US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

There are no federal laws prohibiting egotistical, unprepared, inexperienced, buffoons from being president... even if they do dumb stuff.

Or congress men who only support Trump and delay rebellion due to realising that with the plebs that voted Trump he still is popular, and so rebelling against him would threaten their own re-election.

Enjoy.

Trump has moved closer to impeachment, but he is not really close to it.

[em2nought]

So I picked up a nice new rifle today, heavy barrel for prolonged firing. Too bad I'm fat and old though, I'll probably end up like those at the beginning of Zombieland if armed rebellion comes.

[mapuc]

Now I can't remember his name-I saw about 10 minutes ago more or less some Republican on a press meeting saying things that made me remember what August had posted on the page before this page.

Why didn't the FBI director go directly to Justice-something.

It made me wonder-why did he wait until now ?

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Now I can't remember his name-I saw about 10 minutes ago more or less some Republican on a press meeting saying things that made me remember what August had posted on the page before this page.

Why didn't the FBI director go directly to Justice-something.

It made me wonder-why did he wait until now ?

Markus

Off the top of my head I can think of two possible reasons.

Either he didn't think what Trump said constituted a violation of the law or he kept these notes (which we haven't seen yet btw) as an insurance against being fired or as revenge in case of it. Both make his testimony somewhat suspect but i'll wait to hear what he has to say when he testifies or if these notes (or Trumps tapes) are made public.

[GT182]

No matter what Trump does, someone will bitch about it and try to get him impeached..... the Press, Democrats, H. Clinton, and some Republicans.

I think Comey is out for revenge for his being fired... pure and simple. IF he has notes they could have been written at any time..... before or just a few days or so after being fired.

[August]

Here's what Comey had to say on May 3rd about being told to stop an investigation.

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where often times they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1705/03/wolf.02.html

So what changed since May 3rd?

Did Comey lie to Congress then or is he lying (if you can believe what the NYT says he says) now?

[Dowly]

Fox News now too confirms the existence of the "Comey memo".

Comey was prodigious note-taker; more memos may exist, sources say

In February, Comey wrote in a memo that Trump had asked him to
shut down the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn. The memo's existence was first reported Tuesday by The New York
Times and was confirmed by Fox News Wednesday.

Also, from the same article:

Following the memo's release, some congressional Republicans
criticized Comey for not reporting the conversation with Trump to his
superiors at the Justice Department. However, a former U.S. government
official told Fox News, "That's not how it works."

Comey was conducting an investigation as to whether President Trump was
colluding with the Russian government," the official said. "He’s not going to
stop that in order to blow the whistle on a smaller crime (obstruction of justice)."

[vienna]

Context is everything; here's context:

[Senator] HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

The question was specific to the ability of the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice being able to halt an investigation; what you have here is a specific answer to a specific question; had a Senate committee member asked specifically if the President had sought to impede or halt an investigation or legal process, then the answer would have been different; as it stands, the quote cited is not by any stretch an indication of perjury or, even, evasion; if they wanted a specific answer to a specific question, they got it...

Comey was still FBI Director and he had a job to do and part of that job was the continuing investigation of the Russian influence allegations and the possible connection to the Trump election campaign. He had to be very careful about what he said so as not to tip the FBI's hand as to what the agency knew and he still has to be mindful, even after being fired, since the investigation is still ongoing...

The question was raised in an earlier post, citing a Fox News Op-Ed piece, of why Comey did not report or express his concerns to higher officials at the Department of Justice; there is a two word answer: Jeff Sessions. As attorney General, Sessions has shown himself, aside from being highly unqualified for the AG post, as someone who is more a loyalist to Trump than he is to the Constitution and the rule of law. Sessions is so tainted, personally, by the Russia scandal that, after lying to Congress on specific questions, under oath and penalty of perjury, he had to recuse himself from any involvement in the investigations or legal proceedings related to the scandals. This is not the person with whom anyone would feel confident in sharing concerns about the conduct of the President, particularly if you knew he would just go scurrying off to the White House to tip off Trump. Until he was fired, Comey was in the position of having to be wary of Sessions' influence on the investigations his agency was carrying out; for him there was no one higher up who could be fully trusted...

Comey's apparent uneasiness about trusting higher-ups is not with precedent and context. For those of us who can remember the Nixon-Watergate scandal vividly, the code name "Deep Throat" is very familiar. He was the then anonymous source for the Washington Post reporters who broke open the scandal that led to the ouster of Nixon. About three decades after Watergate, the name of the anonymous "Deep Throat" source was revealed: he was Mark Felt, a career FBI agent who at the time he was "Deep Throat" was serving in the capacity of Deputy Director of the FBI, the second highest position in the agency...

