
I had previously posted on a prior article about Comey that a friend of mine had labeled Comey as thinking of himself " as the last Boy Scout" purely defending the good and right by embodying it!
I responded that Comey always struck me as thinking of himself as "Thomas Becket" defending his view of his own and God's honor as being the same.
lo and behold in his own testimony Comey quickly and spontaneously referred to himself as "the ( self same) meddlesome priest". by quoting in referring to his interaction and Trump and his firing that famous line of King Henry 11 in Murder in the Cathedral-----"Will no one rid me of that meddlesome priest ? "
Takes some temerity to wrap oneself in the trappings of an historic martyr for justice , but that is in fact how Comey views himself. But like Becket he has confused his own self importance and reputation with the honor of justice. Listen carefully to his testimony....it is full of the faulty assumption of the right to reach legal conclusions well beyond his authority in order to justify taking no action (see Clinton Controversy) and yet stating that he is not allowed to reach any legal conclusion when it would compel him to act (see Trump controversy about obstructing justice) HOW PERSONALLY CONVENIENT AND RIGHTIOUSLY SELF PROTECTIVE
I
I am grateful for James Comey's testimony and his willingness to leak a memo he had a right to leak in order to get a special counsel appointed. I am also grateful that his effort was successful. The decent people in this country are up against a corrupt, treasonous president and a complicit Congress controlled by the Republican party. This is a dangerous time for our country. Those with a respect for the rule of law and a code of decency need to be commended.
Lisa
Don't confuse your gratitude for the result of Comey's leak with "his right to leak " the memo. It is not and was not his memo. He may have dictated it but it is Government work product/property, subject to all sorts of laws and agreements preventing its disclosure without the consent of the FBIas an agency. This prior consent is required whether Comey was then FBI Director or then just an ex FBI Director. In short it is NOT his memo.
Please note that so far the FBI as an organization has refused to provide the same memo to Congress, despite specific requests for it and any other memos Mr Comey might have written.
Other lawyers disagree with you on the legality of Mr. Comey leaking the memo. I find Mr. Comey's actions far less offensive than the continual lies, corruption, nepotism, treason, coarseness, and misogyny of Mr. Trump and his cronies. Trump and the Republican party are doing their best to destroy the rule of law in this country. I find no reason at all to defend that.
The FBI Employment Agreement signed by Comey reads in part:
2) "All information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America. I will surrender upon the demand of the FBI, OR UPON MY SEPARATION FROM THE FBI, all materials containing FBI information in my possession."
"3) I will not reveal, by any means, any information from or related to FBI files or ANY OTHER INFORMATION ACQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF MY EMPLOYMENT to any unauthorized recipient without PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY THE FBI"
Emphasis added.
Does any one dispute that former Director Comey met the President in his capacity as THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI.?
Does anyone dispute that the memos in question were about the information he acquired in that meeting?
It does not take a lawyer to read the very clear plain language quoted above.
Do you find an "exception" for non confidential information or for recording personal impressions, or thoughts?
Do you find an exception to the word "recipient" for disclosure to a wife or old law school friend?
Do you find an exception if the disclosing person thinks such disclosure will accomplish some higher, positive purpose?
What a mean spirited article. Have we become so Trumpified that an example of sincerity and honesty is ridiculed.
Comey has committed crimes. Either that or he is a liar. Most likely both.
He has put the country through a torturous nightmare as he knew the Russian collusion story was fabricated and kept silent. How anyone can defend the indefensible person is beyond me.
Remember the supposed obstruction of justice was not about Trump but about Flynn who Trump could pardon at any time. And no one knows what Flynn is being investigated for. Notice nothing has been leaked about Flynn so it cannot be important. If it is about possible Logan act violations that would be a joke and make Comey look even more of a hypocrite.
Comey admitted there was obstruction of justice by the Obama administration and did nothing. That is a crime. He has committed other crimes including possible perjury.
But Comey is a good actor so he has something going for him despite being a criminal.
I can not believe Mr Comey was a Government employee.
He would not make it as a manager in the private sector. He has no loyalty and his leaking of confidential statements prior to his testimony was breaking the law he was hired to protect.
He can not have it both ways.
I can not believe Mr Comey was a Government employee.
He would not make it as a manager in the private sector. He has no loyalty and his leaking of confidential statements prior to his testimony was breaking the law he was hired to protect.
He can not have it both ways.
