President Trump Fires James Comey

a reply to: TheRedneck

Be interesting to know what the FBI has on this Carter Page guy and if anything ties it to D or E Trump, or Kushner.

These investigations need to be resolved, if Trump didn't do anything illegal, then we need to move onwards.

In April 2017, it was reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had successfully obtained a warrant from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveil Page's communications shortly after Page left the Trump campaign.[30] To issue the warrant, a federal judge concluded there was probable cause to believe the FBI's declarations that Page was a foreign agent knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence for the Russian government.[31] Page is reportedly the only American who has been directly targeted for surveillance.[31] The 90-day warrant has since been renewed by the court multiple times.

Link

a reply to: alphabetaone

Were those his exact words? Or are you paraphrasing?

I was paraphrasing, but I can give you his exact words easily enough. His entire address is on the FBI website .

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

...

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

Feel free to read the entire document. I do not believe I have misrepresented his statement.

Well, unless I'm mistaken, I think the last time an FBI director was fired was Bill Sessions in '93. I understand what you mean about cabinet turnover and the like, that's been going on since the beginning of time, but firing the FBI director? That's pretty rare.

No, you are not mistaken. The conspiracy theorist in me says that could be indicative of a bipartisan corruption ring. As long as whoever was Director was fine with covering up both sides, there was no problem. Trump isn't really beholden to the Republicans... most were hesitate to endorse him even after the primary.

Here's where the conspiracy theorist in me comes out. I know personally, if I was trying to deflect attention away from myself on a topic, I would certainly make it appear as though the exact opposite of what garnered that attention is what made headlines. Sort of an alibi after the fact..... "now why would I piss Russia off if I were in bed with them, duhhhhhhh"...and then, it gets parroted.

I have to admit, that thought crossed my mind as well. All I can say is that I eventually discounted it because I saw nothing helpful to Putin happening around it. Even if Trump did collude with Russia, wouldn't there be payback somewhere?

And, of course, I got tired of the mindless parroting of false claims...

You're probably right on that account. You know I learned a lot from the 20 years I spent in the military, among some of the most important lessons I learned was to know my enemy...and it wasn't always the guy pointing a gun in my face.

In my experience, it is rarely the guy pointing a gun in my face... it's usually the guy right behind me plunging a knife in my back.

Thank you, sir, for your service!

TheRedneck

a reply to: D8Tee

It will be interesting to find out what the FBI has been keeping under its hat on a lot of people.

These investigations need to be resolved, if Trump didn't do anything illegal, then we need to move onwards.

Agreed. If Trump dId anything wrong, then he needs to be held accountable. If he didn't, this needs to be wrapped up.

The same goes for everyone else... Clinton, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, McCain, Graham, Gowdy, Ryan, Paul, Cruz... everyone.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

Loretta Lynch had already stated publicly that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI made in regarss to the case, thus abdicating the responsibility for the decision. (something about an airplane meeting goes in here somwhere)

The FBI has no business stating a no prosecution stance. Their job is to gather evidence and present that evidence to the DoJ, it is only then determined as to whether or not to prosecute by the lawyers who are the ones trained to understand when a case can be made from the evidence presented to them by law enforcement.

There's a difference between expressing a view and stating categorically that "Hillary will not be prosecuted because the FBI says so". This is America FFS and anyone anywhere and at any time can express a view no matter what their station. Whether or not Lynch abdicated responsibility for the decision is not tantamount to Comey being corrupt. Especially since he acknowledged that DoJ has ultimate authority.

a reply to: TheRedneck


hahaha....honestly for most of my adult life ive considered all of D.C. a bipartisan corruption ring. As sexist as it may sound, I equate it to how I deal with women....I know I'm never going to be right, just the degree of how wrong I am are what at times gives me solace.

a reply to: alphabetaone

And I'm right there with you.

I've never been fond of political parties. I accept that the human animal is social in nature (well, except for me), and that because of this, political parties will exist. It's just the nature of the beasts. I just don't have to participate.

I vote for the man, not the party. The qualities I look for are an understanding of the issues at the time, honesty, transparency, and integrity. I saw understanding of the economic problems in Trump, and thus far I have seen transparency and integrity. I also have seen no reason yet to doubt his honesty to anywhere near the level I doubt any politician's honesty.

I could be wrong. I was wrong about Bush 43. I happily voted for him in 2000, but grudgingly did so in 2004 because of the Patriot Act... and before he left was staunchly against him. I was wrong about Bob Bentley, our now-ex-governor. He turned out to be a power abuser who tried to silence critics of his unwanted tax increase by withholding highway funds from districts that fought him over them.

But so far, I like what I see in Trump. He's maintaining transparency, better communication than I ever remember, strength with restraint in foreign relations, and he's attempting to follow up on his campaign promises: reduced illegal immigration, increased economic opportunity, tax cuts, and a more realistic military policy. Jim Comey's firing could be a huge step towards cleaning up the corruption in DC. I never cared much about his tweets, and I find his speech refreshing. I know plenty of our local partisan pundits disagree with me, but that's just how I feel.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

The FBI has no business stating a no prosecution stance. Their job is to gather evidence and present that evidence to the DoJ, it is only then determined as to whether or not to prosecute by the lawyers who are the ones trained to understand when a case can be made from the evidence presented to them by law enforcement.

