H 84° L 66°
  • cloudy-day
    Current Conditions
    Sunny. H 84° L 66°
  • clear-day
    Sunny. H 84° L 66°
  • clear-day
    Sunny. H 94° L 75°

Krmg news on demand

00:00 | 00:00


Krmg traffic on demand

00:00 | 00:00


Krmg weather on demand

00:00 | 00:00

James Comey testimony: Three important takeaways from  Comey’s opening statement 

James Comey testimony: Three important takeaways from Comey’s opening statement 

James Comey's Testimony Released Ahead of Senate Intelligence Hearing

James Comey testimony: Three important takeaways from Comey’s opening statement 

Former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday released the opening statement he plans to give Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The statement, according to Comey, includes notes he made following meetings and phone calls with President Donald Trump. 

Comey says that he “can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months—three in person and six on the phone.” 

Here are three important points from Comey’s statement.

1Trump asked if Comey could “let go” of the investigation of Michael Flynn.

"The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn... He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”

2. Trump asked on several occasions if Comey could make it clear he was not under investigation by the FBI.

During a January 6 meeting

... "prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.”

During a January 27 dinner

“During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.”

On a March 30 call

“On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to “lift the cloud.” I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.”

On an April 11 call

“On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I “get out” that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that “the cloud” was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.”

3. He asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “prevent any future communication” between just he and the president. He did not tell Sessions what the president said about Michael Flynn. 

“Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to pass along the President’s concerns about leaks. I took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened – him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained behind – was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply. For the reasons discussed above, I did not mention that the President broached the FBI’s potential investigation of General Flynn.”

Below is Comey’s opening statement to the Senate committee.


