patrick.net

Not really--some are unknown, some are lies, and 1-2 are probably true.

joeyjojojunior says

bwahahaha. Number 4 is the exact OPPOSITE of the truth that Comey testified.

BURR: Are you confident that no votes cast in the 2016 presidential election were altered?

COMEY: I'm confident. When I left as director I had seen no indication of that whatsoever.

Stop spreading Fake News.

Impact means more than just physically altering a cast vote

TwoScoopsMcGee says

bob2356 says

No there aren't any reasons for the president to directly interact with the FBI.

Watch the damn video. The President can tell the FBI Head to investigate or to drop the investigation, that he's fired, or whatever the hell else he wants.

Remember Clinton and William Sessions? Bush and Caspar Weinberger?

Visit planet earth much? Weinberger was sec of defense not head of the FBI. Sessions was fired based on an investigation by the Bush I administration that turned up serious financial and ethical problems. Clinton didn't meet with him.

The president can do whatever the hell he wants, but he has to take the heat for doing it. The last president to stop an FBI investigation was Nixon. That worked out well for Nixon.

Presidents have always dealt with the head of the FBI through the AG. There is no reason for the president to meet the head of the FBI directly.

bob2356 says

TwoScoopsMcGee says

bob2356 says

No there aren't any reasons for the president to directly interact with the FBI.

Watch the damn video. The President can tell the FBI Head to investigate or to drop the investigation, that he's fired, or whatever the hell else he wants.

Remember Clinton and William Sessions? Bush and Caspar Weinberger?

Visit planet earth much? Weinberger was sec of defense not head of the FBI. Sessions was fired based on an investigation by the Bush I administration that turned up serious financial and ethical problems. Clinton didn't meet with him.

The president can do whatever the hell he wants, but he has to take the heat for doing it. The last president to stop an FBI investigation was Nixon. That worked out well for Nixon.

Presidents ...

The FBI is under the jurisdiction and reports to the DOJ. All serve to the honor and under the pleasure of the President. To say "There is no reason" is subjective....meaning it's your opinion.

Comey has proven to be a bad actor. It was not his place to determine charges against Hillary Clinton, this is the responsibility of the DOJ. That the DOJ refused, or deferred to the FBI does not change this fact. It was completely wrong. In essence, he became the detective, prosecutor and judge. In the Trump instance, he again assumed this role by purposefully leaking confidential conversations with a sitting President with the expressed objective to prompt a Special Prosecutor based on no evidence and only on his "opinion". Circumventing all appropriate options availed to him, this decision and action was designed to manipulate the normal process. Again, it is not his role.

One can argue his positions and opinions, yet not argue the fact that he has lost his objectivity by his decisions, and by his actions. When the FBI losses it's objectivity, it losses it's credibility. Think what you may of Trump, yet he had no choice but to fire him.

Wow-what a bunch of revisionist history there. He leaked the memos AFTER he was fired so that has no bearing on Trump's decision to fire him which Trump himself has said was due to the Russian investigation.

joeyjojojunior says

Wow-what a bunch of revisionist history there. He leaked the memos AFTER he was fired so that has no bearing on Trump's decision to fire him which Trump himself has said was due to the Russian investigation.

That's correct, yet when he leaked anything has no bearing on the fact as director he failed to act upon his concerns through the normal process, a process meant to prevent precisely what has transpired.

Also, Trump said he fired Comey for his handling of the Clinton investigation. Later he made comments that his firing would take some "pressure" off the distraction of the Russian investigation. That's not the same as firing him because the Russian investigation. Look, I'm not a fan of the way Trump projects himself, yet in order to maintain some measure of objectivity we need to look at facts.

Comey acted outside of his role and responsibility in a number of important instances and these are simply facts. Trump may have colluded with the Russians, he may have fired Comey to obstruct the Russian investigation, he may have done many illegal things yet there are no facts to back those claims...merely opinions.

bob2356 says

Visit planet earth much? Weinberger was sec of defense not head of the FBI. Sessions was fired based on an investigation by the Bush I administration that turned up serious financial and ethical problems. Clinton didn't meet with him.

