President Trump Fires James Comey

a reply to: Indigo5

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 would have preferred she had not engaged in improper conduct in the first place. She should have refused an audience with Bill Clinton.

But once that was done, it was mandatory that she recuse herself, which she did not do. She should have requested Congress to appoint an independent prosecutor, just like if there ever are charges against Trump concerning Russian collusion, Sessions should make the same call for an independent prosecutor.

Throwing the decision to someone who does not have the authority without official refusal is a poor substitute for proper actions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


I have to agree with this. Lynch should have done the right thing irrespective of her ties or feelings on the subject. Throwing someone else under the bus was a coward move. All that was needed was an independent and none of this would have even made news.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

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.

Then we agree it is conditional, not anyone anywhere at any time. And even when asked, we are still not free to say anything we wish. Disrespect to a superior officer, contempt for officials, improper disclosure of classifeid information, OPSEC, INFOSEC, etc. "I was asked" is not a defense for violating any of these. There are a ton of examples I could bring up. I'm sure a former FBI agent could bring up numerous such examples applicable to FBI personnel. I'm not privy to those, but I am privy to the fact that the Deputy AG, his boss established in writing that what Comey did was out of bounds. The bottom line is Lynch should have recused herself. When she instead inappropriately just pushed the decision off onto Comey, he should have said no I can't do that, it's not my job, it's inappropriate. He didn't. Grounds for termination, certainly; grounds for charges, not at this time. But the IG is currently investigating it so we'll see.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

just like if there ever are charges against Trump concerning Russian collusion, Sessions should make the same call for an independent prosecutor.

Special Prosecutors are tasked with leading the investigation and determining if charges are filed.

"if there ever are charges against Trump"...Then there will be charges against Trump, not the assigning of a special prosecutor. Those charges would be pursued by impeachment proceedings.

a reply to: Indigo5

This is the most factually correct thing I've seen you post. Well done.

a reply to: alphabetaone

And it would have been so easy to do. Prosecutors appointed by Congress do not serve at the pleasure of the President.

This why I am so sure Comey is involved in corruption... why jump through questionable hoops when it is easier and more transparent to just do the right thing? The only logical reasoning I know of that makes sense is that no one wants a special prosecutor, because there's too much dirt to find on both parties.

The Democrats were calling for Comey's head after he made those statements both freeing and implicating Hillary. But now that Trump is in office, those same Democrats are crying "FOUL!" at removing him. What has changed? The Presidency.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Indigo5

You're right; I misspoke.

You're getting good at this!

TheRedneck

The special prosecutor statute that Congress used for the Bill Clinton mess lapsed so Congress can no longer appoint them. Only the Attorney General / his/her designee can and to date the Deputy AG, who oversee's the Russia probe has said he will not appoint one. The acting FBI director said one is not needed.

Nothing more than Schumer / Democrats trying to turn this into something its not for politics.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: alphabetaone

The only logical reasoning I know of that makes sense is that no one wants a special prosecutor, because there's too much dirt to find on both parties.

This is exactly right. The only reason the Dems are calling for a special prosecutor is because it looks good and they know it's not happening. There is no criminal investigation going on, it's a counter-intelligence investigation. Special prosecutors aren't appointed for that, they're appointed for criminal investigations.

Just like when Pelosi called on Ryan to cancel Congress's Easter break. If she thought there was even the slightest chance of that happening, she wouldn't have said it. It scores political points with the base.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The special prosecutor statute that Congress used for the Bill Clinton mess lapsed so Congress can no longer appoint them. Only the Attorney General / his/her designee can and to date the Deputy AG, who oversee's the Russia probe has said he will not appoint one. The acting FBI director said one is not needed.

Funny..Of the folks you listed as credible opinions on the matter...

"Only the Attorney General / his/her designee can"
Appointed after Trump fired the Acting AG

"and to date the Deputy AG, who oversee's the Russia probe"
Appointed to the Russia Probe after the AG pretended to recuse himself.

"The acting FBI director said one is not needed."
Appointed after Trump fired the FBI Director..

If anything I think you make a good case for a Special Prosecutor..

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: alphabetaone

The only logical reasoning I know of that makes sense is that no one wants a special prosecutor, because there's too much dirt to find on both parties.

When you say "no one wants"...no one does not include the entirety of Dems in congress and a few GOP to boot?

When you say "only logical reasoning "...your logical reasoning does not entertain the possibility of that as long as a special prosecutor is not appointed, DOJ still has over-sight into how many resources the investigation is given and what is made public and if any charges are ever brought? That could not be a reason to avoid a independent prosecutor?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The special prosecutor statute that Congress used for the Bill Clinton mess lapsed so Congress can no longer appoint them. Only the Attorney General / his/her designee can and to date the Deputy AG, who oversee's the Russia probe has said he will not appoint one. The acting FBI director said one is not needed.

