James Comey Tainted The Special Counsel Investigation

[Adre]

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.

Well, there's reading...and there's reading comprehension.

 

[Rightguide]

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.

Show me where I improperly cited federal law. We do not know that Rosenstein had knowledge of Comey's intent to force the appointment of a special counsel with the leak of his notes to the press, a violation in and of itself. Are you going to maintain the Rosenstein was a part of that conspiracy?

 

[Rightguide]

Well, there's reading...and there's reading comprehension.

Which is questionable in your case.

 

[Sean]

The wingnuts must be absolutely terrified of what Mueller will turn up if they're starting the character assassination at this stage.

Also, every time Vettebigot tries to quote the law he looks like a moron. Every fucking time.

 

[Lancecastor]

sean is the GB Expert on Comey's taint.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

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.

So by your bizarre interpretation of 28 C.F.R. § 45.2, any two current or former DOJ employees, simply by virtue of their professional association, can actually create a conflict of interest with each other in the official performance of their DOJ duties.

That is EXACTLY what you have alleged. Let me clear it up for you.

At the time of Comey's conversations with the President he was an employee of the DOJ as Director of the FBI. Whatever questionably improper act he committed by leaking the context of his "memos for the file" in an effort to influence the appointment of a special counsel, those memos were, and still are, legitimate evidence for the special counsel to evaluate in the overall matrix of the investigation -- an investigation begun BY Comey that Mueller is basically continuing. The fact that Comey's status as an "officer of the court" by virtue of his former employment has now changed to that of "material witness" in his appearance before Congress and going forward hardly by some absurd philosophical contortion instantly becomes a "conflict of interest."

THAT notion is categorically absurd.

Besides which, the CREDIBILITY of ANY evidence presented by Comey in either role as "officer" or mere "witness" is APPROPRIATELY determined by the special counsel and his staff AND FURTHERMORE IS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ISSUE FROM the statutory fitness of any person TO SERVE AS special counsel.

The AG or acting AG determines the latter as stipulated by law. Once that determination is made, the special counsel and staff determine the former.

Show me where I improperly cited federal law. We do not know that Rosenstein had knowledge of Comey's intent to force the appointment of a special counsel with the leak of his notes to the press, a violation in and of itself. Are you going to maintain the Rosenstein was a part of that conspiracy?

C.F. R. § 2635.501 - 503 (Subpart E - Impartiality in Performing Official Duties) is entirely focused on financial relationships that might cause a conflict of interest. Go read it. To my knowledge, no one has accused Comey and Mueller of having a financial conflict of interest in this matter.

As for Rosenstein's lack of pre-knowledge of Comey's leak to the press, ARE YOU now going to maintain that Rosenstein is NOW part of some illegal conspiracy IF HE DOESN'T FIRE MUELLER???

Are you really that mentally unhinged?

Learn the actual law before posting.

One hell of a good idea.

 

[water505]

Which is questionable in your case.

Audrey is very good at setting himself up for ridicule.

 

[Adre]

Audrey is very good at setting himself up for ridicule.

Yet it's your Wingnut bro citing laws he has no understanding of. I'm pretty sure the closest he got to law training was Matlock reruns. Do you know if he's called Rosenstein yet with his advice?

 

[water505]

sean is the GB Expert on Comey's taint.

It's on the tip of his tongue.

 

[Rightguide]

So by your bizarre interpretation of 28 C.F.R. § 45.2, any two current or former DOJ employees, simply by virtue of their professional association, can actually create a conflict of interest with each other in the official performance of their DOJ duties.

That is EXACTLY what you have alleged. Let me clear it up for you.

That is false. I alleged a personal relationship that is prohibited by 28 C.F.R. § 45.2.

At the time of Comey's conversations with the President he was an employee of the DOJ as Director of the FBI. Whatever questionably improper act he committed by leaking the context of his "memos for the file" in an effort to influence the appointment of a special counsel, those memos were, and still are, legitimate evidence for the special counsel to evaluate in the overall matrix of the investigation -- an investigation begun BY Comey that Mueller is basically continuing. The fact that Comey's status as an "officer of the court" by virtue of his former employment has now changed to that of "material witness" in his appearance before Congress and going forward hardly by some absurd philosophical contortion instantly becomes a "conflict of interest."

THAT notion is categorically absurd.

No it isn't. Not only is he a witness but a potential target as well.

Besides which, the CREDIBILITY of ANY evidence presented by Comey in either role as "officer" or mere "witness" is APPROPRIATELY determined by the special counsel and his staff AND FURTHERMORE IS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ISSUE FROM the statutory fitness of any person TO SERVE AS special counsel.

