thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,094
Trump is going to restore the public trust of the FBI by appointing the next FBI head who will be in charge of investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.........
It's like going into a friend's wallet and taking $20. Then,when getting caught doing so, saying "you told me last year I could borrow $20."
Everyone Democrat will be in the Senate tomorrow and will do something big.
I suspect they will threaten to boycott all Senate business until a Special Prosecutor is selected.
Everyone Democrat will be in the Senate tomorrow and will do something big.
I suspect they will threaten to boycott all Senate business until a Special Prosecutor is selected.
I never specified who I of course think Flynn and page did something wrong. I do think Trump has does wrong things (Trump University), but Russian stuff there is a lack of evidence.
I agree, for the moment. That's why I think this might simply be his narcissism at work. Their given reason is clearly nonsense, but while Trump is absurdly corrupt, he's also egotistical, ignorant, and outright stupid. It's entirely possible that he'd wreck his presidency permanently, for an unexpectedly stupid reason.
To Trump's stated delight.If that was the actual reason, why wait 5 months?
These two things can be true at once:
1) Comey mishandled the Clinton email fake scandal.2) It's deeply concerning that Trump fired him.
There is also the matter that the actions aren't Trump's concern as a boss. They were dealt with under Comey's boss at the time, Obama. If it was a fireable offence, then he should have been fired then. If you don't get why then look at it this way. You do something in your job that breeches the rules. Your boss considers it and lets you off with a warning. Six months later a new boss comes in and decides that the warning was insufficient and fires you for something that you didn't even do on his watch and had been actioned already.
]Because changing a person's vote by lying to them is really no different than doing it more directly.
Furthermore, wikileaks is not a private entitty, it is a front and disseminator of Russian propaganda.
If you ask me, this wild speculation regarding Russia and trump belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.
(emphasis added)
The two highlighted phrases are not synonymous.
Just as long as it is gold plated, it's good.What's L. Patrick Gray doing, anyhow? Stilltwisting in the windpushing up the daisies? That'll work fine for Trump, and the Senate will confirm him in a heartbeat.
ETA: Trump really doesn't give a rodent's posterior how things look any more, does he. Oh, wait -- he never did.
That's fairly common these days, at least in terms of misconduct. Think of some of the recent resignations in the National Park Service over sexual harassment issues. Think of Bill O'Rielly - his boss let his get away with it for a long time, but the old boss was fired, and the new bosses fired O'Rielly.
Pray tell, can you find even the slightest sliver of evidence that Trump would do this over Clinton and not over the Russia investigation?
If Trump did this months ago and appointed someone to pursue a Clinton prosecution, that would have made sense. He missed that window and not many people in his base were hammering for a Clinton prosecution.
Suddenly the Senate investigation of Trump/Russia shenanigans isn't going away like the House investigation did. And Comey makes one misspeak about how many emails were on Weiner's laptop, seriously, you think that actually mattered to all-about-me Trump?
Another of my predictions. Trump appoints an FBI director with the goal of quashing the Russia investigation. The FBI rank and file revolt and we start seeing a slew of whistle blowing leaks.
(Goes on to quote the opinions of many former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from both parties)The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his "goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it." But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.
Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would "speak" about the FBI's decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or "conceal" it. "Conceal" is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.
My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. . . .
You think because Comey screwed up in how he addressed Clinton we should be distracted from today when Trump is squirming under the pressure of his Russian issues?I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions to this, but upon reading the reasons, I have to say I agree with them.
Suggested reading:
Rod Rosenstein's letter recommending Comey is fired
(Goes on to quote the opinions of many former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from both parties)
So please stop freaking out. He was fired for cause. Granted, he was in a difficult position, and none of this would have ever happened if Hillary Clinton hadn't decided to set up her own private e-mail server. But, he still made incorrect choices in how to carry out his own job.
I had a similar thought when I first heard the news. It's no secret that the FBI was fully-loaded with Trump supporters. Will they see this as a betrayal?
You think because Comey screwed up in how he addressed Clinton we should be distracted from today when Trump is squirming under the pressure of his Russian issues?