James Comey, dead man walking

[Civet]

I've generally been trying to avoid making too many personal judgments about Comey's character, but I do believe strongly that law enforcement needs to maintain public confidence. I don't see that as a purely superficial thing, I think it actually affects the ability of law enforcement to serve its vital function in society.
Since Comey has lost the confidence of much of the public at this point, I think it best for him to make a dignified exit.

 

[dudalb]

Agreed. He needs to go. Nobody trusts him now.

 

[Minoosh]

In another thread this same suggestion elicited the response that the media will institute a witch-hunt against Comey to get him removed from position because the media thinks it has been "had".

It sounds vaguely like one of my posts. I wasn't envisioning a witch-hunt against Comey but a backlash from reporters who belatedly realize that they were getting leaked information from unreliable sources. People like Bret Baier. Whether he and his ilk have the CPU power to understand how they've been played is questionable.

If he loses his job, big deal. He'll survive. He's not a "dead man." He could be kept on as a show of bipartisanship or be quietly encouraged to split. It can't feel good for him to know that people under his command attempted end-runs around his relatively straightforward communications with Congress. Putting their faith in the likes of Rudy Giuliani. Good God.

 

[Trebuchet]

Snopes has a story up about a Trump sign in front of Comey's house. It's not clear if he still lives there, or who planted the sign. But the key thing I see is that he bought the really expensive house when he went to work for a hedge fund. Screw hedge funds. Screw Comey. What's he doing at the FBI in the first place?

 

[fuelair]

He knows more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe him. He has a very good brain.

He keeps it in a jar in his desk.

 

[fuelair]

No they don't. In every single state, parents can give up babies for adoption. Neither party is trying to change that.

Yes they can, but they should not be forced to. No matter what is claimed it is quite possible for the child given for adoption may eventually want to find the birth parents. If they do not wish that, it should not be able to happen. Abortion makes sure that does not occur. Abortion should always be a valid and acceptable action for a woman to take IF SHE CHOOSES TO!!!!!
Never forced to do it, never forced not to do it, her choice period.

 

[Minoosh]

Snopes has a story up about a Trump sign in front of Comey's house. It's not clear if he still lives there, or who planted the sign. But the key thing I see is that he bought the really expensive house when he went to work for a hedge fund. Screw hedge funds. Screw Comey. What's he doing at the FBI in the first place?

He's a longstanding bureaucrat with the right sort of credentials to be considered for the job of director of the FBI.

James Comey
Bureaucrats are like anyone else, subject to the Peter Principle. Someone has to be director of the FBI. We want people of sterling character who are competent administrators and whose goal in life is punish bad people. You don't rise to the level of consideration for such jobs without a record in government service and apparently he's been on the side of the angels a few times. It's not really his fault that Hillary screwed up so royally.

 

[wareyin]

Is it my imagination or were people here singing his praises a while back when he recommended no charges for Clinton?

Ranb

I don't remember anyone singing his praises over that, but I do know that he has done a few very important and much discussed things since then. Perhaps you've not been keeping up with the news lately?

 

[Loss Leader]

I had to vote "other" because I think he'll resign at the end of Obama's term, not right after the election.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I had to vote "other" because I think he'll resign at the end of Obama's term, not right after the election.

It only says "after the election" , not specifically when after

 

[Ziggurat]

To give himself a semblance of impartiality? In the meantime, the damage has been done.

And what good is that semblance of impartiality? Democrats hate him anyways, and the damage is significantly less that it might have been, making it more likely that Democrats will be in a position to extract revenge. So it still doesn't make any sense, if hurting Hillary was the goal.

 

[Belz...]

You said Trump has no positions. That was a ridiculous claim, which I disproved. And yet, you want to cling to it. Why?

Because he has no positions. That his website tries to cover that up doesn't change that fact.

Wrong again. I've pointed specifically to two numbers already (violent crime rate and labor participation rate). The reason I'm not obsessing about them is because my position isn't simply an inverse of yours. I'm not claiming everything is terrible like you're claiming everything is great.

I never claimed that everything is great. Why do you continue to engage in these strawmen?

I know exactly what you said.

Then stop playing games.

Let's go back and see:

And as you can see, I never said it wasn't important. You QUOTED me saying something different than you claim. Are you willing to retract your accusation?

Note that I described no policy response to terrorism. Neither did you in this response. You only introduced the policy objection later, as part of your subsequent goalpost move. But it played no part in your initial goalpost placement, which was absolutely about its lack of importance. So no, I didn't lie at all.

Again, there was no goalpost move. Your lack of understanding doesn't constitute a goalpost move.