C.F. R. § 2635.501 - 503 (Subpart E - Impartiality in Performing Official Duties) is entirely focused on financial relationships that might cause a conflict of interest. Go read it. To my knowledge, no one has accused Comey and Mueller of having a financial conflict of interest in this matter.

Re-read post #64. The special counsel is subject to the same rules as any other DOJ prosecutor when it comes to the impartiality rule:

"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."

Where in America would a court, charged with maintaining impartiality, allow a prosecutor to investigate and prosecute a close friend without putting "impartiality" into question?

As an aside, this entire Russian investigation is started by James Comey based on a now debunked "Russian Dossier." That said, no other evidence has been produced to sustain the charge of collusion by Trump, and according to Comey's sworn testimony, there never was. With collusion gone, all we have now is obstruction of justice.

The only evidence we have now for obstruction are Comey's alleged notes and his altered testimony that he was "instructed" by Trump to halt the investigation. So far no copies of those self-serving notes have emerged.

Maybe what we have here is a possible scenario where the Russians successfully fooled the FBI and the CIA with a phony "dossier" designed to impeach Trump and now we have special counsel employed to cover up their incompetence by shifting the attention to Trump's alleged obstruction. Is Mueller really up to investigating and exposing incompetence in the FBI and the CIA? I wonder.

 

[Rightguide]

For those interested in Comey's deceit:


POSTED ON JUNE 10, 2017 BY JOHN HINDERAKER
PROOF THAT JAMES COMEY MISLED THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-misled-the-senate-intelligence-committee.php

 

[cowslinger64]

For those interested in Comey's deceit:


POSTED ON JUNE 10, 2017 BY JOHN HINDERAKER
PROOF THAT JAMES COMEY MISLED THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-misled-the-senate-intelligence-committee.php

Right-wing blog. As such, anything contained is bullshit anywhere outside of your empty wing nut head.

That's how it works, right? Seemed to the other day with my links being rejected for being left wing.

Ya don't get it both ways dumbass.

 

[hashtag24]

It's on the tip of his tongue.

STFU, miles, you whiny cunt!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That is false. I alleged a personal relationship that is prohibited by 28 C.F.R. § 45.2.

No it isn't. Not only is he a witness but a potential target as well.

Are you telling me Comey is now a TARGET of this investigation??? Damn, when did THAT happen?? Because you didn't like his testimony before Congress? Because Trump's lawyer accused him of perjury without a shred of evidence? Maybe when The Donald produces those tapes things will change. Until then or until Mueller states to the contrary, Jim Comey is NOT a target of this investigation.

Re-read post #64. The special counsel is subject to the same rules as any other DOJ prosecutor when it comes to the impartiality rule:

"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."

Where in America would a court, charged with maintaining impartiality, allow a prosecutor to investigate and prosecute a close friend without putting "impartiality" into question?

There is even LESS evidence of Jim Comey being a SUBJECT with a SPECIFIC AND SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME OF THIS INVESTIGATION than there is for Donald Trump being in the same position. When this is all over, he will still be a former FBI Director fired by Donald Trump. That won't change. And in the highly unlikely event anyone should be impeached or go to prison because of this investigation, that "substantial interest" we all would share WITH Jim Comey is UNARGUABLY NOT AN INTEREST intended to be denied or mitigated by 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 or any other federal law.

The ONLY "personal" relationship you can document between Jim Comey and Robert Mueller is through their professional relationship as colleagues in the DOJ when Mueller was FBI Director and Comey was Deputy AG. Unless you can show me something far more personally incriminating, like they dated the same set of Siamese twins or sucked each others cocks in the steam room of the local YMCA, your "reading" of 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 is FULL OF SHIT!!!

I can assure you that NOTHING in the statutory language of 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 was intended to prevent a recently unemployed FBI agent from sharing evidence he personally gathered with his successor(s) in that SAME investigation, whether those successor(s) are employed in the FBI or as special counsel SIMPLY BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED KNEW AND ACTUALLY LIKED EACH OTHER!!!

That is a patently ignorant legal theory that stands as prima facie evidence that you are out of your fucking mind!!

 

[Luk]

You clowns are much worse and more ineffectual than the fantasy stat geeks on sports message boards.

Monday morning quarterbacks at their finest, really.

 

[Bookishleigh]

You clowns are much worse and more ineffectual than the fantasy stat geeks on sports message boards.

Monday morning quarterbacks at their finest, really.