Read More
  • The website Chamber of Commerce has ranked the best cities to live in Oklahoma. And there's just no competing apparently with the suburbs and the medium-size towns. They took all the top spots. Enid, Broken Arrow, and Bixby were the top three. The website looked at factors like income, jobs available, housing costs, education, and health. Rounding out the top 10, in order, were Ponca City, Edmond, Owasso, Bartlesville, Norman, Stillwater, and Ardmore. You can read more about the list here.
  • People who get the packet to apply for disaster relief from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will find a Small Business Administration loan application inside. “Some people are like 'well I don't need a loan,' or 'I don't want a loan,' and they fail to fill it out,” FEMA spokesman Scott Sanders tells KRMG, “and then we have to kick the application back to them and say 'you still got to fill out the application.' So it holds up the process. So I tell people 'fill out the entire application, the FEMA part and the SBA part.'” Many of those people think it won't apply to them, because they're not business owners. But it's the SBA that handles long-term, low-interest loans for disaster victims - not FEMA. And that includes loans for homeowners, non-profits, even renters. SBA spokesman David Reetz tells KRMG there's a lot of assistance available. “Up to $200,000 for a homeowner, a renter. Up to $40,000 for personal property, cars, furniture, clothing you name it,” Reetz said Wednesday. “Businesses, of course we do that too, up to $2 million.” And importantly, a business doesn't even have to suffer actual physical damage to qualify for a loan. For example, if a restaurant had to close for several days because all the roads leading to it were flooded. “They have a cash flow problem, and the SBA has economic injury disaster loans available that are geared strictly to cash flow, if they've experienced no physical damage whatsoever,” Reetz said. To get started, storm or flood victims can contact the agencies online, by phone, or even by using an app on a smartphone. SBA: 800-659-2955 SBA Disaster Assistance website FEMA: 800-621-3362 FEMA Disaster Assistance websiteFEMA mobile app
  • Former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson is co-chair of newly formed National Law Enforcement Council (NLEC). The group is dedicated to enforcing federal, state, and local laws against animal cruelty.  Edmonson says animal cruelty cases are a good indicator of possible future crimes on people. “One measure of a civil society is how it treats its most vulnerable members, and few are as vulnerable as the animals,” said Edmondson.  There is a documented link between animal cruelty and other forms of human-on-human violence and criminal conduct.  The FBI’s homicidal triad includes early-age acts of animal cruelty. Animal fights are often staging grounds for a range of other illegal behavior.  In homes where a man harms a spouse or a girlfriend, he will often turn his violent instincts toward a child or an animal. The NLEC is urging increased funding for anti-cruelty enforcement at the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The council will also advocate for the passage of the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act, which would create a national anti-cruelty statute to crack down on perpetrators of acts of malicious cruelty with a federal nexus.
  • After decades of improvement, America’s air may not be getting any cleaner. Over the last two years the nation had more polluted air days than just a few years earlier, federal data shows. While it remains unclear whether this is the beginning of a trend, health experts say it’s troubling to see air quality progress stagnate. There were 15% more days with unhealthy air in America both last year and the year before than there were on average from 2013 through 2016, the four years when America had its fewest number of those days since at least 1980. President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed just the opposite, saying earlier this month in Ireland: “We have the cleanest air in the world, in the United States, and it’s gotten better since I’m president.”  That’s not quite the case. There were noticeably more polluted air days each year in the president’s first two years in office than any of the four years before, according to new Environmental Protection Agency data analyzed by The Associated Press. The Trump administration is expected to replace an Obama-era rule designed to limit emissions from electric power plants on Wednesday. Called the Clean Power Plan, it would have gradually phased out coal-burning power plants that emit both air pollutants and heat-trapping gases responsible for climate change.
  • A 72-year-old Walmart greeter in Texas said he was only doing his job when he was allegedly punched in the face by a customer Friday night. >> Read more trending news  Mohinder Singh Randhawa was checking the receipt of Craig Valentine, 42, of Hockley, at a Walmart in Cypress when he noticed a case of Gatorade had not been paid for, KTRK reported. >> Sisters turn government shutdown into Walmart cheesecake deal 'I told him if you want, you can scan and take it,' Randhawa told the television station. 'I never told him he was stealing.' According to investigators who watched surveillance video, Valentine became angry and yelled at Randhawa. According to a probable cause affidavit filed in Harris County District Court, Valentine 'chest bumped' Randhawa before punching him. 'He punched on my face with a closed right hand,' Randhawa, who has worked at Walmart for 15 years told KTRK. 'I fell down on the ground.' According to the probable cause affidavit, Valentine called Walmart management Monday to apologize and admitted to a Harris County investigator he punched Randhawa. Valentine was arrested Tuesday and charged with injury to an elderly person, according to Harris County court records. He posted $1,000 bail later in the day and is expected to appear in court Wednesday, according to court records. Randhawa, meanwhile, said he was shaken up by the incident.  'Yes, I'm scared to work that position because it never happened to me,' Randhawa told KTRK.. 'I was doing my duty. I was doing what I was supposed to do.

