Restoring Confidence in the FBI

[BoyNextDoor]

"Restoring Confidence in the FBI" -> That was the name of the internal memo that lead to Trump firing Comey.

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.

 

[magicalmoments]

"Restoring Confidence in the FBI" -> That was the name of the internal memo that lead to Trump firing Comey.

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.

That sounds like pure Goebbels?

 

[Hard_Rom]

That sounds like pure Goebbels?

Adolf himself actually. From Mein Kampf.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So the right thing to do must have been to leave Comey in office even though both parties had lost confidence in his decision making?



Propaganda should be made of sterner stuff...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

The memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to explain Comey’s dismissal Tuesday is well crafted and will make it very difficult for Democrats to attack President Trump’s decision. Rosenstein bases the decision not merely on Comey’s much discussed missteps in the Clinton e-mails investigation — viz., usurping the authority of the attorney general to close the case without prosecution; failing to avail himself of the normal procedures for raising concerns about Attorney General Lynch’s conflict of interest. He goes on specifically to rebuke Comey’s “gratuitous” release of “derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal prosecution.” That “subject,” of course, would be Mrs. Clinton.

This (as I noted in a recent column) is exactly the line of attack Democrats have adopted since Clinton lost the election: Conveniently forget how ecstatic they were over Comey’s confident public assessment that the case was not worth charging, and remember only his scathing public description of the evidence — even though both were improper. Significantly, Rosenstein avoids any suggestion that Comey was wrong in concluding Clinton should not be indicted; nor does he in any way imply that Comey’s errors made it impossible to bring a wrongdoer to justice. That is, Rosenstein leaves unstated the partisan Republican critique of Comey. Instead, Clinton is portrayed as a victim. This will appeal to Democrats — especially since it will keep alive the fiction that Comey, rather than Clinton herself, is responsible for the Democrats’ stunning electoral defeat.

Moreover, Rosenstein makes a point of quoting condemnations of Comey by Democrats prominent in law enforcement: former Obama attorney general Eric Holder and Clinton deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick. Recall that Comey endorsed Holder for AG. This was an important seal of approval at a time when critics (like yours truly) were arguing that Holder’s key participation in the Marc Rich pardon scandal was disqualifying: Comey had not only been a respected deputy attorney general in a Republican administration; he had for a time inherited the Marc Rich investigation as a prosecutor in New York, when Rich was among the FBI’s most wanted fugitives. Yet, Holder has blasted Comey for breaking with “fundamental principles” of the Justice Department, and thus undermining “public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI” (in a way, I suppose, that Holder’s own citation for contempt of Congress did not).

In any event, given that Rosenstein’s reasoning in calling for Comey’s termination echoes Holder’s judgment about the damage done — Rosenstein’s memo is titled, “Restoring Public Confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation” — it will be tough for Democrats to argue convincingly that Trump fired Comey for any other reason....

Andre4w C. McCarthy, NRO

 

[magicalmoments]

Sounds like someone on the white house team knows their Hitler.

I doubt it's Trump, he says he can't read. I think he's fibbing though, he's clearly read 'The Prince'.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

Interestingly, a great deal of the minority leader's immediate fulminations after the defenestration of Comey centered not on Trump but on Rosenstein, who is apparently that most terrifying of all things -- a by-the-book straight shooter who espouses equal justice for all under the law. Schumer demanded the deputy AG immediately appoint a special investigator to get to the bottom of the supposed Russia allegations. Rosenstein may just make such an appointment, but for another purpose not as salutary to Schumer. From the deputy AG's memorandum:

The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016 and announce his conclusion that the [Clinton email] 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 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 views on the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.​

Roger L. Simon, PJMedia

So Comey tells Trump you're not under investigation and Rosenstein is leaving the door ajar on Hillary, so we now know why the Dems are fulminating; as predicted by several of us here, the investigation(s) went in the opposite direction of where Democrats knew it would go...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Restoring Confidence in the Whole Justice System

...

Yes, I know both Trump and Sessions had pledged not to pursue the "Clinton matter" and let bygones be bygones. But that was before the onslaught, the so-called "Resistance" that has made governing so impossible for the administration. It's been non-stop ugliness since the inauguration and even before. Graciousness was not, in the slightest, rewarded. Indeed Clinton herself has now declared herself part of the "Resistance" (has she brushed up on her French?) -- talk about opening the door. As someone once said, "Punch back twice as hard."

But it was impossible to punch back with an understaffed and politically compromised Justice Department and an FBI director who was at once all-powerful and bizarrely mercurial. Tucker Carlson reported Tuesday night that guests on his show often told him how much they "feared" Comey -- but only during the commercial. Well, they have less to be afraid of now.