Hush, this is really fun to read for once. I love watching armchair attorneys in action, especially when they use a political blog as their secondary source for authority. Of course, I almost got sidetracked when I saw what surely was a scintillating post on the blog called Wonder Woman and Wonderless Wymyn.

 

[Luk]

Hush, this is really fun to read for once. I love watching armchair attorneys in action, especially when they use a political blog as their secondary source for authority. Of course, I almost got sidetracked when I saw what surely was a scintillating post on the blog called Wonder Woman and Wonderless Wymyn.

It's well past 4pm in every city in America, therefore, they are on the 2nd nap after a nice early-bird special. Please check this thread at 5am tomorrow after they've had their Metamucil and FiberOne cereal.

 

[about_average]

If typed those lies on government equipment, they belong to the government.

You're so desperate it's laughable.

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.

Yes there was, for the reason he gave.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The conclusion to a bit of analysis by Victor Davis Hanson The Endless Ironies of Donald J. Trump:

"And yet there is some doubt even here as well. Trump’s tweets can be as prescient as they are reckless. Take the infamous “Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory” and substitute “Obama administration” for Obama, and “surveil” for “wires tapped,” and Trump’s tweet about the former president’s intelligence agencies improperly monitoring him may yet prove in a broad sense correct. In other words, cringe-worthy Trump behavior so often is the lubricant that oils his success against cringe-worthy opponents, turning upside down the Heraclitean axiom that character is destiny, or rather redefining it, because Trump’s targets so often were hubristic and deserved the nemesis sent their way.

"The large minority of conservative Trump supporters who did not join him in the primary are thus confused now. Traditional wisdom declares that Trump’s personal behavior is counterproductive and unsustainable, but traditional wisdom has so far been wrong both during the campaign and in the first four months of the Trump’s presidency. It may not be that Trump earns hatred for unnecessary provocation and vitriol, but instead that he or any other Republican would have earned such venom anyway; thus his own searing tactics and narcissistic belief in his own destiny are predicated on the assumption that his unhinged enemies will vaporize first. And he may be right. James Comey has underestimated Donald Trump every bit as much as Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama did. In the end, the pragmatists apparently believe conservatives will hang together or hang separately.

"Never have so many bright people proved so dense. Never have polls and politics proved so unreliable or partisan. Never have unintended consequences so replaced predictable results.

"Yes, we are in chaos, but we sense also that the pandemonium is purgative of the worse that prompted it — and it is unpleasant mostly because it has so long been overdue."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/448562/print



I would like to see him fire Mueller, mainly because the meltdown will be both epic and entertaining...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I wonder how some of you will react to the LWCJ members attacking Sessions has he testifies...





Just a thought.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/0...s-at-the-senate-intelligence-committee-today/

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I also see news of this Mueller hiring a team of lawyers...


Now do you think he's drawing from the whole pool, picking a team of broad political spectrum, impartial and interested in the truth, or is he limiting his pool with legal experts not only whom lean a bit towards the Democrat Party, but also have a vested interests in protecting some of their past and current clients in high places?

People who can keep the spotlight on the current administration and keeping it off of the past investigation?

Because I want to see a long, thorough, non-partisan and full accounting of the FBI, NSA and DOJ attempts to influence American politics and elections. Do we want to drain the swamp, or do we want to watch the swamp circle the wagons and protect their little racket?

 

[magicalmoments]

Right-wing blog. As such, anything contained is bullshit anywhere outside of your empty wing nut head.

That's how it works, right? Seemed to the other day with my links being rejected for being left wing.

Ya don't get it both ways dumbass.

You forget, they're trumptards. They can claim it today, deny it tomorrow, blame it on someone else the next day and/or any combination that occurs to them at the moment. The rules of rationality don't apply to them.

 

[Rightguide]

Are you telling me Comey is now a TARGET of this investigation???

Apparently, you can't read. I said he could be a "potential" target." Meaning If it is determined his actions violated the law.

I'm also telling you if all you want to do is attack me personally in exaggerated fashion then lets's get on with it:

Read 28 CFR 45.2 - Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.

No employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) 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.

(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:

(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee's service less than fully impartial and professional; and

(2) The employee's participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.

YA DUMB SON OF A BITCH!

 

[Adre]

You purposely omitted the phrase "unless authorized under paragraph b"...
Which establishes you as a disingenuous liar. Not that we didn't already know that. Go back to your Matlock reruns, moron.

 

[Disgustipated]

I wonder how some of you will react to the LWCJ members attacking Sessions has he testifies...





Just a thought.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/0...s-at-the-senate-intelligence-committee-today/

You post a few emotes and a link to a RWCJ blog and then have the audacity to claim you had a thought. Poor little fella.