James Comey Tainted The Special Counsel Investigation

[Conager]

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.

. . .and your "thoughts" on the subject at hand were what, exsctly?

 

[Rightguide]

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.

I referenced the law and the applicable language bearing in mind the 5 paragraph rule which I think I might have violated. I purposely omitted a couple of the other paragraphs as well. Not sure if I could quote the entire section.

But here is a Byron York article quoting 4 "big time" lawyers supporting my contention and one opposed:

Byron York: Is Robert Mueller conflicted in Trump probe?
by Byron York | Jun 11, 2017, 11:09 PM

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...ler-conflicted-in-trump-probe/article/2625638

Note the regulation prohibits even the "appearance' of a conflict of interest. My position is, there is an appearance of conflict.

The Colonel's beliefs in his legal superiority notwithstanding:

Here is an article by Robert Barnes, a noted Constitutional attorney, that supports my position:

Special Counsel Mueller Must Recuse from Comey Part of Inquiry
by Robert Barnes | 1:59 pm, June 11th, 2017

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/special-counsel-mueller-must-recuse-from-comey-part-of-inquiry/

 

[Rightguide]

. . .and your "thoughts" on the subject at hand were what, exsctly?

None, he was perusing remote controlled butt plugs he couldn't afford when he ran across my post and decided to take out his frustration on me.

 

[Adre]

You've proven you'll do anything to win the argument. It may not matter because I expect Trump will do exactly what Wingnut Nation wants: fire Mueller. I hope he does so we can find out which Republicans have balls.

 

[zipman]

You've proven you'll do anything to win the argument. It may not matter because I expect Trump will do exactly what Wingnut Nation wants: fire Mueller. I hope he does so we can find out which Republicans have balls.

Very few of them do, as we've seen already.

 

[Disgustipated]

. . .and your "thoughts" on the subject at hand were what, exsctly?

Exsctly!

None, he was perusing remote controlled butt plugs he couldn't afford when he ran across my post and decided to take out his frustration on me.

I quoted AJ, vette. Not you. I never post about you unless it's to make fun of your cowardice and lies.

And when I searched "giant buttplug" your name did come up first in the google search.

 

[Rightguide]

You've proven you'll do anything to win the argument. It may not matter because I expect Trump will do exactly what Wingnut Nation wants: fire Mueller. I hope he does so we can find out which Republicans have balls.

Personally, I don't think he'll fire Mueller but Rosenstein might at some time in the future for reason yet to reveal themselves.

 

[Disgustipated]

Personally, I don't think he'll fire Mueller but Rosenstein might at some time in the future for reason yet to reveal themselves.

Nostradumbass speaks!

Go outside, loser.

 

[Rightguide]

You've proven you'll do anything to win the argument.

I'm entitled to my opinion, you 're entitled to yours. Time will tell who is on the right side of this issue. Meanwhile, feel free to express yours with facts, I believe I have presented facts and supporting legal opinions. Obviously others have taken their issues with them to a personal level, but I have pretty thick skin and will answer in kind until I'm bored by it all.

 

[Rightguide]

On the friendship between Comey and Mueller:

NEWS
Forged Under Fire—Bob Mueller and Jim Comey’s Unusual Friendship
The inside story of how the most surreal night of the War on Terror united the retiring FBI director and his evident successor.
By Garrett M. Graff on May 30, 2013

https://www.washingtonian.com/2013/...ob-mueller-and-jim-comeys-unusual-friendship/

 

[HisArpy]

Personally, I don't think he'll fire Mueller but Rosenstein might at some time in the future for reason yet to reveal themselves.

I think that someone will point out to Trump that firing Mueller right now would be stupid. So he probably won't this week or next.

However, Mueller can't help but see the writing on the wall. His time is limited and unless he finds something obvious and noncontroversial extremely quickly (which can easily be verified) he's toast. Probably within the next couple of months, he'll be let go by Rosenstein, not Trump.

If Congress doesn't call for his removal first.

 

[Rightguide]

I think that someone will point out to Trump that firing Mueller right now would be stupid. So he probably won't this week or next.

However, Mueller can't help but see the writing on the wall. His time is limited and unless he finds something obvious and noncontroversial extremely quickly (which can easily be verified) he's toast. Probably within the next couple of months, he'll be let go by Rosenstein, not Trump.

If Congress doesn't call for his removal first.

That's what I'm thinking.