It's Hillary who has a lot to worry about. The renewed Justice Department with Rosenstein holds the cards and this time the punch should have real force, possibly even fatal. Start by empaneling a grand jury. Maybe add a soupçon of Benghazi testimony. The sky's the limit when you've got justice on your side.

Roger L. Simon, PJMedia



tee hee

tee hee

 

[water505]

That sounds like pure Goebbels?

Here we go...that didn't take long.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Here we go...that didn't take long.

Is this the same idiot who spends hours with his nose up busybody's ass screaming FAKE NEWS!?

 

[water505]

Adolf himself actually. From Mein Kampf.

You're confusing this place with the diverse Politics Board.

 

[water505]

Is this the same idiot who spends hours with his nose up busybody's ass screaming FAKE NEWS!?

Once someone starts the Hitler comparisons they might as well hang a flashing neon Stupid sign around their neck.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Once someone starts the Hitler comparisons they might as well hang a flashing neon Stupid sign around their neck.

No doubt.



However, they still haven't decided as a whole if Trump is a National Democratic Socialist or a dictatorial wanna-be Fascist...

 

[water505]

No doubt.



However, they still haven't decided as a whole if Trump is a National Democratic Socialist or a dictatorial wanna-be Fascist...

Chris Matthews chose the latter. MSNBC is treating this like a triple murder at a snowflake candlelight vigil with the perp being a white born again Christian.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

* copied from another thread *

I've seen it all this morning from it's a coverup to it's some serious propaganda...



Democrats need to wake up and get a grip.



You can't not notice.

...

In contrast, Alan Dershowitz last night on CNN said that Jim Comey lacked the credibility to be the FBI Director and should have resigned because neither Democrats nor Republicans have confidence in him. Dershowitz, himself a liberal Democrat, said that Trump had previously and appropriately replaced Acting AG Sally Yates; Dershowitz saw no connection between the two firings (Yates and Comey). Indeed, Dershowitz suggested his fellow liberals take a deep breadth and monitor who Trump names as Comey’s successor. What a concept — see if Trump appoints a political hack as FBI Director; or perhaps he will appoint someone greatly respected for probity in the mold of, well… Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein? As a talking-head expert, Dershowitz is proving to be, for CNN, volatile and unpredictable, even nuanced in his view of Trump and the administration....

Arnold Steinberg, The American Spectator

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

But why fire Comey now? The answer is simple. The day before, President Barack Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeated, under oath, what he told NBC News’ Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on March 5 — that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. That gave the Trump administration the breathing room to dismiss Comey — which it simply did not have before.

It is true that Trump did not have an attorney general and assistant attorney general in place until relatively late, but he could have acted before then — though having their recommendation certainly adds weight to his decision.

Put simply, if Trump had fired Comey while there were still serious questions about Russia, then it would have been more plausible to accuse him of trying to interfere in the investigation or cover up whatever happened. It is now clear that nothing, in fact, happened. Monday’s hearing with Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was meant to reveal a “smoking gun,” and produced nothing but viral videos of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

The more Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and his media allies try to hype the Comey firing as the new Watergate, and revive the Russia conspiracy theory, the more they help Trump by making fools of themselves.

Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart

 

[Wrong Element]

http://images1.villagevoice.com/imager/u/745xauto/9415289/12116trumpdog.jpg

 

[Rightguide]

Arnold Steinberg, The American Spectator

How can anyone, except a Hillary supporter who would put her political fortunes above the law, possibly have confidence in an FBI director who cannot state the law as written or understand that intent isn't an aspect of negligence?

 

[Rightguide]

Just to put this out there, McCabe, the Assistant Director, is a staunch Hillary supporter and as political as Comey proved to be. He needs to be removed as well if we expect to have an apolitical FBI leadership. Hopefully, Trump will appoint a very good law enforcement professional.

 

[Rightguide]

Its important to understand that Rosenstein sought out the opinions of past DOJ leaders:


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.

 

[SyKoKo]

https://reclaimourrepublic.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/obama-hitler-comparisons.jpg

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sounds like someone on the white house team knows their Hitler.

I doubt it's Trump, he says he can't read. I think he's fibbing though, he's clearly read 'The Prince'.

Nah, he hasn't, thinking like that just comes natural to him.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Just to put this out there, McCabe, the Assistant Director, is a staunch Hillary supporter and as political as Comey proved to be. He needs to be removed as well if we expect to have an apolitical FBI leadership. Hopefully, Trump will appoint a very good law enforcement professional.

Trump will appoint someone he thinks is reliably loyal to him.

 

[contrifan32]

Trump will appoint someone he thinks is reliably loyal to him.

Are you willing to make Rory bet on that statement?

 

[Rightguide]

Trump will appoint someone he thinks is reliably loyal to him.

Not true. There is no need. Trump isn't guilty of anything except keeping his campaign promises. The Russian connection to Trump promulgated by disloyal Democrats has been thoroughly debunked.