 

[The Don]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/james-comey-criticized-republicans-democrats-230893

When the leadership of both parties turns on you, you are toast.
What's assume for a moment this was politically motivated and not just CYA (Cover Your A--) gone horribly wrong: The Dems hates your guts,and the GOP thinks you handled it incredibly ineptly.
I also doubt it would take much Political Capital of fire Comey;I doubt the GOP is in much of a mood to defend him.
And he serves at the President's pleasure;FBI chief has to be approved by Congress but ,like cabinent post,the President can fire him whenever he pleases.

Meh, GOP politicians (with a few notable exceptions) have demonstrated again and again that they will do anything to support a fellow Republican and/or undermine someone from the Democratic Party. Look at the way that Cruz, McCain and the rest came back to the Trump fold repeatedly even after everything Trump said or did.

Wind the clock forward a few weeks and any attempt to dispose of Comey by a Democratic Party President will be cast as the most outrageous piece of partisanship and unwarranted revenge-seeking ever - by the same group of people who are currently not rushing to his defence now.

It costs the GOP nothing politically to defend him and it gives them a convenient stick to beat the Democratic Party with, a way of keeping Hillary's e-mails in the public eye (the truth does not matter any more, she is tainted in this regard by sheet repetition) and the germ of an idea to impeach should she become President.

After all, if they want to impeach her over the emails then what better evidence for her wrongdoings than the politically motivated "execution" of a diligent public servant whose only concern was keeping the U.S. safe (or at least that's how it will be spun once the public have forgotten what actually happened).

 

[Ziggurat]

Because he has no positions. That his website tries to cover that up doesn't change that fact.

If you're simply going to deny evidence, what's the point?

I never claimed that everything is great. Why do you continue to engage in these strawmen?

You are in no position to accuse me of straw men, given how constantly you do it to me.

And as you can see, I never said it wasn't important.

You didn't use those words, but that was the clear meaning.

Again, there was no goalpost move. Your lack of understanding doesn't constitute a goalpost move.

I understood perfectly well. You're just trying to make excuses for your own failure.

 

[Belz...]

If you're simply going to deny evidence, what's the point?

I'm not denying the evidence. I'm saying that the evidence provided doesn't support your case.

You are in no position to accuse me of straw men, given how constantly you do it to me.

Tu quoque.

You didn't use those words, but that was the clear meaning.

This sounds like a license to interpret my words as you see fit. I write X, you pretend that I really meant Y despite my objection and the evidence in front of you. If you're simply going to deny evidence, what's the point?

You're just trying to make excuses for your own failure.

I've already explained to you why your interpretation was wrong. You're doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing.

 

[The Don]

It sounds vaguely like one of my posts. I wasn't envisioning a witch-hunt against Comey but a backlash from reporters who belatedly realize that they were getting leaked information from unreliable sources. People like Bret Baier. Whether he and his ilk have the CPU power to understand how they've been played is questionable.

One of my points is that it doesn't matter whether they've been played or not as long as the story has attracted eyeballs to the media outlet - because that's all that really matters. The news is just another part of the entertainment media and as such is under an obligation to generate a profit.

There may be some market for genuinely unbiased news but by and large, these days people want news that confirms their own views and prejudices.

 

[The Don]

I'm surprised that anyone who has actually kept up with the campaign thinks that Trump has a coherent set of policies. Apart from "building a wall and making Mexico pay for it", every policy pronouncement he has made has been contradicted, sometimes in the same sentence.

Even the one constant, "building a wall and making Mexico pay for it" has been subject to refinement, not all of it may be a wall and instead. Mexico may be sent an invoice.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If he wanted to influence the election, why not wait until after Tuesday to announce that nothing changed? It's not like he doesn't have a good excuse on hand, namely that it takes a lot of time to sort through that many emails.

I think, perhaps, in both instances he was trying to get out ahead of potential leaks.

I'm not sure I believe he was trying to influence the election as much as keep the appearance of control within his organization.

That being said - if we want to go all CT, then what he did may have been with thought of Dems win the presidency (because trump), but lose the senate. And I think his letter(s) may have had that effect, tone down support for Clinton enough that she has no coattails.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not denying the evidence. I'm saying that the evidence provided doesn't support your case.

Because reasons.

This sounds like a license to interpret my words as you see fit.

I get to interpret them as the words themselves mean. You aren't Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland. Words have meaning.

If you're simply going to deny evidence, what's the point?

Oh, the irony.

 

[Belz...]

Because reasons.

Yes, reasons I've already explained.

I get to interpret them as the words themselves mean.

You lie. You said youself that I didn't use the words and that you had to interpret the meaning. Now you're pretending that it meant that all along. Stop lying.

Oh, the irony.

Yes, irony was the whole point of my comment: you are engaged in the exact behaviour you decry from others. Beam in your eye and all that.