Radio Recap – James Comey: “I Was Wrong.”

This weekend James Comey appeared on Fox News talking about the FBI and FISA, and he admitted he was wrong.

On today’s Jay Sekulow Live we discussed former FBI Director James Comey’s attempt at a mea culpa and also discussed three major cases that I will be participating in before the Supreme Court in March as part of my representation of the President in my private capacity.

During an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, James Comey said:

He's right. I was wrong. I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years. I thought they were robust enough. It's incredibly hard to get a FISA. I was overconfident in those. Because he's right. There was real sloppiness, 17 things that either should've been in the applications or at least discussed and characterized differently. It was not acceptable and so he's right. I was wrong.

Sloppy is not an excuse. I am shocked that he admitted he was wrong although he was rather cavalier about it.

ACLJ Executive Director Jordan Sekulow added:

This is a major kind of admission by Jim Comey, because remember right after the report came out from the Inspector General he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post saying that he was completely vindicated. Chris Wallace really pushed him on this. He got pushed on other shows as well because the Inspector General was asked if anyone was vindicated in your report and he said that anyone that touched this FISA was absolutely not vindicated.

The idea that James Comey also said that it was hard to get a FISA warrant is ridiculous. Something like 98% of FISA warrant applications are granted. It’s not that difficult, but maybe it should be.

We also discussed our big day this past Friday. We were already off-air and didn’t get the order until almost five o’clock; it was something very historic.

In my personal capacity as Outside Counsel for President Trump, I was waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to announce whether or not they were going to take up cases I am working on for the President. They did and I will be presenting oral arguments in the March term.

One case is Trump v. Vance. That case raises the issue on whether a local district attorney can investigate the sitting President of the United States. The idea that a local DA can investigate a sitting President raises unbelievably serious Supremacy Clause issues of the highest order.

I will be delivering an oral argument in the Vance case and I’m going to have my colleague Will Consovoy present the argument in the second case, which is the case involving the dispute over the President’s tax records and the U.S. House of Representatives.

You can listen to the entire episode and hear more about the other cases I’m involved with in my personal capacity as Outside Counsel here.