Washington Insider

  • As a Senate spending panel approved $4.6 billion on Wednesday to help with humanitarian needs along the southern border with Mexico, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he would delay action set for this week on a package of legislative changes to U.S. immigration laws, to allow more time for Senators to forge some sort of bipartisan compromise in Congress. 'So we're going to take a couple of weeks to see if we can find a compromise to see if we can shut down this flow,' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said of the recent surge of migrants to the border. Graham told his colleagues that bipartisan talks had already been underway with the White House, which have included Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate. 'I am willing to deal with DACA,' Graham said, addressing an issue which Democrats say would have to be part of any deal.  'I am not willing to continue the practice that our laws are generating, which is to tell everyone in Central America, the door is open,' Graham added. Both sides know that any compromise may include items which are anathema to many of their own supporters; one example would be a legal status for those covered under DACA and so-called 'Dreamers,' as Democrats want them to have a chance at a 10-to-12 year pathway to citizenship. For many Republicans, that type of plan spells only one word: Amnesty. Just over a month ago, Graham floated a bill which included asylum system changes, and urged President Trump to get on board with an immigration compromise. 'To get what you want, you've got to give something,' Graham said in mid-May. Graham has tried repeatedly in public to make the case to fellow Republicans and the White House that an immigration deal is in their best interest - otherwise nothing will get done in terms of legislative changes, and the number of people flowing to the border will continue to grow. At a hearing last week, the acting DHS Secretary said Graham's 'Gang of 8' immigration bill from 2013 - which drew furious opposition in conservative circles and on talk radio, and was never voted on by the GOP House - would have certainly helped prevent the current situation at the border. 'We would have a very different situation at the border,' said Acting DHS chief Kevin McAleenan, as he noted the plan would have bolstered the number of agents for the Border Patrol, ICE, and included other immigration enforcement improvements, such as up to 700 miles of new pedestrian fencing along the border, and high tech sensors. But the 'Gang of 8' bill foundered among House Republicans in 2013 because of the provisions dealing with the DREAM Act, and a pathway to citizenship for some of those already in the U.S. illegally. And it was quickly obvious in the halls of Congress that the same type of concerns could doom any new effort to strike a deal in 2019. The 2013 'Gang of 8” bill would have granted immigrants a provisional legal status in the U.S. for six years, and renewable for another six years, with a $500 fee. After ten years, immigrants could then apply for a green card, and permanent resident status, as they would not be allowed to jump straight to citizenship. Before any of those immigrants could even start getting a new legal status, the bill required that border security and fencing plans be in place first. But that wasn't enough for Republicans - one reason many labeled the South Carolina Republican, Lindsey 'Grahamnesty' for his efforts. The Gang of 8 bill would also have ended the Diversity Visa Lottery Program - a frequent target of President Trump.
  • Even with no agreement as yet between the White House and Congress on budget levels for 2020, the House on Wednesday approved a package of four funding bills worth nearly $1 trillion for next year, and started work on five other spending measures for the operations of the federal government, with no clear idea of what President Donald Trump would accept for next year's budget. The first spending 'minibus' included $713 billion for the military, and nearly $270 billion in funding covering a range of health, education, labor, energy, and water programs, along with foreign aid, and money for the State Department. The 226-203 vote was mainly along party lines, as all Republicans were joined by seven Democrats in opposing the bill, even though it included funding for the military, a top GOP priority. Republicans though objected to provisions in the bill which would prevent the President from shifting money from the Pentagon to construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico. The House then moved on to a second funding package - this one combines five different spending bills for an array of government agencies, from the Department of Justice to NASA, agricultural programs, the EPA, National Park Service, military construction, the VA, transportation, housing, and more. 290 different amendments were made in order to the second 'minibus' plan, as House Democrats try to get as many of 12 funding bills passed this summer, in an effort to prevent a government shutdown when the new fiscal year begins on October 1. But there's one problem with that effort - no agreement has been reached with the White House on exactly how much should be spent in 2020 - meaning all of this work could be for naught. 'This bill is going nowhere,' said Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), the top Republican on the House Budget Committee. 'It is a waste of time,' Womack said on the House floor, as Republicans protested the lack of a budget agreement for next year. The action on next year's spending bills came as Capitol Hill talks involving top lawmakers and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin produced no agreement on how to deal with current budget 'caps' which limit how much can be spent in 2020. If there is no deal, automatic spending cuts known as the 'sequester' would kick in, slashing billions from the military and non-defense spending programs, a politically unpalatable choice for both parties. For example, total military spending in 2019 is $716 billion; President Trump wants $750 billion in 2020. But under the spending limits from a 2011 bipartisan budget deal, the cap on defense spending in 2020 would be $576 billion, down from the current spending levels of $647 billion, a reduction of $71 billion. The sequester would cut domestic spending less, because it has had a smaller rate of increase over the last two years when compared to the defense budget; non-defense spending would have to be reduced to $542 billion, a cut of $55 billion. 'While we did not reach an agreement, today’s conversation advanced our bipartisan discussions,' said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer in a statement, as they urged the President to stay on the sidelines. 'If the House and Senate could work their will without interference from the President, we could come to a good agreement much more quickly,' the top Democrats added.
