“He Has A Lot Of Information He’s Not Sharing”: Why The Most Important Part Of Comey’s Book May Be What He Left Out

James Comey has had a whole lot to say for the past week: in the 290 pages of his book, A Higher Loyalty, and in interviews with everyone from George Stephanopoulos to Stephen Colbert to the women of The View. And Comey has a riveting story to tell, one that adds novelistic detail and self-justifying context to the role Comey played in electing and then investigating Donald Trump. Yet the most interesting, consequential part of his book and publicity blitz is what Comey has not said: anything new about just who might be criminally culpable in the 2016 presidential election mess. Perhaps that’s because he’s given the good stuff to Robert Mueller.

“I don’t expect there were contacts with the president that were unexplored in Comey’s Senate testimony or in his book,” says Julie O’Sullivan, a former Whitewater prosecutor and current Georgetown Law professor. “But he’s a very smart guy, and I assume he has a lot of information he’s not sharing in the book—certainly relating to the Russia investigation.” Indeed, one of the most startling, and perhaps telling, omissions in Comey’s memoir is any real discussion of the Steele dossier, considering its controversial place in the Russia investigation and how it damaged Comey’s relationship with Trump. He mentions Christopher Steele just four times, in passing; the closest Comey gets to issuing a judgment on the dossier’s worth is when he writes that he told President Barack Obama that Steele’s assembly contained “some wild stuff.” Surely the former F.B.I. director has told Mueller and the special counsel’s investigators about his assessment of Steele’s credibility, and described any evidence that Comey felt supported or contradicted the work done by the former British spy.

Comey, of course, was surely hyper-vigilant not to publish or discuss anything he thought might impede a very active investigation. “That would be Jim’s responsibility, especially if it was grand jury material,” O’Sullivan says. Comey sent a draft of his book to the F.B.I. as part of the standard pre-publication protocol for former employees. “None of the F.B.I. information presented fell within a restricted area of disclosure,” says a bureau press officer, who would not comment on whether Mueller’s team was also given an advance look. A lawyer for Comey declined to comment, as did Mueller’s spokesman. Should Comey ever appear as a witness, any discrepancies between what he’s said on the page and to Mueller’s investigators would be ripe material for a defense lawyer. “To the extent that there are other interactions with Trump that he hasn’t spoken about yet, or he revealed to Mueller and no one else, it could be seen as a lie by omission, or embroidery,” O’Sullivan says.

We’re still a long way from an obstruction-of-justice trial, however; what’s more immediately in play are the courts of public and political opinion. Whatever Comey has told Mueller privately about Russian interference, his current high profile comes with risks for the investigation. Comey’s book tour has given Trump an opening to beat up on him as a showboater some more, and to say that the “Deep State” is out to get him. Comey’s unflattering descriptions of Trump’s physical appearance can make him look petty and like a less trustworthy witness. Martin Heinrich, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, believes most voters can see through the trash-talking. “I was never a Comey cheerleader, but I never found him to be untruthful,” the New Mexico Democrat says. “The contrast between a president who seems completely untethered from the truth with Comey, who is walking through, ‘This is what I was thinking at the time and this is what happened,’ even if you disagree with him on individual decisions, is a fairly damning contrast. And I don’t think the reaction you’ve seen from the president to Comey’s book necessarily helps him. Boy, if you’re innocent, act like it. Have a little bit thicker skin.”