This revisionist whining always confuses me.

It was the Republicans who demanded that the DOJ and Loretta Lynch were tainted and should not make the final decision.

It was at the demand of Republicans that she made the proper decision.

Loretta Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry
www.nytimes.com...

Lynch pressured to recuse herself after Clinton tarmac meeting
thehill.com...

Other notes...

YES...The FBI is not a prosecutor. They are Purely investigative entity.

YES...The FBI DOES make recommendations to the potential prosecutor.

But the public may not always understand that the FBI does not have the job of deciding who should, or should not, be prosecuted for crime. It was created to do investigations – period.

When it finishes one of its probes, it can and usually does make recommendations, but someone else has the job of deciding what to do with the results of those investigations – an actual prosecutor.

constitutioncenter.org...

IN THIS CASE...

Loretta Lynch (at the demand of the GOP) declared that she would follow the recommendation of the FBI investigation into the private email server, WHATEVER the recommendation might be.

That is precisely what she did.

The GOP were satisfied with that arrangement until they didn't get the recommendation that they wanted.

Megyn Kelly: GOP Praised FBI Director for Weeks Until He Went Against What They Wanted
www.mediaite.com...

a reply to: Indigo5

I'm confused; are you stating that it is the GOP's fault that Lynch had an improper meeting with Clinton?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm confused; are you stating that it is the GOP's fault that Lynch had an improper meeting with Clinton?

TheRedneck

Where did I state that?

2nd question, are you suggesting you would have been satisfied with Loretta Lynch making the decision to prosecute or not? Mind you she would have been listening to Comey's same recommendation, albeit in private.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

Loretta Lynch had already stated publicly that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI made in regarss to the case, thus abdicating the responsibility for the decision. (something about an airplane meeting goes in here somwhere)

The FBI has no business stating a no prosecution stance. Their job is to gather evidence and present that evidence to the DoJ, it is only then determined as to whether or not to prosecute by the lawyers who are the ones trained to understand when a case can be made from the evidence presented to them by law enforcement.

There's a difference between expressing a view and stating categorically that "Hillary will not be prosecuted because the FBI says so". This is America FFS and anyone anywhere and at any time can express a view no matter what their station.

As someone who served in the military you should know this is not true. We voluntarily give up some of our 1st amendment rights when we join. Justice Department employees have a similar responsibility. There are many official positions, both government and private, that require you to voluntarily give up your right to anywhere anytime express your views.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

The FBI has no business stating a no prosecution stance. Their job is to gather evidence and present that evidence to the DoJ, it is only then determined as to whether or not to prosecute by the lawyers who are the ones trained to understand when a case can be made from the evidence presented to them by law enforcement.

This revisionist whining always confuses me.

It was the Republicans who demanded that the DOJ and Loretta Lynch were tainted and should not make the final decision.

It was at the demand of Republicans that she made the proper decision.

Loretta Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry
www.nytimes.com...

Lynch pressured to recuse herself after Clinton tarmac meeting
thehill.com...

Other notes...

YES...The FBI is not a prosecutor. They are Purely investigative entity.

YES...The FBI DOES make recommendations to the potential prosecutor.

But the public may not always understand that the FBI does not have the job of deciding who should, or should not, be prosecuted for crime. It was created to do investigations – period.

When it finishes one of its probes, it can and usually does make recommendations, but someone else has the job of deciding what to do with the results of those investigations – an actual prosecutor.

constitutioncenter.org...

IN THIS CASE...

Loretta Lynch (at the demand of the GOP) declared that she would follow the recommendation of the FBI investigation into the private email server, WHATEVER the recommendation might be.

That is precisely what she did.

The GOP were satisfied with that arrangement until they didn't get the recommendation that they wanted.

Megyn Kelly: GOP Praised FBI Director for Weeks Until He Went Against What They Wanted
www.mediaite.com...

It is true many in the GOP were praising Comey as a straight shooter who wouldn't let politics get in the way prior to his decision, and then did a complete 180 on that after the fact. I won't offer some hamhanded defense for that. They should've kept their mouths shut. Regarding Lynch though, she absolutely did not make the right decision. The right decision would've been to recuse herself. She didn't.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm confused; are you stating that it is the GOP's fault that Lynch had an improper meeting with Clinton?

TheRedneck

Where did I state that?

2nd question, are you suggesting you would have been satisfied with Loretta Lynch making the decision to prosecute or not? Mind you she would have been listening to Comey's same recommendation, albeit in private.

I have no problem with Comey going public to confirm Hillary was guilty. The fact that he recommended no indictment is neither here nor there, because Lynch certainly would not have. I think we all know that and the reasons why. If that was Comey's only issue, then he probably would have been ok.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

The FBI has no business stating a no prosecution stance. Their job is to gather evidence and present that evidence to the DoJ, it is only then determined as to whether or not to prosecute by the lawyers who are the ones trained to understand when a case can be made from the evidence presented to them by law enforcement.

