Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Director Comey fired

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

  • I see mostly some stupid actions blown out of proportion by a political media circus. I wouldn't care if Obama met with an FBI director a single time and says "you know, I hope this guy gets let up on." Or at least wouldn't care A LOT, certainly not compared to what's going in Qatar or Syria, and certainly not compared to the financial crisis actually occurring in '09. This just sucks up oxygen pointlessly.

    Again, the GOP Establishment would say different, but that's because they would howl over everything. Pretty much what I would expect either political establishment to do.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

    Comment


    • [QUOTE=GVChamp;1026116

      And yeah, Trump shouldn't be President for the same reason Obama shouldn't have been President: both highly inexperienced and incredibly naïve. Hillary should've won in '08, Romney should've won in '12, and Jeb! should've won in '16.[/QUOTE]

      Trump inexperienced? I think you give him too much credit. Willfully ignorant might be closer. Definitely a man without honor and credibility since at least... since probably a child.

      Comment


      • GVChamp,

        I wouldn't care if Obama met with an FBI director a single time and says "you know, I hope this guy gets let up on."
        or you know, 9 times in 4 months...lol.

        bottom-line is, yeah, Obama was inexperienced in 2008 but nor was he utterly ignorant and absolutely without honor or character. it is interesting that Comey felt the need to state that after his very first meeting with Trump, he felt compelled to document every meeting because he sensed right off the bat that Trump was a liar.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • I think Comey de facto is admitting that he believes Trump a. colluded with Moscow and b. is attempting to obstruct justice.

          Comment


          • CONTRIBUTORS
            June 09, 2017 - 03:00 PM EDT
            OPINION: The damaging case against James Comey


            Highlights from Comey’s Senate hearing
            TheHill.com


            00:0006:39
            BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
            TWEET SHARE MORE
            The testimony of James Comey proved long on atmospherics and sort on ethics. While many were riveted by Comey’s discussion of his discomfort in meetings with President Trump, most seemed to miss the fact that Comey was describing his own conduct in strikingly unethical terms. The greatest irony is that Trump succeeded in baiting Comey to a degree that even Trump could not have imagined. After calling Comey a “showboat” and poor director, Comey proceeded to commit an unethical and unprofessional act in leaking damaging memos against Trump.

            Comey described a series of ethical challenges during his term as FBI director. Yet, he almost uniformly avoided taking a firm stand in support of the professional standards of the FBI. During the Obama administration, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch gave Comey a direct order to mislead the public by calling the ongoing investigation a mere “matter.” Rather than standing firm on the integrity of his department and refusing to adopt such a meaningless and misleading term, Comey yielded to Lynch while now claiming discomfort over carrying out the order.

            ADVERTISEMENT
            When Trump allegedly asked for Comey to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn or pledge loyalty, Comey did not tell the president that he was engaging in wildly inappropriate conduct. He instead wrote a memo to file and told close aides. He now says that he wishes he had the courage or foresight to have taken a stand with the president.


            However, the clearest violation came in the days following his termination. Comey admits that he gave the damaging memos to a friend at Columbia Law School with the full knowledge that the information would be given to the media. It was a particularly curious moment for a former director who was asked by the president to fight the leakers in the government. He proceeded in becoming one of the most consequential leakers against Trump.

            Comey said that he took these actions days after his termination, when he said that he woke up in the middle of the night and realized suddenly that the memos could be used to contradict Trump. It was a bizarrely casual treatment of material that would be viewed by many as clearly FBI information. He did not confer with the FBI or the Justice Department. He did not ask for any classification review despite one of the parties described being the president of the United States. He simply sent the memos to a law professor to serve as a conduit to the media.

            ADVERTISEMENT
            As a threshold matter, Comey asked a question with regard to Trump that he should now answer with regard to his own conduct. Comey asked why Trump would ask everyone to leave the Oval Office to speak with Comey unless he was doing something improper. Yet, Trump could ask why Comey would use a third party to leak these memos if they were his property and there was nothing improper in their public release.

            In fact, there was a great deal wrong with their release, and Comey likely knew it. These were documents prepared on an FBI computer addressing a highly sensitive investigation on facts that he considered material to that investigation. Indeed, he conveyed that information confidentially to his top aides and later said that he wanted the information to be given to the special counsel because it was important to the investigation.