 

[Rightguide]

Mollie Hemingway outlines some questionable Obstruction of Justice cases involving James Comey:


http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/12/james-comey-long-history-questionable-obstruction-cases/

 

[JohnnySavage]

"a noted Constitutional attorney"


Robert Edward Barnes (born April 11, 1974) is a criminal tax attorney and business law and civil rights law advocate. Robert Barnes is the founder of Barnes Law LLP, a Los Angeles, California based law firm specializing in IRS investigations, tax fraud, asset recovery, and private banking

 

[Disgustipated]

And now a 45 hanger-on says 45 is gonna fire Mueller. You fuckers are a joke.

 

[Rightguide]

WHITE HOUSE

Comey admitted single Trump leak, but were there others?

By Cody Derespina Published June 13, 2017 Fox News

President Trump’s legal team may be prepared to show a trail of leaks to The New York Times by former FBI Director James Comey – dating back to at least March – in a pair of complaints set to be filed to the Justice Department inspector general and Senate Judiciary Committee, a source close to the team told Fox News.

An independent Fox News review of The New York Times’ reporting dating back to January reveals a host of stories sourced from top FBI and DOJ officials – or those privy to their conversations – that either paint Comey in a positive light or push a message he was unable to personally disclose.

Though Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3 he’d never been -- or directed another FBI official to be -- an anonymous source for news reports about the Trump and Hillary Clinton investigations, the then-FBI chief did not deny orchestrating leaks using, for instance, an old friend who works at Columbia University, or providing the information to a wide enough group to ensure it would leak.

And in reference to a separate case, he acknowledged sending his infamous letter to lawmakers last fall announcing a revival of the Clinton email probe knowing full well what they'd do: "Did I know they were really going to leak it? Of course, I know how Congress works.”

He admitted to using an ex-U.S. attorney, later identified as Columbia University Prof. Daniel Richman, to leak to The Times the contents of alleged memos Comey wrote about his one-on-one interactions with Trump. He was not asked if he had ever used Richman on other occasions; however, Richman is mentioned in 151 results in a New York Times search dating back to 1993, with 11 of those articles also featuring Comey and six of them being authored by Michael S. Schmidt – who later wrote the “Comey memos” story which Comey told Congress he directed Richman to leak.

Rest here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-single-trump-leak-but-were-there-others.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think that someone will point out to Trump that firing Mueller right now would be stupid. So he probably won't this week or next.

However, Mueller can't help but see the writing on the wall. His time is limited and unless he finds something obvious and noncontroversial extremely quickly (which can easily be verified) he's toast. Probably within the next couple of months, he'll be let go by Rosenstein, not Trump.

If Congress doesn't call for his removal first.

He'll find a process crime to hang on someone and that will be the proof of collusion and obstruction for the Democrats going into 2018. I hope they run on impeachment and little else...

And as per my previous musings, Mueller is taking on a lot of Democrat donors.

I wonder if he pulls a Comey, comes out, makes an indictment, and then lets us know thee is no political will do do a damned thing about it.

 

[Rightguide]

He'll find a process crime to hang on someone and that will be the proof of collusion and obstruction for the Democrats going into 2018. I hope they run on impeachment and little else...

And as per my previous musings, Mueller is taking on a lot of Democrat donors.

I wonder if he pulls a Comey, comes out, makes an indictment, and then lets us know thee is no political will do do a damned thing about it.

He just hired an attorney who represented the Clinton Foundation.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh yeah, this is going to be a good ol' fashioned pig fuck...

 

[Rightguide]

Oh yeah, this is going to be a good ol' fashioned pig fuck...

Yep, and when they're successful in running him out of office I can't wait for what happens next.

 

[Rightguide]

Mueller has nothing on Trump, he is there to manufacture wrongdoing in order to run Trump out of office. At this point, there are zero grounds for the presence of a Special Counsel.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

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

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 participationwould 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!

Apparently YOU can't read.

In your own words, you have "alleged a personal relationship" between Comey and Mueller "prohibited by 28 C.F.R. § 45.2." At the same time, as I have re-quoted you above, you admit that Comey is not now, but only a "POTENTIAL" target of Mueller's investigation.

The result of both your prior "allegation" and "admission" is that your legal rationale vis-a-vis 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 remains deficient. The statute does NOT prohibit participation in a criminal investigation based upon the existence of a personal relationship only. It prohibits participation based on a personal 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.

Since you have CITED 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 correctly, why don't you take a shot at actually APPLYING IT CORRECTLY.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "conduct that is the subject of the investigation" specifically referenced in the statute is also specifically articulated in the letter from acting AG Rosenstein when he named Mueller as Special Counsel, to wit:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

If, by your own admission or merely Mueller's specifically authorized discretion, Comey is not presently a target of the investigation, it remains incumbent upon you to demonstrate HOW under the specific language of 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 Comey is EITHER:

(1) (A) person...substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation... OR

(2) (A) person....which he [Mueller] knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation....

