James Comey Tainted The Special Counsel Investigation

Setting up the excuses already?

Reminiscent of "If I lose it's because the election was rigged!"

Not to be confused with, "I lost because the election was rigged by the Russians, and 19 other reasons that don't rhyme with shrillary."
 
This from Newt Gingrich:

"So, what we have here is a fired FBI director, who leaked private material to the press, so he could get his friend appointed as a special counsel in order to take retribution on the President – with the aid of a department full of federal lawyers who would have rather seen Hillary in the White House. And we are supposed to believe this will be an objective, unbiased investigation?"

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ja...-President-Donald-Trump/2017/06/10/id/795270/

What have we here, a partisan windbag quoting a partisan windbag? And so Wingnut Nations defamation of Mueller begins...exactly as predicted.
 
Last summer, when there was valid reason to sack him for speaking publicly about an open investigation. Ironically, he was correct for not commenting on whether Trump was under investigation. So technically Trump fired him for doing the right thing.

There was no reason Comey couldn't say in public what he said in public, under oath, to the Congress. That Trump was not now, or ever, under FBI investigation.
 
What have we here, a partisan windbag quoting a partisan windbag? And so Wingnut Nations defamation of Mueller begins...exactly as predicted.

Comey tainted Mueller with his sworn statement.
 
There was no reason Comey couldn't say in public what he said in public, under oath, to the Congress. That Trump was not now, or ever, under FBI investigation.

Wrong, windbag. The established protocol is neither confirm nor deny. Avoiding the duty to correct.
 
The right wing spin machine is humming along nicely.

Good times. :cool:
 
Wrong, windbag. The established protocol is neither confirm nor deny. Avoiding the duty to correct.

Then, in that case, gasbag, why did he do so in public under oath in front of Congress?
 
The right wing spin machine is humming along nicely.

Good times. :cool:

. . .after the left's well lubed, "Trump is under INVESTIGATION" agitation machine came to a loud, grinding, and abrupt halt.
 
Even Michael Goodwin gets it:

Comey’s ‘truth’ crusade is really an anti-Trump one
By Michael Goodwin June 10, 2017 | 10:24pm

Comey testified that he leaked a secret memo in hopes a special counsel would be appointed. He hit the jackpot with Robert Mueller, a long associate and mutual admirer.

Like many of our government betters, Comey forgot he was a public servant. The arrogance of unaccountable power drips from him like sweat from a racehorse.

You see it in his decision to write memos after every meeting with Trump, including the first one. He never did this with previous presidents, but didn’t trust his new boss.

Curiously for a man who claims to be nonpartisan, Comey wasn’t bothered nearly as much when a Democratic attorney general tried to meddle in the election by smothering his investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. Or when the IRS went after conservatives.

If Comey didn’t trust a duly elected president, the honorable thing would be to resign. But Comey was not honorable.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/10/comeys-truth-crusade-is-really-an-anti-trump-one/
 
Comey testified that he leaked a secret memo in hopes a special counsel would be appointed. He hit the jackpot with Robert Mueller, a long associate and mutual admirer.

The Trump DOJ CONTROLLED BOTH whether or not a special counsel would be appointed and who that person would be. Comey hit the jackpot? Really? Presumably Rod Rosenstein thinks HE hit the jackpot. And how do you know he didn't?

In an environment consumed by partisanship, Mueller has BIPARTISAN support as being someone who is above reproach at conducting an independent credible investigation.

And so far he hasn't done or said one thing that would justify a handful of assholes trying to smear his name and character. And yet you seem all too ready to accuse him of being biased in conducting that investigation without a single shred of evidence that he is doing so.

Is that really the circle jerk you wish to join?
 
The Trump DOJ CONTROLLED BOTH whether or not a special counsel would be appointed and who that person would be. Comey hit the jackpot? Really? Presumably Rod Rosenstein thinks HE hit the jackpot. And how do you know he didn't?

In an environment consumed by partisanship, Mueller has BIPARTISAN support as being someone who is above reproach at conducting an independent credible investigation.

And so far he hasn't done or said one thing that would justify a handful of assholes trying to smear his name and character. And yet you seem all too ready to accuse him of being biased in conducting that investigation without a single shred of evidence that he is doing so.

Is that really the circle jerk you wish to join?

Good morning Colonel, would you like a cup fo coffee?

28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

Notwithstanding bipartisan support and your superior legal intellect and scholarship, it is my opinion upon reading the plain language of the law that a conflict of interest exists in the personal relationship between the Special Counsel and his potential star witness, James Comey as to his testimony and his alleged notes that might become evidence subject to his consideration and judgment. I believe this relationship now disqualifies Robert Mueller from the position as Special Counsel.

