Comey is out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nixon fired the people investigating him in 1973. He was kicked out in 1974.

We are on track.

Nixon wasn't "kicked out." He resigned before being impeached. Had he not resigned, it is highly doubtful that he would have been convicted. Several Republicans would have had to defect. I never supported Nixon, but to his credit, he never wanted to put the country into a crisis. When JFK won the election, it was because so many dead people voted in Illinois. Nixon could have contested the result but decided that it would be too traumatic for the country. Similarly, a Senate trial would have been traumatic for the nation. Presidents can be impeached, but they are very difficult to convict. Two presidents have been impeached, neither was convicted, and Nixon could not have been convicted without the support of several Republican senators.

More than "several Republicans" were absolutely going to defect, notably Barry Goldwater. That's why he resigned.

From Wikipedia:
"On the night of August 7, 1974, Senators Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott and Representative John Rhodes met with Nixon in the Oval Office and told him that his support in Congress had all but disappeared. Rhodes told Nixon that he would face certain impeachment when the articles came up for vote in the full House. Goldwater and Scott told the president that there were not only enough votes in the Senate to convict him, but that no more than 15 Senators were willing to vote for acquittal – far fewer than the 34 he needed to avoid removal from office.[100]

With impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate all but certain, on the night of August 8, 1974, Nixon took to the airwaves and delivered an address in which he announced his resignation. During the day on August 9, 1974, Nixon became the first, and so far only, president to resign.[101]"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Don't you need someone to review his conduct and write a formal memo to AG and President before taking an action in this magnitude? Back in January who would be that guy/gal and even have the time to do that in January?

No, he's not some GS-scale Fed. He serves at the "pleasure of the President". Legally, POTUS can remove him at any time for any reason, or no reason. It would have been reasonable in January or even last week when his wrongful testimony was given. But the day after the POTUS "perma-pinned" to his account banner a misleading tweet about Clapper dismissing Russia ties is suspicious.

What's also suspicious is that people who defy him seem to have a habit of conveniently getting fired right around Russia-related stuff coming out (e.g. Yates planned meeting with WHC re: Flynn back in January)...and their learning about it from TV news. OK, the latter is just incompetence

You don't understand how the government works. Whether someone is on the GS scale and whether they work at the pleasure of the president have nothing to do with each other. I was a GS-15 at DOJ, but I worked at the pleasure of the president. We had no Civil Service protection and no union, unlike our secretaries, who were almost impossible to fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Threatened to dismantle the Ninth Circuit
Called a federal judge a "so-called judge"

Tweets like this:

Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2017

Trump does not have the power to dismantle the Ninth Circuit. Only Congress can do that. It's been done before. Congress dismantled the Fifth Circuit by slicing it in two and creating the Eleventh Circuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comey deserves to be fired. No one who uses lack of "criminal intent" as an excuse to not prosecute deserves to lead the investigative agency of the federal government.

No one who openly admits that the DOJ had acted in a way that betrayed the trust of the people yet did not recommend prosecution should be allowed to stay. He bragged about this in the context of how he navigated the turbulent currents that is Hillary's email investigation.

So people should be prosecuted even if there is not criminal wrongdoing?

Exactly. Comey said he actually couldn't find criminal wrongdoing that warranted felony charges.

But that's not Comey's job. Comey cannot decide whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing. Comey's job is to determine what the facts are. Whether or not these facts provide just cause to issue a criminal indictment is up to the Grand Jury. But even then, it is not up to the Grand Jury to determine whether there was criminal wrongdoing, the indicted person is still presumed innocent. Whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing is up to the Petit Jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comey deserves to be fired. No one who uses lack of "criminal intent" as an excuse to not prosecute deserves to lead the investigative agency of the federal government.

No one who openly admits that the DOJ had acted in a way that betrayed the trust of the people yet did not recommend prosecution should be allowed to stay. He bragged about this in the context of how he navigated the turbulent currents that is Hillary's email investigation.

So people should be prosecuted even if there is not criminal wrongdoing?

Exactly. Comey said he actually couldn't find criminal wrongdoing that warranted felony charges.

But that's not Comey's job. Comey cannot decide whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing. Comey's job is to determine what the facts are. Whether or not these facts provide just cause to issue a criminal indictment is up to the Grand Jury. But even then, it is not up to the Grand Jury to determine whether there was criminal wrongdoing, the indicted person is still presumed innocent. Whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing is up to the Petit Jury.

Reread Comey's statement. He didn't "usurp" any authority. He was perhaps too candid. But he didn't decide whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing, he made a statement describing his professional opinion. I know that a lot of people were unhappy with Comey's statement, inside and outside the FBI. But I think you're reading more, or less, into his statement than what he said.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comey deserves to be fired. No one who uses lack of "criminal intent" as an excuse to not prosecute deserves to lead the investigative agency of the federal government.

No one who openly admits that the DOJ had acted in a way that betrayed the trust of the people yet did not recommend prosecution should be allowed to stay. He bragged about this in the context of how he navigated the turbulent currents that is Hillary's email investigation.

So people should be prosecuted even if there is not criminal wrongdoing?

Exactly. Comey said he actually couldn't find criminal wrongdoing that warranted felony charges.

But that's not Comey's job. Comey cannot decide whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing. Comey's job is to determine what the facts are. Whether or not these facts provide just cause to issue a criminal indictment is up to the Grand Jury. But even then, it is not up to the Grand Jury to determine whether there was criminal wrongdoing, the indicted person is still presumed innocent. Whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing is up to the Petit Jury.

