Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Director Comey fired

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by DOR View Post

    Note the requirement for loyalty to the Constitution.
    Not the absence of any requirement for loyalty to an individual who may, for a period of time, hold any particular office.

    Say, President of the United States of America.
    For most of our history since 1940, more people have pledged persona loyalty to the Constitution and obedience to the President, than have pledged it solely to the Constitution.

    I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed

    Comment


    • #92
      The president is the constitutionally elected officer over him, as he is over the military. To the military, obedience to the president and other officers appointed over you means that you are answerable to the elected representatives of the American people as opposed to being a power unto yourself co-equal to the other branches of government.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        For most of our history since 1940, more people have pledged persona loyalty to the Constitution and obedience to the President, than have pledged it solely to the Constitution.

        I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed
        Please note what you have written: faith and allegiance to the Constitution, while obeying the orders of the President. Obeying is not pledging personal loyalty. Also, would you have been okay with Government officials swearing personal loyalty to Obama?
        "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          For most of our history since 1940, more people have pledged persona loyalty to the Constitution and obedience to the President, than have pledged it solely to the Constitution.

          I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed
          That's from the oath of enlistment not from the Oath of Office. For people that are not in charge of anything. Even then it is known that we obey only the LAWFUL orders from those appointed over us. No loyalty test involved nor pledged to the President or our superiors

          The oath of office for commissioned officers and government officials other than the President states:

          “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

          Notice that there is no mention of obeying the President

          Comey wasn't a Army Private, He was the Director of the FBI

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
            That's from the oath of enlistment not from the Oath of Office. For people that are not in charge of anything. Even then it is known that we obey only the LAWFUL orders from those appointed over us. No loyalty test involved nor pledged to the President or our superiors

            The oath of office for commissioned officers and government officials other than the President states:

            “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

            Notice that there is no mention of obeying the President

            Comey wasn't a Army Private, He was the Director of the FBI

            Correct. There is no mention of obeying the president in the oath of office. The oath is to protect the Constitution. That's as it should be. But it also means obeying the president, the courts, and Congress, to extent the Constitution gives them the power to command obedience.

            Comey demurred when asked if he would be loyal to Trump, promising only to be 'honest'. What does that mean? Maybe he meant fidelity to the Constitution first and by extension fidelity to the president provided he was acting within his Constitutionally recognized powers. That long-form answer would have been the right one for Comey to give Trump, not a one word reply that left it up in the air whether he would obey a legal order from Trump.

            It's still an open question whether Trump was seeking the type of loyalty that goes beyond legal restraints. He may well have been trying to gauge whether Comey understood how much the collusion investigation is weakening him politically and whether Comey sympathized with him, but he hit a brick wall.

            In business and in his private life Trump often gets what he wants by claiming he is being unfairly treated. In so doing, he has a history of bucking legal barriers. So, he might have thought he could subliminally influence Comey to hurry up and finish the investigation if he played on his sympathies and cited the good of the country. He would never dare to order a FBI director to end an investigation, but not all directors think alike. There's hope in change. Just ask Obama.
            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

            Comment


            • #96
              Haven't commented on this thread before because the situation has been changing so rapidly. That said didn't Trump at one point threaten Comey not to release any tapes he might have of their conversations 'or else'. Whatever else is.

              To my mind this brings up a number of interesting points. First and foremost what specific conversations would Trump be worried about? Even assuming there are no tapes his comment virtually demands that investigators ask Comey 'Exactly what conversations was the President worried about Mr Comey'. Seems to me Trump just ended up signposting that there were things said he badly wanted kept out of the public arena - so what were they.

              Secondly can the POTUS even issue threats of this nature in these circumstances? legally I mean not morally. To me Trumps comment seems tantamount to publicly threatening a witness in a Federal investigation. Lastly are the conversations of the POTUS and senior gov officials like Comey routinely recorded and if so under what circumstances?
              Last edited by Monash; 15 May 17,, 11:57.
              If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Monash View Post
                Haven't commented on this thread before because the situation has been changing so rapidly. That said didn't Trump at one point threaten Comey not to release any tapes he might have of their conversations 'or else'. Whatever else is.

                To my mind this brings up a number of interesting points. First and foremost what specific conversations would Trump be worried about? Even assuming there are no tapes his comment virtually demands that investigators ask Comey 'Exactly what conversations was the President worried about Mr Comey'. Seems to me Trump just ended up signposting that there were things said he badly wanted kept out of the public arena - so what were they.

                Secondly can the POTUS even issue threats of this nature in these circumstances? legally I mean not morally. To me Trumps comment seems tantamount to publicly threatening a witness in a Federal investigation. Lastly are the conversations of the POTUS and senior gov officials like Comey routinely recorded and if so under what circumstances?
                Here's the quote...

                James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
                Not sure what you're referring to, but someone really needs to take his twitter account away either way.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Seems Trump himself could maybe learn a lesson regarding his loyalty and duty to those down range; https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.3721caf92320

                  Just think what message this sends to any contacts or allies? If I were still a working cog in the Whitehall machine I would warn caution on sharing anything! Imagine what the Poles are thinking??? What are the CIA going to make of this? Why should they risk their lives for this berk? This is disaster in a colossal manner and he is telling the very people who interfered in the US election and fired the guy who was leading the most thorough investigation into collusion on his part... He MUST go and frankly while I hope you can do it legally it is not unjust to kill a traitor.
                  Last edited by snapper; 15 May 17,, 23:07.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Got to enjoy the show and the popcorn!