  • After weeks of negotiations over a White House request for extra money to deal with a surge of illegal immigrants along the southern border with Mexico, Senators on a key spending panel voted 30-1 on Wednesday to approve a $4.59 billion spending package to insure that various federal agencies have enough money to address what President Donald Trump has said is a crisis at the border. 'This situation as most of us realize is past the breaking point,' said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). 'I believe we must act.' 'The fact is that we do have a humanitarian crisis on the border that does need to be addressed,' said Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), who recounted crowded holding facilities for illegal immigrants. 'We've seen big numbers in the past, but we're going to exceed that this year,' said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO). 'This bill is absolutely necessary,' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). 'There are families and children who need our support.' The only 'no' vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee came from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). The bill only deals with money to help address the humanitarian needs along the border - it does not address any changes in U.S. immigration laws desired by President Trump. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee had been scheduled to start work on a bill which would make some of those immigration reforms, but that work will be delayed into July in search of a bipartisan agreement. “This is not a crisis - this is a disaster,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is leading President Trump's charge to change immigration laws. 'Our immigration laws are a disgrace and the Democrats can get together with the Republicans and solve the problem quickly,' the President told his campaign kickoff rally on Tuesday night in Orlando, Florida. It's expected the full Senate could vote on the package next week. It is not clear if the House would follow suit before lawmakers leave town at the end of June for a break during the week of July Fourth. The text of the Senate bill can be found here. A section-by-summary of the legislation from committee Republicans is here.
  • Even as President Donald Trump and top Republicans in Congress call on Democratic leaders in the U.S. House to allow a vote on a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada, the President's top trade negotiator told Senators on Tuesday that there's still no set date for when the agreement would be submitted to the Congress 'I believe we're on track, I believe we are making progress,' said United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Asked by a GOP Senator about discussions with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Lighthizer gave no public hint about any problems. 'My hope is that over the course of the next several weeks, that we can make substantial progress,' Lighthizer added, as he said talks with Pelosi had been 'constructive.' Democrats have been pressing the Trump Administration over the enforcement of new labor reforms in Mexico, worried that the government won't adequately enforce the changes. Asked by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) when to expect a vote in Congress, Lighthizer gave no concrete date - as the trade agreement has not yet been formally submitted to the Congress. At a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Lighthizer faced some verbal slings and arrows from both parties about the President's trade policies. 'I do not agree that tariffs should be the tool we use in every instance to achieve our trade policy goals,' said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA). 'China's market is now more closed off to American goods and American agriculture than before the trade war began,' said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), as he complained about the impact of the President's tweets on trade policy. For the most part, Lighthizer did not engage in pitched battles with Democrats over trade matters, repeatedly stressing common ground over trade disputes with China and final talks over the USMCA trade deal. As for China, Lighthizer made clear that President Trump isn't bluffing when it comes to additional tariffs on Chinese goods, acknowledging to Senators that the next round could have a bigger impact, to include items like laptop computers and cell phones. Lighthizer could have a somewhat more partisan reception on Wednesday, when he testifies on the same issues before the House Ways and Means Committee.
  • Five weeks after announcing his intent to nominate Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan for the top job at the Pentagon, President Donald Trump abruptly announced Tuesday that Shanahan was no longer under consideration, and would be replaced by the Secretary of the Army. 'Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, who has done a wonderful job, has decided not to go forward with his confirmation process so that he can devote more time to his family,' the President said, announcing that Army Secretary Mark Esper would be named as the new Acting Secretary of Defense. President Trump had announced on May 9 that he intended to nominate Shanahan to the post; he had been acting Secretary since the start of 2019, replacing former Secretary James Mattis, who resigned at the end of December. The move by the President came hours after reports by news organizations that Shanahan's FBI background check had been delayed because of an issue involving a domestic dispute with his ex-wife in 2010. Shanahan had been meeting with Senators in recent weeks as a prelude to his confirmation hearings - but no date for those hearings had been set by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and no formal nomination had been made by the President. It had led to speculation that Shanahan's nomination could be in jeopardy. The move comes at an awkward time for the Pentagon, as Shanahan had been serving as Acting Defense Secretary since January 1, after taking over for ex-defense chief James Mattis. Mattis resigned at the end of 2018 after a dispute with President Trump over U.S. troop levels in Syria and Afghanistan.It means the U.S. will go well over a half year without a Senate-confirmed Secretary of Defense, a point noted by lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “This job should be filled in a matter of a few weeks, not months,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. “We urgently need a Secretary of Defense that has the confidence of the President, the Congress, and the country,” Thornberry said.