Reread Comey's statement. He didn't "usurp" any authority. He was perhaps too candid. But he didn't decide whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing, he made a statement describing his professional opinion. I know that a lot of people were unhappy with Comey's statement, inside and outside the FBI. But I think you're reading more, or less, into his statement than what he said.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

I am well aware of Comey's statement. He was overstepping his authority. It is not up to Comey to determine whether any reasonable prosecutor would convene a Grand Jury.

[Anonymous]

I am well aware of Comey's statement. He was overstepping his authority. It is not up to Comey to determine whether any reasonable prosecutor would convene a Grand Jury.

Are you aware that a prosecutor would be wasting time and money if their primary witness can't support their case?

What Comey did or said in July is not the reason he was fired. Trump threw an immaterial chew toy into the yard for rubes like you to gnaw on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comey deserves to be fired. No one who uses lack of "criminal intent" as an excuse to not prosecute deserves to lead the investigative agency of the federal government.

No one who openly admits that the DOJ had acted in a way that betrayed the trust of the people yet did not recommend prosecution should be allowed to stay. He bragged about this in the context of how he navigated the turbulent currents that is Hillary's email investigation.

So people should be prosecuted even if there is not criminal wrongdoing?

Exactly. Comey said he actually couldn't find criminal wrongdoing that warranted felony charges.

But that's not Comey's job. Comey cannot decide whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing. Comey's job is to determine what the facts are. Whether or not these facts provide just cause to issue a criminal indictment is up to the Grand Jury. But even then, it is not up to the Grand Jury to determine whether there was criminal wrongdoing, the indicted person is still presumed innocent. Whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing is up to the Petit Jury.

Reread Comey's statement. He didn't "usurp" any authority. He was perhaps too candid. But he didn't decide whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing, he made a statement describing his professional opinion. I know that a lot of people were unhappy with Comey's statement, inside and outside the FBI. But I think you're reading more, or less, into his statement than what he said.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

I am well aware of Comey's statement. He was overstepping his authority. It is not up to Comey to determine whether any reasonable prosecutor would convene a Grand Jury.

Do you understand that it is entirely possible that prosecutors were involved, that they determined it was not necessary to convene a grand jury and that Comey's statement was issued as a result of that determination? Most cases don't make it to a grand jury; prosecutors usually only bring cases before a grand jury that they are prepared to indict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comey deserves to be fired. No one who uses lack of "criminal intent" as an excuse to not prosecute deserves to lead the investigative agency of the federal government.

No one who openly admits that the DOJ had acted in a way that betrayed the trust of the people yet did not recommend prosecution should be allowed to stay. He bragged about this in the context of how he navigated the turbulent currents that is Hillary's email investigation.

So people should be prosecuted even if there is not criminal wrongdoing?

Exactly. Comey said he actually couldn't find criminal wrongdoing that warranted felony charges.

But that's not Comey's job. Comey cannot decide whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing. Comey's job is to determine what the facts are. Whether or not these facts provide just cause to issue a criminal indictment is up to the Grand Jury. But even then, it is not up to the Grand Jury to determine whether there was criminal wrongdoing, the indicted person is still presumed innocent. Whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing is up to the Petit Jury.

Reread Comey's statement. He didn't "usurp" any authority. He was perhaps too candid. But he didn't decide whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing, he made a statement describing his professional opinion. I know that a lot of people were unhappy with Comey's statement, inside and outside the FBI. But I think you're reading more, or less, into his statement than what he said.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

I am well aware of Comey's statement. He was overstepping his authority. It is not up to Comey to determine whether any reasonable prosecutor would convene a Grand Jury.

Do you understand that it is entirely possible that prosecutors were involved, that they determined it was not necessary to convene a grand jury and that Comey's statement was issued as a result of that determination? Most cases don't make it to a grand jury; prosecutors usually only bring cases before a grand jury that they are prepared to indict.

Plus, Comey was the former Deputy Attorney General for the US and the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I can hardly think of anymore more qualified than he to "determine whether any reasonable prosecutor would convene a grand jury."

[Anonymous]

And the Comey memo is out....
Trump asked him to end Flynn investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8J36Y.html?campaignId=67LWR&EXIT_URI=https%3A%2F%2Fmobile.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F05%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fjames-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html%3Fsmid%3Dtw-share%26referer%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fx4EImuQ1KB

[Anonymous]

Ok, so Bill Clinton meets with Lynch on the tarmac. This is worse.

GOP, are you outraged?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so Bill Clinton meets with Lynch on the tarmac. This is worse.

GOP, are you outraged?

But but emails... but but Benghazi....
ahhh darn it... I've got nothing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the Comey memo is out....
Trump asked him to end Flynn investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8J36Y.html?campaignId=67LWR&EXIT_URI=https%3A%2F%2Fmobile.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F05%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fjames-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html%3Fsmid%3Dtw-share%26referer%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fx4EImuQ1KB

He did not directly ask Comey to stop the investigation.. Stop spreading false reports

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the Comey memo is out....
Trump asked him to end Flynn investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8J36Y.html?campaignId=67LWR&EXIT_URI=https%3A%2F%2Fmobile.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F05%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fjames-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html%3Fsmid%3Dtw-share%26referer%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fx4EImuQ1KB

He did not directly ask Comey to stop the investigation.. Stop spreading false reports

Liberals can't help but lie.

Their posts are full of "perhaps" and "maybe" and "could have" and then that becomes DID

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the Comey memo is out....
Trump asked him to end Flynn investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8J36Y.html?campaignId=67LWR&EXIT_URI=https%3A%2F%2Fmobile.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F05%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fjames-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html%3Fsmid%3Dtw-share%26referer%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fx4EImuQ1KB

He did not directly ask Comey to stop the investigation.. Stop spreading false reports

Semantics.

You people will twist stuff any way you can to make it believable.