James Comey for President
cramer said:
By the end of the day there will be news that the Judiciary Committee has asked the FBI to investigate whether Clinton lied under oath when she told the House Benghazi Committee that she had turned over all work-related emails.
It's inevitable, as that rodent Chaffetz promised. It may eventually end in 2024.
If Chaffetz should have known it required a referral from Congress. I found the moment he asked how the process worked to be odd. Apparently he knows that Hillary broke the law but doesn't know Congressional procedures.
The Republican Party has no confidence in its ability to sell the country on its vision of governing. It can't or won't appeal to the public on the basis of "small government" or "free markets" so after giving or losing their Party to a "presumptive nominee" who doesn't share much of their philosophy they have substituted Hillary Derangement Syndrome for any coherent platform.
the part that gets lost is that the decision not to prosecute makes perfect sense, and legally it was the right decision. I've posted a few analyses here from other attorneys, and they came to the same conclusion. There is a major difference between Clinton and Petraeus, or any of the whistleblowers who have been prosecuted -- intent. Not one person has alleged that Hillary Clinton intended to give confidential information to someone who is unauthorized to receive it.
Part of me wishes she could have been indicted, so the Democrats could choose another presidential nominee who wouldn't be such a big target for Trump's insane attacks. But the logical part of me knows that there was absolutely no legal basis for charging her with a crime. And yet Comey decided to go beyond the "no indictment" recommendation and give the GOP a bunch of new talking points to use. He's a tool. And I hope the new president asks him for his resignation on January 21.
LOST said:
ice said:
I do not admire Mr. Comey for this. He bent himself into a pretzel ('extremely careless' vs. 'grossly negligent'; saying others would be punished for similar offenses, just not Hillary, on and on...) to get the political result he desired, and one which will help him keep his job after HRC is president. Of all people, the FBI Director should respect the rule of law, yet he has chosen to diminish it.
I do not see where "he has chosen to diminish" the rule of law. However this thread shows how political he is and how political his report was. It was not "political" in the sense of being Republican or Democrat or pro or anti Hillary, but rather political in negotiating a path which protects him from attacks by either side (although some Republicans didn't get the message).
Of course one does not get to be Director of the FBI by scoring high on a Civil Service test.
I have no idea whether he wants to continue as Director if Hillary is elected but it's not a great job interview to call your potential boss "careless" and "negligent" and imply she is stupid.
I'd also say that the fallout from charging Clinton with a crime would have been almost catastrophic. Democrats would have seen it as blatantly political and partisan and many women would have viewed it as "the old boys' network" ganging up on the first woman with a chance to be President.
I was recently reminded that the suicide of Vince Foster was investigated three times.
They'll continue beating this dead horse in the hope of what? Hillary is indicted and Trump loses to Biden or Sanders or Inanimate Carbon Rod instead?
If Comey had recommended indictment DOJ would have been under tremendous pressure to pursue after the incident with the AG and Bill Clinton, but
Would a Grand Jury have actually indicted?
Would the indictment have with stood a motion to quash?
Would any Jury ever have convicted?
Politically, if Comey had recommended indictment would Hillary have pulled out of the race for the nomination? It starts in 2 weeks. Would a Grand Jury have even been convened in that time?
All hypotheticals.
Here's one: If Donald Trump was indicted tomorrow, for anything, does anyone believe it would cause him to drop out?
LOST said:
ice said:
I do not admire Mr. Comey for this. He bent himself into a pretzel ('extremely careless' vs. 'grossly negligent'; saying others would be punished for similar offenses, just not Hillary, on and on...) to get the political result he desired, and one which will help him keep his job after HRC is president. Of all people, the FBI Director should respect the rule of law, yet he has chosen to diminish it.
I do not see where "he has chosen to diminish" the rule of law.
He quite plainly said that others who are equally careless would be subject to sanctions, if not indictment. Hillary is not being subject to anything except embarrassment, which is something a serial liar like her just has to get used to. You have to get pretty technical and do some pretzel bending yoga to explain how this doesn't diminish the rule of law. Some people would be sanctioned, others should not be because of their status, for the same indiscretions. This from the FBI Director.
Will Comey make her a desk plate that says "the buck stops elsewhere"?
ice said:
LOST said:
ice said:
I do not admire Mr. Comey for this. He bent himself into a pretzel ('extremely careless' vs. 'grossly negligent'; saying others would be punished for similar offenses, just not Hillary, on and on...) to get the political result he desired, and one which will help him keep his job after HRC is president. Of all people, the FBI Director should respect the rule of law, yet he has chosen to diminish it.
I do not see where "he has chosen to diminish" the rule of law.
He quite plainly said that others who are equally careless would be subject to sanctions, if not indictment. Hillary is not being subject to anything except embarrassment, which is something a serial liar like her just has to get used to. You have to get pretty technical and do some pretzel bending yoga to explain how this doesn't diminish the rule of law. Some people would be sanctioned, others should not be because of their status, for the same indiscretions. This from the FBI Director.
Will Comey make her a desk plate that says "the buck stops elsewhere"?