This revisionist whining always confuses me.

It was the Republicans who demanded that the DOJ and Loretta Lynch were tainted and should not make the final decision.

It was at the demand of Republicans that she made the proper decision.

Loretta Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry
www.nytimes.com...

Lynch pressured to recuse herself after Clinton tarmac meeting
thehill.com...

Other notes...

YES...The FBI is not a prosecutor. They are Purely investigative entity.

YES...The FBI DOES make recommendations to the potential prosecutor.

But the public may not always understand that the FBI does not have the job of deciding who should, or should not, be prosecuted for crime. It was created to do investigations – period.

When it finishes one of its probes, it can and usually does make recommendations, but someone else has the job of deciding what to do with the results of those investigations – an actual prosecutor.

constitutioncenter.org...

IN THIS CASE...

Loretta Lynch (at the demand of the GOP) declared that she would follow the recommendation of the FBI investigation into the private email server, WHATEVER the recommendation might be.

That is precisely what she did.

The GOP were satisfied with that arrangement until they didn't get the recommendation that they wanted.

Megyn Kelly: GOP Praised FBI Director for Weeks Until He Went Against What They Wanted
www.mediaite.com...

It is true many in the GOP were praising Comey as a straight shooter who wouldn't let politics get in the way prior to his decision, and then did a complete 180 on that after the fact.

Otherwise GOP praised him as someone "who wouldn't let politics get in the way prior to his decision"

...Until they didn't get the decision they demanded..

Then they condemned him for NOT letting "politics get in the way prior to his decision".

a reply to: Indigo5

Also you quoted a .org site as proof the FBI makes recommendations, which is cool wordplay since that is not the same as determining whether to prosecute or not. I looked for a more official source:

FBI.gov

What does the FBI do with information and evidence gathered during an investigation? If a possible violation of federal law under the jurisdiction of the FBI has occurred, the Bureau will conduct an investigation. The information and evidence gathered in the course of that investigation are then presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who will determine whether or not prosecution or further action is warranted. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, evidence is either returned or retained for court.

a reply to: Indigo5

No argument they should've kept their mouths shut before the investigation was over. Saying they wanted him to let politics get in the way is your opinion, and not supported by facts. He said himself if someone else did this they better not expect to get away with it. That sounds an awful lot like politics getting in the way.

a reply to: face23785

Your post does not add anything?

Maybe you should re-read my post.

I did not claim that the FBI makes the decision to Prosecute or not?

Read Comey's statement on Clinton...

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

...

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

What made this different is that AT THE DEMAND OF THE GOP...Loretta Lynch announced PRIOR to the conclusion of the investigation that she would accept the recommendation of the FBI whatever the outcome.

And that is what the AG did.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Indigo5

He said himself if someone else did this they better not expect to get away with it. That sounds an awful lot like politics getting in the way.

He DID NOT say they would have been prosecuted. JUST THE OPPOSITE

He spoke to consequences...Ones outside of the FBI's purview.

Facts matter

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.

We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.

To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

But that is not what we are deciding now.

a reply to: Indigo5

You did not claim that, you claimed the FBI isn't prohibited by the Constitution from doing so. That doesn't change the fact they're not supposed to, according to FBI and DOJ policy, as testified by numerous officials before Congress. To be clear, just because something is allowed by the Constitution doesn't mean you have the authority to do it. For example, the 1st Amendment protects our right to speak out against the government, however while serving in the military officers can be court martialed for doing so.

UCMJ Article 88

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Also the GOP was demanding Lynch recuse herself. That is what she should've done. She didn't.

Pick a source

a reply to: Indigo5

"...often subject to security and administrative sanctions" doesn't mean those would be the only consequences. It's clear he was trying to make the point that just because she got away with it doesn't mean it's ok to do. Administrative and security policies are based on the law. When you violated security policies, you are often in violation of the law. He knows what she did was illegal. So does anyone else who has held a security clearance. That's why people are claiming he is corrupt. There's literally millions of us who have had clearances and know for a fact she broke the law.

And oh by the way, why do you supposed she faced no administrative and security consequences? Politics. State should've taken action against her, but they're on the same team so nothing happened.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

Loretta Lynch had already stated publicly that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI made in regarss to the case, thus abdicating the responsibility for the decision. (something about an airplane meeting goes in here somwhere)

The FBI has no business stating a no prosecution stance. Their job is to gather evidence and present that evidence to the DoJ, it is only then determined as to whether or not to prosecute by the lawyers who are the ones trained to understand when a case can be made from the evidence presented to them by law enforcement.

There's a difference between expressing a view and stating categorically that "Hillary will not be prosecuted because the FBI says so". This is America FFS and anyone anywhere and at any time can express a view no matter what their station.

As someone who served in the military you should know this is not true. We voluntarily give up some of our 1st amendment rights when we join.

Right. Except when asked for our views. We don't voluntarily cite an oath to dodge an inquiry for a view or opinion.