The questions about Comey's memos and notes seem to imply they could have been 'created' after the fact or some such situation. It has been common practice for lawyers, and their staffs, to keep detailed notes and archives of memoranda and other documentation regarding interactions both within and outside their practices. Over 40 years ago, I went to work, for the first time, at a large law firm and was introduced to the whole legal profession's 'document everything' mindset; even though I had come from an audit accounting background, the law firm's standards for documentation was stricter than I had encountered at the banks that had employed me, and those are very strict; and law firms are very diligent about archiving everything, often in excess of any legislated or mandated requirements; 'Cover Your Ass' (CYA) is the mantra of legal practice. I have little doubt Comey, and the vast majority of FBI investigators, ever really deviate or ignore CYA in their dealings. Given how dodgy the tenor and conduct of the Trump administration has been, it would be a reasonable guess Comey, and perhaps others, had/have been extra diligent in their documentation. Consider this: if Comey either discussed with or had shown other FBI associates evidence or indications of concerns about Trump & Co., how likely is it at least one, if not more of them, had made their own notes about the discussion(s)? Corroboration of Comey's memos is not a farfetched idea...

As far as the possibility of the memos being made up after the fact, when a Director, senior official, or any other person charged with investigations is either dismissed or resigns, the standard protocol is to immediately secure and preserve their work product, sort of the government's own version of CYA. Unless someone can pull off a caper that would strain the credulity of even the most far-fetched spy novelist's imagination, the possibility is virtually nil...

[ikalugin]

C'mon. Is 1+1 really 11 ?

Depending on how you define "+" operation - sure. May even be a commutative group.

[ikalugin]

Possibly related to the Russia-Trump story:
http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54479

[vienna]

It's all Greek to me...




<O>

[August]

I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

In case anyone is fooled by this latest media dog and pony show, that's the important part of what Comey said. Note that the prodigious note taker and legal expert does not qualify his statement with "Unless anyone else asks me then i'll keep it secret unless I get fired" nor does he say that "this only applies to the justice department anyone else gets a pass".

Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would (or should at least) result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361)

He did not do that so no violation, just more of a hostile political media putting the worst possible spin on anything to do with the president. If Trump said "I like puppies" the NYT headline the next day would be "Trump hates kittens". Do not take what they say as anything but the political lies they are.

If anyone actually wants the facts they'll have to wait for the hearings and see whether Trumps tapes, if they exist, contradict what Comey testifies, but unless there is something more substantial my money is on Trump being vindicated.

Folks make no mistake, this is the so called Deep State fighting for it's survival and their treason is being gleefully abetted by power hungry Democrats. Given the power of their allies in the press they have a fair chance of succeeding but if they do they will put this country on the path to civil war.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

In case anyone is fooled by this latest media dog and pony show, that's the important part of what Comey said. Note that the prodigious note taker and legal expert does not qualify his statement with "Unless anyone else asks me then i'll keep it secret unless I get fired" nor does he say that "this only applies to the justice department anyone else gets a pass".

Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would (or should at least) result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361)

He did not do that so no violation, just more of a hostile political media putting the worst possible spin on anything to do with the president. If Trump said "I like puppies" the NYT headline the next day would be "Trump hates kittens". Do not take what they say as anything but the political lies they are.

If anyone actually wants the facts they'll have to wait for the hearings and see whether Trumps tapes, if they exist, contradict what Comey testifies, but unless there is something more substantial my money is on Trump being vindicated.

Folks make no mistake, this is the so called Deep State fighting for it's survival and their treason is being gleefully abetted by power hungry Democrats. Given the power of their allies in the press they have a fair chance of succeeding but if they do they will put this country on the path to civil war.

He didn't have to qualify it, the qualifier is in the exact text of the question, specifically referencing "the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice"; its Law School 101: answer only the question asked, exactly as asked -- do not offer any other information other than what is asked for; this goes hand-in-hand with that other basic rule of question and testimony: don't ask a question for which you don't have a very good idea of the answer. There is also the matter that, at the time of the testimony, the FBI had an open investigation into the Russian-Trump Campaign matter and it is a fair statement to say the integrity of the very serious investigation supersedes the Senate panel's intentions. Loose lips sink ships, something somebody ought to teach that blowhard Trump...

I'm going to guess you got your legal cites (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) from the op-ed piece by Fox News personality Gregg Jarrett; here is another piece explaining the fallacies of Jarrett's claims, by Robert Chesney, who has an extensive legal background including as a professor of Constitutional Law and having worked at the DOJ on intelligence issues, I'd say a bit better than a Fox 'talking head':

No, Jim Comey Is Not In Legal Jeopardy --

https://lawfareblog.com/no-jim-comey-not-legal-jeopardy



<O>

[Rockstar]

Thats great you found another opinion, mystery solved.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I think, but I'm not sure, that this is the point:

It's more of a deflection rather than a direct answer. That's why I don't post in here very often.