Before Hillary's investigation both sides called Comey tough and fair
- Thread starter water505
- Start date
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Go to NRO and read McCarthy's piece on Comey.
I think it is a wonderful summation of the man and his actions.
I think it is a wonderful summation of the man and his actions.
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
First FBI director to investigate both major candidates at the same time?
Tall Man Syndrome.
Tall Man Syndrome.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,607
The same Democrats who on July 5th and October 28th demanded Comey's job are now criticizing Trump for doing what they demanded of Obama.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
That's our President, all right.
Hillary Clinton goes on TV and says that Comey caused her to lose the election. Trump sees that, and uses it as an excuse to fire Comey.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,607
Did he list out the ten major scandals that have occurred under Comey's leadership?
Disgustipated
LAWLZ
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts
- 25,596
Was tat supposed to be a hashtag? #hillarydestroyseverything
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,607
Letter from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.
The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
In response to skeptical questions at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then — if prosecution is warranted — let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.
Concerning his letter to Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the FBI’s decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.
My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt that bureau will ever completely recover.” Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions.” They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Department and the FBI.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed that the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision.” Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision “an error in judgment.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said that the Director’s decision “was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigation during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.”
Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as “real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice.”
Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush, along with other former Justice Department officials, was “astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[ ] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling … is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”
We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.
Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.
The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
In response to skeptical questions at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then — if prosecution is warranted — let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.
Concerning his letter to Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the FBI’s decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.
My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed that the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision.” Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision “an error in judgment.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said that the Director’s decision “was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigation during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.”
Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as “real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice.”
Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush, along with other former Justice Department officials, was “astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[ ] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling … is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”
We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.
Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
He thought it would be him thowing the left a bone. But he failed to grasp the optics of him firing Comey after it just became clear to the public that the most important current thing on the director's desk, was investigating him.
It's Preet Bharara all over again. No I'm not comparing the two, just the timing and surprise factor of their firings. Both explicitly supported by Trump at first, and were both fired while looking into Trump admin realted issues.
That Yates was canned was no surprise. Still, even there the timing of it is cartoonishly bad.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,607
Even the Think Progress the center of Democrat insanity called for the firing of Comey:
The case for firing James Comey
https://thinkprogress.org/the-case-for-firing-james-comey-f6e72f397646
The case for firing James Comey
https://thinkprogress.org/the-case-for-firing-james-comey-f6e72f397646
Disgustipated
LAWLZ
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts
- 25,596
Even the Think Progress the center of Democrat insanity called for the firing of Comey:
The case for firing James Comey
https://thinkprogress.org/the-case-for-firing-james-comey-f6e72f397646
It's not a partisan thing ya fuckin dope.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,607
It's very clear why he was fired. He was slow walking everything harmful to Obama, Lynch, Clinton, aside from all of the reasons outlined in Rosenstein's letter.
You can't possibly think that was all, and that the Russia investigation was nowhere on Trump's mind. It might not worry you, but it obviously worries him, and Comey has already given damaging testimony -- and will, I expect, give more.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,607
The only thing that worries him about the Russian issue is that it continues to be used by Democrats, the media, and enemy Republicans, to attack his presidency despite zero evidence proving it, as was so stated by the Obama DNI, NSA Director, and the FBI Director under oath before the Congress.
Isn't that enough?
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
There is plenty of evidence of collusion, but it's circumstantial or hearsay. There is more than one viable motive, evidence of large sums of money changing hands under dubious circumstances, and Trump doing and saying things that a guilty person would do and say.
If Trump is innocent, he could easily clear up the matter with the release of a few documents. The longer he keeps things under wraps, the guiltier he looks.
Comey asked DOJ to increase resources for Russia investigation just before he was fired.
If that is not a smoking gun, it is a suspiciously damp knife.
If that is not a smoking gun, it is a suspiciously damp knife.
Hard to dispute, I'll admit, which makes this practically unique among your posting content.
Conager
¿Que? Cornelius!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Posts
- 18,282
"Smoking gun?"
Did you skip the day they went over the hearsay exceptions?
" I heard from (unsourced) someone. . ." isn't admissable.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,607
This is not a court of law, it is the court of public opinion; hearsay is admissible.
Conager
¿Que? Cornelius!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Posts
- 18,282
. . .and is never described as a "smoking gun."