            Many in the media have tried to spin this as not a “leak” because leaks by definition only involve classified information. That is entirely untrue as shown by history. Leaks involve the release of unauthorized information — not only classified information. Many of the most important leaks historically have involved pictures and facts not classified but embarrassing to a government. More importantly, federal regulations refer to unauthorized disclosures not just classified information.

            Comey’s position would effectively gut a host of federal rules and regulations. He is suggesting that any federal employee effectively owns documents created during federal employment in relation to an ongoing investigation so long as they address the information to themselves. FBI agents routinely write such memos in investigations. They are called 302s to memorialize field interviews or fact acquisitions. They are treated as FBI information.

            The Justice Department routinely claims such memos as privileged and covered by the deliberative process privilege and other privileges. Indeed, if this information were sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) it would likely have been denied. Among other things, the Justice Department and FBI routinely claim privilege “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”

            Of course, Comey did not know if there was a privilege or classification claim by either the Justice Department or the White House because he never asked for review. He just woke up in the middle of night upset about Trump’s name calling and released the damaging information. In doing so, he used these memos not as a shield but a sword.

            Besides being subject to nondisclosure agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and unclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641, which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

            There are also ethical and departmental rules against the use of material to damage a former represented person or individual or firm related to prior representation. The FBI website warns employees that “dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”

            One such regulation is § 2635.703, on the use of nonpublic information, which states, “An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.”

            The standard FBI employment agreement bars the unauthorized disclosure of information “contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI” that impact the bureau and specifically pledges that “I will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”

            Had Comey taken the minimal step of seeking clearance, the department would likely have said that this was FBI information and not personal information. Comey instead decided to ask forgiveness rather than permission.

            Comey is also subject to bar rules on releasing information inimical to the interests of his former employer. For example, under professional rule 1.6, lawyers need to secure authority to release information that “(1) reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client; (2) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client to the disadvantage of the client; [or] (3) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person.”

            Comey actually showed both how to and how not to disclose such information. When Comey released the information, he knew that he was going to be called to Congress where he could disclose this information properly after giving the White House a chance to claim privilege. Instead, he decided to release the information early. Why?

            Comey gave two equally implausible explanations. First, he suggested that he wanted to get the information to investigators. However, he knew not only that he was likely to testify but that these memos would inevitably be demanded by both congressional and federal investigators. Second, he said that he wanted to ensure the appointment of a special counsel. However on that Monday, many of us were saying that such an appointment was virtually inevitable. More importantly, he could have given the memos to investigators and properly laid the foundation for a special counsel.

            The fact is that the leaking of the memos worked to the advantage of James Comey, not Robert Mueller. Comey was able to take over the narrative and news cycle after Trump had publicly belittled him and his record. Special counsels do not like leaks of this kind. It would have been far better for the special counsel (or Comey’s own former investigatory team and congressional investigators) to have the memos confidentially.

            The greatest value of the memos would be to question Trump and other potential targets without their knowing of their existence. The memos could then have been used to establish false statements and pressure cooperation. Instead, Comey told possible targets, including Trump, about the evidence against them in the memos.

            Donald Trump continues to show a remarkable ability to bring out the worst in people — supporters and critics alike. In this case, he was able to bait Comey with his tweets and cause Comey to diminish his own credibility. If the comments of Trump were grossly inappropriate, Comey’s response to those comments were equally inappropriate.

            Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He has served as defense counsel in national security cases involving classified information and alleged leaks to
            ....
            To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

            Comment


            • Comey is also subject to bar rules on releasing information inimical to the interests of his former employer. For example, under professional rule 1.6, lawyers need to secure authority to release information that “(1) reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client; (2) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client to the disadvantage of the client; [or] (3) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person.”

              Comey is not a privately employed lawyer but an Official of the State who has taken a oath to uphold the Constitution in your parlance.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                GVChamp,



                or you know, 9 times in 4 months...lol.

                bottom-line is, yeah, Obama was inexperienced in 2008 but nor was he utterly ignorant and absolutely without honor or character. it is interesting that Comey felt the need to state that after his very first meeting with Trump, he felt compelled to document every meeting because he sensed right off the bat that Trump was a liar.
                Are you actually claiming he brought this up to Comey 9 times?