No, he said that others who are equally careless AND STILL UNDER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT would be subject to employment-related sanctions. Doesn't apply to Clinton because she is no longer SoS. He clearly stated that such other person would NOT be subject to indictment.
weirdbeard said:
ice said:
LOST said:
ice said:
I do not admire Mr. Comey for this. He bent himself into a pretzel ('extremely careless' vs. 'grossly negligent'; saying others would be punished for similar offenses, just not Hillary, on and on...) to get the political result he desired, and one which will help him keep his job after HRC is president. Of all people, the FBI Director should respect the rule of law, yet he has chosen to diminish it.
I do not see where "he has chosen to diminish" the rule of law.
He quite plainly said that others who are equally careless would be subject to sanctions, if not indictment. Hillary is not being subject to anything except embarrassment, which is something a serial liar like her just has to get used to. You have to get pretty technical and do some pretzel bending yoga to explain how this doesn't diminish the rule of law. Some people would be sanctioned, others should not be because of their status, for the same indiscretions. This from the FBI Director.
Will Comey make her a desk plate that says "the buck stops elsewhere"?
No, he said that others who are equally careless AND STILL UNDER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT would be subject to employment-related sanctions. Doesn't apply to Clinton because she is no longer SoS. He clearly stated that such other person would NOT be subject to indictment.
Important note - "sanctions" and "indictment" are not the same thing.
PVW said:
weirdbeard said:
ice said:
LOST said:
ice said:
I do not admire Mr. Comey for this. He bent himself into a pretzel ('extremely careless' vs. 'grossly negligent'; saying others would be punished for similar offenses, just not Hillary, on and on...) to get the political result he desired, and one which will help him keep his job after HRC is president. Of all people, the FBI Director should respect the rule of law, yet he has chosen to diminish it.
I do not see where "he has chosen to diminish" the rule of law.
He quite plainly said that others who are equally careless would be subject to sanctions, if not indictment. Hillary is not being subject to anything except embarrassment, which is something a serial liar like her just has to get used to. You have to get pretty technical and do some pretzel bending yoga to explain how this doesn't diminish the rule of law. Some people would be sanctioned, others should not be because of their status, for the same indiscretions. This from the FBI Director.
Will Comey make her a desk plate that says "the buck stops elsewhere"?
No, he said that others who are equally careless AND STILL UNDER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT would be subject to employment-related sanctions. Doesn't apply to Clinton because she is no longer SoS. He clearly stated that such other person would NOT be subject to indictment.
Important note - "sanctions" and "indictment" are not the same thing.
That's why I said:
He quite plainly said that others who are equally careless would be subject to sanctions, if not indictment.
Comey has a 10 year appointment to protect him from political pressure and he explained why he arrived at his legal opinion and why he called H FOS on a number of her comments.
ice said:
PVW said:
weirdbeard said:
ice said:
LOST said:
ice said:
I do not admire Mr. Comey for this. He bent himself into a pretzel ('extremely careless' vs. 'grossly negligent'; saying others would be punished for similar offenses, just not Hillary, on and on...) to get the political result he desired, and one which will help him keep his job after HRC is president. Of all people, the FBI Director should respect the rule of law, yet he has chosen to diminish it.
I do not see where "he has chosen to diminish" the rule of law.
He quite plainly said that others who are equally careless would be subject to sanctions, if not indictment. Hillary is not being subject to anything except embarrassment, which is something a serial liar like her just has to get used to. You have to get pretty technical and do some pretzel bending yoga to explain how this doesn't diminish the rule of law. Some people would be sanctioned, others should not be because of their status, for the same indiscretions. This from the FBI Director.
Will Comey make her a desk plate that says "the buck stops elsewhere"?
No, he said that others who are equally careless AND STILL UNDER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT would be subject to employment-related sanctions. Doesn't apply to Clinton because she is no longer SoS. He clearly stated that such other person would NOT be subject to indictment.
Important note - "sanctions" and "indictment" are not the same thing.
That's why I said:
He quite plainly said that others who are equally careless would be subject to sanctions, if not indictment.
Yes, but I've also seen people being a bit loose and writing/talking as if these are interchangeable, so thought it worth dropping a little reminder that they're quite different.
ice said:
PVW said:
weirdbeard said:
ice said:
LOST said:
ice said:
I do not admire Mr. Comey for this. He bent himself into a pretzel ('extremely careless' vs. 'grossly negligent'; saying others would be punished for similar offenses, just not Hillary, on and on...) to get the political result he desired, and one which will help him keep his job after HRC is president. Of all people, the FBI Director should respect the rule of law, yet he has chosen to diminish it.
I do not see where "he has chosen to diminish" the rule of law.
He quite plainly said that others who are equally careless would be subject to sanctions, if not indictment. Hillary is not being subject to anything except embarrassment, which is something a serial liar like her just has to get used to. You have to get pretty technical and do some pretzel bending yoga to explain how this doesn't diminish the rule of law. Some people would be sanctioned, others should not be because of their status, for the same indiscretions. This from the FBI Director.
Will Comey make her a desk plate that says "the buck stops elsewhere"?