No Shit Sherlock. I never said Weinberger was head of the FBI. What did Bush do? Pardoned him and several others, and the special counsel whinged like a bitch. But not obstruction of justice.

Also, Clinton fired FBI Head William Sessions.

There is no "Independent FBI", it doesn't exist and never has. Indeed, because of Hoover, Heads of FBI have had term limits added to their time in office.

If Trump wanted to protect Flynn so badly, he'd just have pardoned him and that would have been the end of it.

"That's correct, yet when he leaked anything has no bearing on the fact as director he failed to act upon his concerns through the normal process, a process meant to prevent precisely what has transpired."

Well, that's kind of tough when the AG is also deeply involved as a subject of the investigation. But, he did let the assistant AG know of his concerns so I'm not sure what you are referencing.

"Also, Trump said he fired Comey for his handling of the Clinton investigation"

Yes, that's one of the 3 or 4 explanations that were given. Clearly that one was a lie.

"Comey acted outside of his role and responsibility in a number of important instances and these are simply facts"

Nope--that's an OPINION of yours. Which I find wholly unsupported by the evidence.

"If Trump wanted to protect Flynn so badly, he'd just have pardoned him and that would have been the end of it."

Doubtful. Flynn is one of the aspects of the investigation but far from the entire inquiry. Pardoning him would have eliminated the possibility of any criminal charges arising from the investigation, but it wouldn't have stopped the investigation itself. Especially now that Kushner, Sessions, as well as Manafort and Page appear to be involved.

"Comey acted outside of his role and responsibility in a number of important instances and these are simply facts"
Nope--that's an OPINION of yours. Which I find wholly unsupported by the evidence.

The FBI does not prosecute, nor even make judgments for prosecution. They gather and collect information that is reported to the DOJ. It's the DOJ's responsibility to make determinations of prosecution or not. I mean, really....that's how it works. That's not my opinion, it is a fact. That the DOJ refused, or deferred back to the FBI that responsibility doesn't change that fact. Let's say Comey decided otherwise and Hillary should be prosecuted for a crime...who does that? Jim Comey? It was not his role or responsibility and that isn't my opinion, it's the law. If you can't accept that fact, there's no point discussing anything else really.

"The FBI does not prosecute, nor even make judgments for prosecution. They gather and collect information that is reported to the DOJ. It's the DOJ's responsibility to make determinations of prosecution or not. I mean, really....that's how it works. That's not my opinion, it is a fact. That the DOJ refused, or deferred back to the FBI that responsibility doesn't change that fact. Let's say Comey decided otherwise and Hillary should be prosecuted for a crime...who does that? Jim Comey? It was not his role or responsibility and that isn't my opinion, it's the law. If you can't accept that fact, there's no point discussing anything else really."

I don't disagree with the role of the FBI, only your interpretation of what happened in the Clinton case. The FBI gave a recommendation to the Justice Dept. which the DOJ could accept or reject. In this case the DOJ accepted. A recommendation is NOT a determination--DOJ makes the determination.

The FBI director works for the AG, so if the AG says to make a recommendation, then it sure as hell is his responsibility to do so.

"I don't disagree with the role of the FBI, only your interpretation of what happened in the Clinton case. The FBI gave a recommendation to the Justice Dept. which the DOJ could accept or reject. In this case the DOJ accepted. A recommendation is NOT a determination--DOJ makes the determination.
The FBI director works for the AG, so if the AG says to make a recommendation, then it sure as hell is his responsibility to do so."

The DOJ considered no information, reviewed no evidence or data collected and made no determination, it deferred that to the FBI by announcing it would accept the FBI's recommendations as conclusive. Saying in essence, the FBI's recommendations were the DOJ's determination. That is not the role and responsibility of the FBI. That may seem like semantics to you, however it is in fact highly inappropriate. As inappropriate as Comey's very public spectacle regarding the investigation and it's final recommendations. That makes for great TV, but poor justice.

sagacious1 says

The DOJ considered no information, reviewed no evidence or data collected and made no determination

And you know this how exactly? Were you working in the DOJ at the time?

sagacious1 says

That is not the role and responsibility of the FBI. That may seem like semantics to you, however it is in fact highly inappropriate. As inappropriate as Comey's very public spectacle regarding the investigation and it's final recommendations. That makes for great TV, but poor justice.

