Anonymous wrote:Schumer? He's a twit! I can't remember the last time he represented what Americans need or want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sources tell CBS: Kushner was a prominent voice advocating Comey's firing & the President's angry that move has created a firestorm

Unbelievable. He cannot go a day without finding someone to blame.

Didn't schumer tell trump it wasn't a good idea? Why didn't trump give any weight to a voice of experience?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sources tell CBS: Kushner was a prominent voice advocating Comey's firing & the President's angry that move has created a firestorm

Unbelievable. He cannot go a day without finding someone to blame.

Didn't schumer tell trump it wasn't a good idea? Why didn't trump give any weight to a voice of experience?

Sources....

Anonymous wrote:Sources tell CBS: Kushner was a prominent voice advocating Comey's firing & the President's angry that move has created a firestorm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sources tell CBS: Kushner was a prominent voice advocating Comey's firing & the President's angry that move has created a firestorm

Unbelievable. He cannot go a day without finding someone to blame.

Didn't schumer tell trump it wasn't a good idea? Why didn't trump give any weight to a voice of experience?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sources tell CBS: Kushner was a prominent voice advocating Comey's firing & the President's angry that move has created a firestorm

Unbelievable. He cannot go a day without finding someone to blame.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Sources tell CBS: Kushner was a prominent voice advocating Comey's firing & the President's angry that move has created a firestorm

Anonymous wrote:Sources tell CBS: Kushner was a prominent voice advocating Comey's firing & the President's angry that move has created a firestorm

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.