Funny..Of the folks you listed as credible opinions on the matter...

"Only the Attorney General / his/her designee can"
Appointed after Trump fired the Acting AG

"and to date the Deputy AG, who oversee's the Russia probe"
Appointed to the Russia Probe after the AG pretended to recuse himself.

"The acting FBI director said one is not needed."
Appointed after Trump fired the FBI Director..

If anything I think you make a good case for a Special Prosecutor..

The Deputy AG is a US Attorney appointed by Obama and elevated to Deputy AG by a 94-6 vote in the Senate. Are you trying to insinuate he's in Trump's pocket? If so, based on what?

The acting FBI Director was not appointed after Comey was fired, he was the Deputy Director under Obama and remained there when Trump took office, automatically becoming the acting-Director when the Director was fired. He's also a staunch Democrat that's currently under IG investigation for his role in the Clinton email investigation. You're purporting he wouldn't be tough on Trump? Again, based on what?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

You're right; I misspoke.

You're getting good at this!

TheRedneck

It is not being good at whatever "this" is.

It is simply caring about facts and truth.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: alphabetaone

The only logical reasoning I know of that makes sense is that no one wants a special prosecutor, because there's too much dirt to find on both parties.

When you say "no one wants"...no one does not include the entirety of Dems in congress and a few GOP to boot?

DOJ still has over-sight into how many resources the investigation is given and what is made public and if any charges are ever brought?

So when the acting-Director, who as I pointed out in the post above is about as far from a Trump guy as you can get, testified to Congress they had all the resources they needed to conduct the investigation, do you think he was lying? Can you back that up with any facts?

a reply to: face23785

It's obvious to me that the rules both you and alphabetaone live by are frequently ignored in the highest positions of power. As a proud redneck, I oppose that; we have no royalty in America.

Unlike you guys, I have no such restrictions (OK, I do on scientific areas, but not on politics). And the handle is more than a moniker, so I tend to speak out with little abandon when I see corruption. The problem is that corruption is not just the modus operandi of the Democrats... it also permeates the Republicans. The very fact that his own party frequently calls him out is the source of my hope for Trump.

My agenda is far from secret; I have stated it on these boards many times. I want full disclosure of illegal acts in goverment! If James B. Comey openly exposes corruption covered up by the hierarchy in the FBI, I will hail him as a hero! If Donald J. Trump does so, I will hail him the same way. It will surprise me if Comey comes clean, but not if Trump does so... and that alone is the true source of my support for him.

I firmly believe, based on the recent actions of the politicians in DC, that the FBI is a major cover-up operation for DC corruption. If I am proved wrong, I am proved wrong, but I at least want proof one way or another.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Indigo5

Regardless, that was a compliment. I hope you can take it as such.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Indigo5

Talk in DC is typically cheap. If there is final agreement on a special prosecutor, I'll retract my words. Until then, I stand by them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well most of those restrictions are only for active duty. I still can't divulge classified info, and most of the classified info I was privy to is of little intrigue, mostly logistical stuff. I can blast politicians all I want now that I'm retired though haha

originally posted by: face23785

Then we agree it is conditional, not anyone anywhere at any time.

Yes, we do. One thing that isn't (from what I can see) being taken into account is timing....do we know that Comey made that recommendation after Lynch shirked her duty? If he made them before, then the onus is completely on her.

I agree though, that if he made the comments afterwards, it was grossly inappropriate for him to have done so. Even if he thought it, he never should have voiced it.

ETA: I don't mean did he simply repeat afterwards what he had already said privately, I mean the moment he first expressed his view.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

My agenda is far from secret; I have stated it on these boards many times. I want full disclosure of illegal acts in goverment! If James B. Comey openly exposes corruption covered up by the hierarchy in the FBI, I will hail him as a hero! If Donald J. Trump does so, I will hail him the same way. It will surprise me if Comey comes clean, but not if Trump does so... and that alone is the true source of my support for him.

I firmly believe, based on the recent actions of the politicians in DC, that the FBI is a major cover-up operation for DC corruption. If I am proved wrong, I am proved wrong, but I at least want proof one way or another.

TheRedneck

I, too, doubt Comey will come clean about much anything. It really depends on much value he places in the oaths he took upon being appointed. But truth is, sometimes (if not always) you have to break the law to be patriotic. It's highly likely he is more worried about his skin than in saving the American people.

The only patriots we will ever see, are guys/gals that have nothing to lose...how many in D.C. can make that claim?