It's not semantics at all. The DOJ is well within their rights to accept the FBI recommendation and there is absolutely NOTHING inappropriate at all. Again-the DOJ made the determination based on the FBI recommendation.

Loretta Lynch announced well in advance of the FBI's investigative conclusion, of her intentions of accepting it's recommendations as the determination. This is where it becomes interesting....why would the DOJ agree to accept the recommendation's of an underling departments findings before the investigations conclusion? It's possible she felt political pressure coming on the heels of her famous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. There was a call for her to recuse herself at that time, which she promptly rejected. Yet, she agreed to defer any determination to the FBI recommendations, which is a quasi-recusal of sorts. Perhaps she felt this removed responsibility from the DOJ and erasing any hint of bias.

The unfortunate consequence however, of empowering the FBI with inappropriate powers is that when "new" evidence arose, Comey felt obligated to "reopen" the investigation ( defiantly against Loretta Lynch's directive) in order to justify the ominous and inappropriate responsibility the DOJ foisted upon him earlier....and we know how that came down.

This is how stuff gets messed up....

It was actually a recommendation from the FBI and career prosecutors at the DOJ. It wasn't from Comey and the FBI alone.

Let's remember the President removed Comey on the recommendation of Deputy AG Rosenstein backed by his boss, AG Sessions. The grounds were pretty obvious: Comey was a distraction.

And he was, because depending on the issue, BOTH Republicans and Democrats alternately blasted and praised him. I remember there was "Democrat Criticism Denial" of all the times Democratic Politicians either strongly criticized him, implied he should resign, or outright called for his removal or resignation. In Mad Maxine's case, he should have been fired by Hillary who-shoulda-won, but not by Trump, who-actually-won.

joeyjojojunior says

It was actually a recommendation from the FBI and career prosecutors at the DOJ. It wasn't from Comey and the FBI alone.

It's silly to belabor the point....it clearly wasn't Loretta Lynch speaking at that public spectacle, and it was correctly understood by all that Comey was making the ultimate decision. It was completely wrong, and set in motion a cascade of further improper decisions which actually contributed to Clinton's loss, culminated in tarnishing the FBI, leading to Comey's removal and subsequent leaking of confidential memo's. It's not his 1st time at the rodeo, Comey knew better.

A once highly respected criminal division has become a comical spectacle, and finds itself the pivotal component of a political firestorm.....a place it does not belong... It is not by happenstance, nor is it entirely Trumps doing.

I have no political affiliation, and I have plenty misgivings regarding Trump, yet if we can't discuss issues objectively there's really no point.

You're not making a good case for "no political affiliation" by stating that Comey's decision on Clinton led to his removal.

Not sure how I'm not being objective--I'm just trying correct your inaccuracies on this matter. The final decision rested with Lynch and she delegated it to a group of senior, respected prosecutors at DOJ along with the FBI (all folks that work for her). I fail to see the problem.

"You're not making a good case for "no political affiliation" by stating that Comey's decision on Clinton led to his removal.
Not sure how I'm not being objective--I'm just trying correct your inaccuracies on this matter. The final decision rested with Lynch and she delegated it to a group of senior, respected prosecutors at DOJ along with the FBI (all folks that work for her). I fail to see the problem."

This exchange underscores a significant problem within the country, namely: The highly polarized nature of the citizenry. When every event, every issue is viewed through the prism of opposition. By definition, a polarized society lacks objectivity.

Regardless of who is president, Comey needed to go as the FBI had lost it's credibility. This president stated it was for the handling of the Clinton matter, and whether you believe him or not, that is a legitimate reason. If I were to attach sinister motive to his decision, it would be that he did not do so directly after taking office, and that does give me pause. Still, it was the correct thing to do.

There remains a consistent undercurrent of propaganda which seeks to delegitimize this president. To create question as to his rightful seat as leader of this country. That the election was stolen, or not proper...that some untoward nefarious "thing" or "things" occurred which allowed him to become president. For his part, Trump has a tendency to fixate on this propaganda. This is not good. It propagates the polarization of the citizens, and blinds them from objectivity and creates a hindrance to the truth.