Because until such time that Comey is demonstrably one or the other, neither Comey nor Mueller is impacted by the prohibition of 28 C.F.R. § 45.2.

Even your stupid California tax attorney, Robert Barnes' call for a Mueller recusal is specifically limited to that part of Mueller's investigation that would specifically touch Comey's CONDUCT, IF AND WHEN, it should ever BE THE SUBJECT OF Mueller's investigation. Not even Barnes supports a wholesale disqualification of Mueller as Special Counsel on the basis of 28 C.F.R. § 45.2:

The law is clear: Special Counsel Robert Mueller must recuse from any Comey-part of his special counsel inquiry.

**********

At the outset, it is not clear that this order authorizes Mueller to conduct any inquiry into any Comey concerned issues. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, as the then acting Attorney General for matters Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from, retained special counsel Robert Swan Mueller III to “conduct the investigation” purportedly “confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey” concerning “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” Comey’s testimony was that he felt Trump fired him for not telling the world what Comey knew and told Trump and others — that Trump was not under investigation. Comey’s only other testimony concerned post-election conduct of Mike Flynn communicating with the Russian ambassador, which the FBI already publicly cleared Flynn of wrongdoing. As such, neither would fit under the limited inquiry authorized by the special counsel order of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein or the limited recusal of Attorney General Sessions, which shapes the limits of the special counsel authorization authority from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, and concerns “the campaign” and not post-election matters.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/special-counsel-mueller-must-recuse-from-comey-part-of-inquiry/

And finally, how about that discretion granted TO the "supervisor" BY THE VERY STATUTE he is charged with enforcing? Are YOU able to READ and understand THIS??:

"...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.

If the bipartisan enthusiasm within Congress and President Trump's DOJ for Mueller's integrity and ability to conduct a proper investigation is at all representative of "public perception" at large, and the only objection to his fitness is limited to a handful of idiots like yourself, I'll continue to not be at all surprised that the following current supervisor's legal opinion will also likely reflect that of most legal experts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz8gPFVxrOk

Whether YOU like it or not, and your opinion notwithstanding, that is where we ARE!






























YA DUMB SON OF A BITCH!

 

[Rightguide]

Apparently YOU can't read.

In your own words, you have "alleged a personal relationship" between Comey and Mueller "prohibited by 28 C.F.R. § 45.2." At the same time, as I have re-quoted you above, you admit that Comey is not now, but only a "POTENTIAL" target of Mueller's investigation.

The result of both your prior "allegation" and "admission" is that your legal rationale vis-a-vis 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 remains deficient. The statute does NOT prohibit participation in a criminal investigation based upon the existence of a personal relationship only. It prohibits participation based on a personal relationship WITH:



Since you have CITED 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 correctly, why don't you take a shot at actually APPLYING IT CORRECTLY.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "conduct that is the subject of the investigation" specifically referenced in the statute is also specifically articulated in the letter from acting AG Rosenstein when he named Mueller as Special Counsel, to wit:


If, by your own admission or merely Mueller's specifically authorized discretion, Comey is not presently a target of the investigation, it remains incumbent upon you to demonstrate HOW under the specific language of 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 Comey is EITHER:

(1) (A) person...substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation... OR

(2) (A) person....which he [Mueller] knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation....

Because until such time that Comey is demonstrably one or the other, neither Comey nor Mueller is impacted by the prohibition of 28 C.F.R. § 45.2.

Even your stupid California tax attorney, Robert Barnes' call for a Mueller recusal is specifically limited to that part of Mueller's investigation that would specifically touch Comey's CONDUCT, IF AND WHEN, it should ever BE THE SUBJECT OF Mueller's investigation. Not even Barnes supports a wholesale disqualification of Mueller as Special Counsel on the basis of 28 C.F.R. § 45.2:



And finally, how about that discretion granted TO the "supervisor" BY THE VERY STATUTE he is charged with enforcing? Are YOU able to READ and understand THIS??:



If the bipartisan enthusiasm within Congress and President Trump's DOJ for Mueller's integrity and ability to conduct a proper investigation is at all representative of "public perception" at large, and the only objection to his fitness is limited to a handful of idiots like yourself, I'll continue to not be at all surprised that the following current supervisor's legal opinion will also likely reflect that of most legal experts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz8gPFVxrOk

Whether YOU like it or not, and your opinion notwithstanding, that is where we ARE!






























YA DUMB SON OF A BITCH!

YAWN!

 

[about_average]

He just hired an attorney who represented the Clinton Foundation.

And Rhee's co-counsel in representing the Clinton Foundation represents Jarerd Kushner.
Apparently Trump's son-in-law is part of the Comey's conspiracy too.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Who is a Democrat...