President Trump Fires James Comey

a reply to: Indigo5

FBI investigates...then makes a recommendation to prosecute or not prosecute (Indict or not)..
THEN trial and the jury decides.
Investigations that investigators feel do not warrant charges or indictment...do not result in charges or indictment...thus do not end up in front of juries to decide innocence or guilt..

Let me know if you are still confused..

I'm not confused. I never stated otherwise. Let me know if you have another Trump or Vox quote to thrown in.

a reply to: introvert

I was not referring to his statement. I was referring to yours.

Anyway, I think I have a better understanding of what you posted and I am looking at in the wrong way. I think we agree overall.

Completely fair. Thank you.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: RickinVa

It better not be a god damn politician. Christi or Giuliani being tapped for the Director's chair is asinine.

Sheriff David Clarke is the best option by far. He's an experienced cop, not a politician. That's what we need. If Christie or Giuliani get the Director's chair no one can ever chant "drain the swamp' ever again... as if Trump's cabinet isn't full of bankers and trade insiders any way.

Giuliani has already had a meeting with Trump shortly after Comey was dumped. Just repaying favors...

a reply to: jimmyx

Gross negligence? This is from 93

The Justice Department report found, among other things, that Sessions had engaged in a sham transaction to avoid paying taxes on his use of an FBI limousine to take him to and from work, that he had billed the government for a security fence around his home that provided no security and that he had arranged business trips to places where he could meet with relatives. Also a 'sweet deal' on a home mortgage...

I do not see where he was impeding an investigation. He was forced out. No biggie. He did not quit because he felt he did nothing wrong and it was months of back and forth before he was removed. Dole backed him at the time as did Schumer.

He was very well liked by his constituents but not by Clinton so Reno suggested he be gone.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: carewemust

Has Comey accepted the invitation to testify?

He still couldn't about anything classified, so it would be the same ole thing.

He could answer in a closed door session with those present having the proper security clearance.

If he testifies, I predict more of the same.

Rs will say it was nothing new and Ds will say that Trump is about to go down without personally committing to it in so many words.

And we'll still be where we are now.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Giuliani already stated he doesnt want the job.. In addition to Christie (no thanks) is Trey Gowdy. Absent a qualified person from the FBI or DOJ I would like to see Gowdy in there. Clark is a probable no since he has no prosecutorial experience, which while not required for the FBI director its something that is considered given their attachment to the DOJ.

Also Clark is actually a politician. Sheriff's are elected positions.

a reply to: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Also Clark is actually a politician. Sheriff's are elected positions.

Touche.

To address a debate between 2 other members regarding law enforcement. In the instance where its not entirely clear if charges are warranted law enforcement sends the report to the prosecutor for their review. They will also speak to them during an investigation for advice on certain aspects (obtaining warrants etc).

The ultimate decision for charges resides with the prosecutor and not law enforcement. Even if law enforcement says no charges are warranted, it is not their decision to make. Even if law enforcement opts not to forward a report for prosecutor review the prosecutor can still move forward with prosecution / other charges on their own.

a reply to: Indigo5

No, according to the FBI website this is what happens...
Link to FBI

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.

Let me know if you are still confused...

This statement " Investigations that investigators feel do not warrant charges or indictment...do not result in charges or indictment...thus do not end up in front of juries to decide innocence or guilt." is also incorrect. An AG or a prosecutor can choose to indict no matter what the investigator says...like it should have been in Clinton's case.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Also Clark is actually a politician. Sheriff's are elected positions.

Touche.

I was not trying to be snippy / arrogant or have a gotcha moment.. Sorry if it came across that way.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Jared Kushner?...I mean hell..he has been assigned to bring peace to the middle east, he could direct the FBI in his off-hours?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
To address a debate between 2 other members regarding law enforcement. In the instance where its not entirely clear if charges are warranted law enforcement sends the report to the prosecutor for their review. They will also speak to them during an investigation for advice on certain aspects (obtaining warrants etc).

The ultimate decision for charges resides with the prosecutor and not law enforcement. Even if law enforcement says no charges are warranted, it is not their decision to make. Even if law enforcement opts not to forward a report for prosecutor review the prosecutor can still move forward with prosecution / other charges on their own.

Exactly, similar to my example from Baltimore, when the scumbag AG filed charges against those 6 officers based on nothing but SJW feelings.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not at all. It actually made me laugh. It's a fair point.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: jimmyx

Gross negligence? This is from 93

The Justice Department report found, among other things, that Sessions had engaged in a sham transaction to avoid paying taxes on his use of an FBI limousine to take him to and from work, that he had billed the government for a security fence around his home that provided no security and that he had arranged business trips to places where he could meet with relatives. Also a 'sweet deal' on a home mortgage...

I do not see where he was impeding an investigation. He was forced out. No biggie. He did not quit because he felt he did nothing wrong and it was months of back and forth before he was removed. Dole backed him at the time as did Schumer.

He was very well liked by his constituents but not by Clinton so Reno suggested he be gone.

I have no idea what you are talking about, sessions was fired by Clinton for using FBI funds for his own personal use, period....it's called fraud

a reply to: introvert

Says a biased Clinton supporter haha.

It is a valid comparison in that the accusations were the
same "not doing their job"!

Oh the irony, the Clintons must be having second thoughts
about her third run in 2020!

Jeff Sessions now interviewing a new FBI director!

McCabee is out, under the bus already because he
prottected Hillary ....

a reply to: Indigo5

Was that meant for me or the other poster? It shows my name but the post it links to is by another poster.

Either or, I dont see Kushner being confirmed by the senate so no.

According to the archive of the NYT, your account is untrue.

I won't link to the NYT as they are now fake news.

a reply to: jimmyx

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

Was that meant for me or the other poster? It shows my name but the post it links to is by another poster.

Either or not, I dont see Kushner being confirmed by the senate so no.

Wait, did I miss something. Did someone actually suggest Kushner would be nominated for FBI Director?

If so, that's a serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

originally posted by: burntheships
According to the archive of the NYT, your account is untrue.

I won't link to the NYT as they are now fake news.

a reply to: jimmyx

But not yet #veryfakenews, at least as far as I know.

a reply to: face23785

From this post a few posts above -

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Xcathdra

Jared Kushner?...I mean hell..he has been assigned to bring peace to the middle east, he could direct the FBI in his off-hours?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

Was that meant for me or the other poster? It shows my name but the post it links to is by another poster.

Either or, I dont see Kushner being confirmed by the senate so no.

JFK got his own brother confirmed as AG.

Although I can't imagine that ever happening today.