In the days since Comey's testimony, it's been pretty well decided that his memo of the dinner with Trump is not "classified" material. So Stuart Meisenzahl, I'm afraid your long-winded narration pointing the finger at Comey as a "leaker" doesn't hold much water among your lawyer colleagues. And Benito Diaz, you actually want us to consider St Ignatius's rules of discernment? Maybe you should have, before you voted for Trump. Being the alumnus of a Jesuit institution, I was considering subscribing to America, but this decided it for me in the negative...Poor journalism like that authored by "Brother Joe" sickens me. Here's to leakers and whistleblowers! May they live long and prosper!
Britt
To be unaccustomedly short😌 , there is no exception in the FBI confidentiality Agreement for "non classified information" .You can google that agreement on line and read it yourself! I would not expect you to take my word for it.
Please note that the official FBI position on the memos contradicts your current position on those same memos; the FBI has refused to give those same memos to Congress despite threats of a subpoena.
I took offense when he said that one of the reasons he decided to keep notes was because of 'the nature of person he was interacting with.[ I'm paraphrasing ; I don't remember the exact words]. That was a smear and smearing someone as a rationale for ones action before a committee was something I'd expect to hear in a kangaroo court. Similar to citing a woman's dress or previous sexual behavior as a defense. That so many politicians and media people don't see how he's begging the question[ "I know you're dishonest; therefore you're always dishonest, therefore believe me"] was manipulative and unethical[imo].That he answers the most relevant of questions; "why did you not stand up to the president?" , by self effacing, did not seem credible to me. It seemed manipulative ..But it worked since so many buy that a head of the FBI and a seasoned person in government, was just so taken by being in presence of the president and so stunned by what the president was saying, that he could not push back against what he knew to be an unethical. He is presenting himself like the naïve Dorothy up against the mighty Oz and the committee and the media are buying it! [lol] .
[ perhaps I'm naïve but I think it is possible that Trump cleared the room because as was pointed out[ on some media outlet ,I forget which], Comey himself when he went to Trump Tower to meet Trump the first time, asked that the room be cleared. Comey did, before Trump was president. So he, Comey was showing off how important he was that the room had to be cleared of other lowly Trump aides, So it is very possible that subsequently Trump as president may have believed this was normal protocol when talking to the FBI. Comey may be twisting this around and was being dishonest in not telling the committed that he himself had once asked Trump to clear the room prior to Trump's inauguration. That is cagey].
His narrative of being the pure one up against the corrupt, was self serving heroics ; the self effacing statements only underscoring for me , his game. What he did to Hillary, creating a cloud around her right before the election which more then any Russian manipulation probably DID have real impact on voters was totally unethical and harmed the democratic process . [ Hillary should have sued him after she lost for that]. He did not express any real guilt or remorse for it and brushed it off as a mishap which he then used as a reason he would not tell Trump that he was NOT under investigation. Which is exactly why he got fired. That and [imo] because after his first testimony before the committee, he misspoke and had to correct his own testimony. Trump had valid reason to fire him[ incompetence ] and he came across as the disgruntled employee knowing how to play his "resist Trump" audience!
[ I find most of Trumps policies appalling and wanted Hillary to win but still I agree with Derhshowitz [ another person I don't agree with often] that this is a witch hunt.
Until critics of President Trump admit the problems of the country created by those who are opposed to Trump, they are hypocrites. Any editor, author or commenter who writes disparaging accounts on Trump can not be considered serious till they admit the problems caused by the political side they advocate.
Some examples; others may want to add to list
Russia investigation - this may be hoax of the last two centuries but Democratic politicians and media pursue this fairy tale. It has torn the country apart. Anyone who criticized Trump and doesn't own up to this is a super hypocrite.
Comey firing - here was a man who knew that the Russian investigation was bogus and sat on it with at best specious reasons. Then leaked to get a special prosecutor. All on phony reasons. No one knows what Flynn was being investigated on. Amazing that this hasn't leaked when everything else is available to the media through undisclosed sources. Anyone not upset with this is also a super hypocrite.
Healthcare - the problems and duplicity of ACA/Obamacare and why the Republicans want to change it.
Refugees - Middle East - cause of the refugee situation and how the foreign policy of Obama and the basic tenets of Islam have cause undue hardship let alone deaths for hundreds of thousands
Refugees - Latin America - the causes of this attempted migration and why they want to move to a cultural environment that is hostile to them.
Lack of indignation at internal spying by Obama administration.
Paris Climate Deal - there was never anything in this accord that would affect the climate and instead it was an onerous financial burden on the United States and no other country. So anyone who opposes the pulling out of the accord has no rationale on which to base their objections.
I will stop here because the editors may cut anything else I say because of length. There is lots more.