No, he said that others who are equally careless AND STILL UNDER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT would be subject to employment-related sanctions. Doesn't apply to Clinton because she is no longer SoS. He clearly stated that such other person would NOT be subject to indictment.
Important note - "sanctions" and "indictment" are not the same thing.
That's why I said:
He quite plainly said that others who are equally careless would be subject to sanctions, if not indictment.
And that does not, in any way, diminish the law. It is exactly following the law.
ice said:
That's why I said:
He quite plainly said that others who are equally careless would be subject to sanctions, if not indictment.
Except you still have it wrong...surprise ! He said that current employees would be subject to a "robust" sanctions review, up to and including termination. He reiterated that the "carelessness" would not be criminally chargeable.
BCC said:
Comey has a 10 year appointment to protect him from political pressure
I had the same thought earlier today, but after boning up a bit on the protections I concluded that there's not a whole lot an FBI director can do to keep a president from firing him or her if the president really wants to. "For cause" gives the chief executive a lot of latitude.
DaveSchmidt said:
BCC said:
Comey has a 10 year appointment to protect him from political pressure
I had the same thought earlier today, but after boning up a bit on the protections I concluded that there's not a whole lot an FBI director can do to keep a president from firing him or her if the president really wants to. "For cause" gives the chief executive a lot of latitude.
You're probably right but getting rid of Comey might not be that easy. He doesn't serve at the pleasure of the President and there would have to be some strong evidence of misconduct if he chose to fight his removal.
.
BCC said:
DaveSchmidt said:
BCC said:
Comey has a 10 year appointment to protect him from political pressure
I had the same thought earlier today, but after boning up a bit on the protections I concluded that there's not a whole lot an FBI director can do to keep a president from firing him or her if the president really wants to. "For cause" gives the chief executive a lot of latitude.
You're probably right but getting rid of Comey might not be that easy. He doesn't serve at the pleasure of the President and there would have to be some strong evidence of misconduct if he chose to fight his removal.
.
Did that change? Because in 1993, when President Clinton dismissed Director Sessions, this article says that the Director does serve at the pleasure of the president.
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-20/news/mn-15006_1_law-enforcement-agencies
ETA relevant graf:
"Clinton dismissed Sessions after the director rejected Administration entreaties to resign, contending that to voluntarily step down would violate the principle of an independent FBI. The FBI director is appointed to a 10-year term but serves at the pleasure of the President.
I would not be surprised by his resignation at the beginning of the next administration. I doubt he would have any difficulty finding a job at many times his present salary.
BCC said:
Technically you are right. He can dump the FBI Director - for cause.
Got it. There's no cause here at this point, so I expect him to continue his 10 years unless he decides his statements make it impossible to work for Clinton and he resigns.
ridski said:
BCC said:
Technically you are right. He can dump the FBI Director - for cause.
Got it. There's no cause here at this point, so I expect him to continue his 10 years unless he decides his statements make it impossible to work for Clinton and he resigns.
Call me naive, but I would think that the President would benefit from having a degree of indepence in some positions such as Director of the FBI. If you don't have people around you who can tell you when you are FOS, you are going to get in trouble.
tjohn said:
ridski said:
BCC said:
Technically you are right. He can dump the FBI Director - for cause.
Got it. There's no cause here at this point, so I expect him to continue his 10 years unless he decides his statements make it impossible to work for Clinton and he resigns.
Call me naive, but I would think that the President would benefit from having a degree of indepence in some positions such as Director of the FBI. If you don't have people around you who can tell you when you are FOS, you are going to get in trouble.
That's not naive, it's correct. But I don't think Hillary Clinton subscribes to that philosophy.
If Clinton wins and Comey were to stay on as Director of the FBI, there would always be accusations that a deal was made. It's highly doubtful that Comey will stay on.
I think you're right. There were some hints that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation. That would further complicate things, we'll have to wait and see.
tjohn said:
ridski said:
BCC said:
Technically you are right. He can dump the FBI Director - for cause.
Got it. There's no cause here at this point, so I expect him to continue his 10 years unless he decides his statements make it impossible to work for Clinton and he resigns.
Call me naive, but I would think that the President would benefit from having a degree of indepence in some positions such as Director of the FBI. If you don't have people around you who can tell you when you are FOS, you are going to get in trouble.
You're right, he/she would benefit from it but it would be interesting to find out how many chose that option.
Who would be the 'no' person in Obama's administration? Closest I can come is the Secretaries of Defense and it seems he didn't listen to them.
I do not see where "he has chosen to diminish" the rule of law. However this thread shows how political he is and how political his report was. It was not "political" in the sense of being Republican or Democrat or pro or anti Hillary, but rather political in negotiating a path which protects him from attacks by either side (although some Republicans didn't get the message).
Of course one does not get to be Director of the FBI by scoring high on a Civil Service test.
I have no idea whether he wants to continue as Director if Hillary is elected but it's not a great job interview to call your potential boss "careless" and "negligent" and imply she is stupid.
I'd also say that the fallout from charging Clinton with a crime would have been almost catastrophic. Democrats would have seen it as blatantly political and partisan and many women would have viewed it as "the old boys' network" ganging up on the first woman with a chance to be President.