                    I said this before on the election thread. The only thing worse for the Republicans than Trump losing them the election would be him winning. At this rate a Republican would be lucky to be elected dog catcher in 2020

                    Comment


                    • From the WaPo:

                      Notes made by former FBI director Comey say Trump pressured him to end Flynn probe

                      President Trump asked the FBI to drop its probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn and urged former FBI director James B. Comey instead to pursue reporters in leak cases, according to associates of Comey who have seen private notes he wrote recounting the conversation.

                      According to the notes written by Comey following a February meeting with the president, Trump brought up the counterintelligence investigation into Flynn and urged Comey to drop the probe in the wake of the national security adviser’s resignation.

                      The conversation between Trump and Comey took place after a national security meeting. The president asked to speak privately to the FBI director, and the others left the room, according to the Comey associates, who, like other officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal internal discussions.

                      “I hope you can let this go,’’ Trump said, according to the Comey notes, which were described by the associates. Comey’s written account of the meeting is two pages long and highly detailed, the associates said.

                      The conversation described in the notes raises new questions about whether Trump may have crossed any legal lines into criminal behavior by pressuring the FBI to end an investigation.

                      “There’s definitely a case to be made for obstruction,” said Barak Cohen, a former federal prosecutor who now does white-collar-defense work at the Perkins Coie law firm in the District. “But, on the other hand, you have to realize that — as with any other sort of criminal law — intent is key, and intent here can be difficult to prove.”

                      The revelation also marks the second major challenge for the White House this week, coming just a day after a report in The Washington Post that the president disclosed highly classified information to Russian diplomats during a private meeting last week at the White House. And it comes at a particularly precarious time for the Trump administration as it searches for someone to nominate to succeed Comey as the next leader of the FBI — the official who will take over investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and any coordination between Trump associates and Russian officials.

                      Comey’s account of the February talk made it clear that his understanding of the conversation was that the president was seeking to impede the investigation, according to people who have read the account or had it read to them. Comey’s notes also made it clear he felt that the conversation with the president was improper and decided to withhold details of it from the case agents working on the Russia probe, according to the associates.

                      The details of Comey’s meeting notes were first reported by the New York Times.

                      According to the director’s notes, Comey did not respond directly to the president’s entreaties, only agreeing with Trump’s assertion that Flynn “is a good guy.’’ The notes also described how the president said that he wanted to see reporters in jail for leaks and expressed his dissatisfaction with what he viewed as the FBI’s inaction in pursuing whoever leaked his conversations with foreign leaders, according to Comey associates.

                      Current and former officials have described ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and the FBI over the issue of the Russia probe and leaks. The president and others have repeatedly pressed the FBI to focus more of its energy on pursuing leakers than on the Russia investigation, these officials said. While the FBI is investigating disclosures of classified information, other issues that Trump and the administration wanted to be investigated did not involve classified information, and FBI officials have resisted demands that they pursue such issues.

                      Details of Comey’s notes have been shared with a very small circle of people at the FBI and Justice Department, these people said.
                      More at:
                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.c30a67f19923
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • Some Israeli reaction to the conversation Trump had with his Muscovite pals; http://www.timesofisrael.com/horrifi...er-trump-leak/

                        Comment


                        • "Demanding an explanation from American intelligence officials for Trump's actions"

                          I don't know if they knew, or not, that there were asking the wrong people. They need to ask the little birdie inside the head of Trump as that is the only way.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                            Some Israeli reaction to the conversation Trump had with his Muscovite pals; http://www.timesofisrael.com/horrifi...er-trump-leak/
                            What with Manning, Snowden, leaks of Trumps meetings and the latest NSA spyleaks. I can see why the Israeli's would have reservations about Trumps shooting his mouth off it would be far damaging than the aforementioned.
                            I never voted for the guy and he should have a time delay/breathalyzer/proof reader attached to what ever device he tweets with. The reporting on Trump is like the man himself is a lot of hysteria and hyperbole.

                            Comment


                            • Classic cop interview technique. Get the suspect to deny something that he couldn't have known ...


                              The May 15 WaPo story said,
                              “The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.”

                              The word “Israel” does not appear in the story.


                              “Donald Trump denies a Russia allegation that no one made”
                              http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/22/po...israel-russia/

                              “Trump seems to confirm Israel as source of intelligence shared with Russia”
                              https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ligence-russia
                              Trust me?
                              I'm an economist!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                                Classic cop interview technique. Get the suspect to deny something that he couldn't have known ...


                                The May 15 WaPo story said,
                                “The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.”

                                The word “Israel” does not appear in the story.


                                “Donald Trump denies a Russia allegation that no one made”
                                http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/22/po...israel-russia/

                                “Trump seems to confirm Israel as source of intelligence shared with Russia”
                                https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ligence-russia
                                Congratulations on reaching a new low of being disingenuous.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X