                Comment


                • Going to point out that 1. the president cannot obstruct justice by asking for an investigation to be ended, even if he orders it flat out. He has the power of full pardon and that does not require a conviction. In short, no one gets prosecuted or goes to jail for a federal crime unless the president permits it. 2. The Director of the FBI, the AG and the DAG all exercise delegated powers of the presidency. Presidents can and previous ones have resumed parts of the portfolios delegated in order to seek a personal outcome in a case.

                  In short, a tape could have emerged of Trump ordering Comey to end the investigation or be fired and there would still be no crime.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    Going to point out that 1. the president cannot obstruct justice by asking for an investigation to be ended, even if he orders it flat out. He has the power of full pardon and that does not require a conviction. In short, no one gets prosecuted or goes to jail for a federal crime unless the president permits it. 2. The Director of the FBI, the AG and the DAG all exercise delegated powers of the presidency. Presidents can and previous ones have resumed parts of the portfolios delegated in order to seek a personal outcome in a case.

                    In short, a tape could have emerged of Trump ordering Comey to end the investigation or be fired and there would still be no crime.
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • Can he pardon himself? I think not. If he has obstructed justice he in breach of the law - sure he could pardon Flynn et al but not his own actions.

                      Comment


                      • The times is basically huffpost...

                        Search
                        SUBSCRIBELOG INOpinion

                        DISPATCH
                        Women Say to Comey: Welcome to Our World

                        James Comey at the hearing Thursday on Capitol Hill.
                        DOUG MILLS / THE NEW YORK TIMES
                        By SUSAN CHIRA
                        JUNE 8, 2017
                        A man is being publicly grilled about why he was alone in a room with someone he felt was threatening him. Why didn’t he simply resign if he felt uncomfortable with what his boss was asking him to do? Why did he keep taking calls from that boss, even if he thought they were inappropriate? Why didn’t he just come out and say he would not do what the boss was asking for?

                        Sound familiar? As dozens of people noted immediately on Twitter, if you switch genders, that is the experience of many women in sexual harassment cases. James Comey, the former director of the F.B.I., explained to senators during today’s hearing that he felt acutely uneasy and hesitant to directly confront his boss, the president of the United States. That’s right, even a savvy Washington insider, the same height as LeBron James and no stranger to the cut and thrust of power, seemed slightly ashamed that he had not been able to do so.


                        “Maybe if I were stronger, I would have,” he said, trying to answer a question about why he didn’t speak his mind. “I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in.”

                        These are the emotions that many women have struggled to explain in the face of sexual harassment, and the ones that have often given defense attorneys grist for what appear to be inconsistencies.

                        Imbalance of power often lies at the heart of sexual harassment or assault cases, from those of Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly at Fox News to the trial of Bill Cosby, underway the same day as the hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. On Wednesday, Andrea Constand, Mr. Cosby’s accuser, concluded two days on the witness stand, with defense attorneys suggesting that her continued contacts with Mr. Cosby undermined her credibility. Unsurprisingly enough, today’s hearing shows that power can discomfit and silence men as well as women
                        https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/0...women.3546589/
                        To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                          Can he pardon himself? I think not. If he has obstructed justice he in breach of the law - sure he could pardon Flynn et al but not his own actions.
                          He can pardon himself. The only thing a pardon can't do is stop an impeachment (removal from office). In fact many people expected Nixon to pardon himself, more recently people expected HRC to pardon herself if she was elected.

                          Iron Duke, the president exercising executive authority is clearly not only not illegal, but totally legal. ALL not just some authority of executive agencies is power of the presidency delegated.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                            Can he pardon himself? I think not. If he has obstructed justice he in breach of the law - sure he could pardon Flynn et al but not his own actions.
                            WTF? What obstruction of justice would there be if it's not illegal for him order the case dropped in the first place?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              He can pardon himself. The only thing a pardon can't do is stop an impeachment (removal from office). In fact many people expected Nixon to pardon himself, more recently people expected HRC to pardon herself if she was elected.
                              So are you seriously trying to tell me that this traitorous fool is above the law that derives from the Constitution he swore to uphold? He can pardon himself for collusion with a foreign power in influencing the democratic process and obstruction of justice to cover up his collusion? The man is a traitor and a buffoon and the sooner he ends in prison the better. If your justice system cannot at present do this change it fast.

                              Comment


                              • He did not collude with Russia. He is not a traitor. His power of pardon is absolute.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X