Sugar, cream?:)
 
Conflict of interest:

"A situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible.
"the conflict of interest between elected officials and corporate lobbyists"

A situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity."

A friendship or acquaintanceship does not meet the definition of conflict of interest.
 
Conflict of interest:

"A situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible.
"the conflict of interest between elected officials and corporate lobbyists"

A situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity."

A friendship or acquaintanceship does not meet the definition of conflict of interest.

Bullshit. Did you read paragraph C I posted below? Here are the DOJ conflict of interest restraints its regulations place on its employees:

C.F. R. § 2635.501 - 503 (Subpart E - Impartiality in Performing Official Duties)

In addition to the impartiality regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 prohibits a DOJ employee, without written authorization, from participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

Learn the actual law before posting.
 
Bullshit. Did you read paragraph C I posted below? Here are the DOJ conflict of interest restraints its regulations place on its employees:

C.F. R. § 2635.501 - 503 (Subpart E - Impartiality in Performing Official Duties)

In addition to the impartiality regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 prohibits a DOJ employee, without written authorization, from participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

Learn the actual law before posting.

There is no evidence that either Comey or Mueller is in violation of that regulation. In fact, Mueller has written authorization. From the Acting Attorney General! Understand the actual law before posting.
 
There was no reason Comey couldn't say in public what he said in public, under oath, to the Congress. That Trump was not now, or ever, under FBI investigation.
Comey explained that in his testimony, in case you weren't listening. If he had, and that changed at all, he would then have to announce the change. Look up "duty to correct."
 
There is no evidence that either Comey or Mueller is in violation of that regulation. In fact, Mueller has written authorization. From the Acting Attorney General! Understand the actual law before posting.

I guess you missed those two key words, eh?
 
There is no evidence that either Comey or Mueller is in violation of that regulation. In fact, Mueller has written authorization. From the Acting Attorney General! Understand the actual law before posting.

I knew that actually posting the applicable rules for the Special Counsel would be an insurmountable task for your tiny intellect. Does Mueller have a personal relationship with Comey, his witness? Yes, he does. That's all it takes to have a conflict of interest.
 
I knew that actually posting the applicable rules for the Special Counsel would be an insurmountable task for your tiny intellect. Does Mueller have a personal relationship with Comey, his witness? Yes, he does. That's all it takes to have a conflict of interest.

The last refuge of Wingnut Nation, opinion as fact. The dictionary says otherwise.
 
That "written authorization" occurred before Comey testified and compromised himself legally.

I have yet to hear a legal expert (something you're clearly not) say Comey did anything illegal.
 
Good morning Colonel, would you like a cup fo coffee?

28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

Notwithstanding bipartisan support and your superior legal intellect and scholarship, it is my opinion upon reading the plain language of the law that a conflict of interest exists in the personal relationship between the Special Counsel and his potential star witness, James Comey as to his testimony and his alleged notes that might become evidence subject to his consideration and judgment. I believe this relationship now disqualifies Robert Mueller from the position as Special Counsel.

Sugar, cream?:)

Having worked with someone, being acquainted with them and actually enjoying a cordial relationship with them as a result does not constitute an inherent legal conflict of interest. But frankly, my opinion as to what constitutes a conflict of interest is no more relevant than yours.

That's because the statutory authority for determining a conflict of interest which you've cited CLEARLY rests DIRECTLY with the Attorney General, in this case Rod Rosenstein upon the recusal of Jeff Sessions. Therefore, the PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE pretty much denies you and me the legal standing to determine the proper "conduct and accountability" of any special counsel under 28 CFR 600.7.

No matter what the fuck we're drinking.

Sadly, it does not deprive you of the right to look abjectly ridiculous which is all you are accomplishing by improperly citing federal law.

Now I'm going to take a wild ass guess that Rosenstein knew before appointing Mueller that he and Comey had a possible professional and personal relationship and judged that no conflict was present as a result. But, hey, what do I know? Maybe you should drop Rosenstein a note and advise him of facts that he may have missed. Perhaps you can still turn this thing around. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:




Edited to add: If, in the opinion of the acting AG and/or the special counsel, a conflict of interest between the counsel and a witness was found to exist, it could just as easily serve to impugn and exclude the testimony OF THAT WITNESS under the law as it would to justify the dismissal of the counsel.

It is not an either/or proposition.
 
Last edited:
I have yet to hear a legal expert (something you're clearly not) say Comey did anything illegal.

I never said I was a legal expert but I can read the law, something you can't do. But keep listening to CNN for your legal advice.
 
Back
Top