OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 29, 2019 19:48:50 GMT -5
Comey gave Hillary a break, now the DOJ at the direction of Hillary give Comey a break. see how that works! Hillary runs the DOJ? Who knew! That and the FBI, they did her bidding on that failed Russian thing!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,490
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 29, 2019 19:50:13 GMT -5
Hillary runs the DOJ? Who knew! That and the FBI, they did her bidding on that failed Russian thing! Absolutely moronic. Seek help.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 29, 2019 20:00:32 GMT -5
Is breaking that particular procedure actually breaking any laws? If not I agree it would have been grounds for termination and you would check the box not to rehire, but if it was breaking a law I'm curious why they declined to prosecute. A procedure in an employee handbook is not the same as a law, so like you said, certainly grounds for termination but certainly not grounds for prosecution. Question for you or anyone else. Don't FBI agents as well as Executives in the FBI and most Federal and state employees have to sign a handbook explaining the do's and don't's of their position and duties? I am sure even Comey had to sign that he read and understood his responsibilities as well as anything not allowed to do. I know in the private business sector this is sop. When you openly break Federal rules in place you can be charged with a crime if the violation warrants it. If you do not believe this ask the sailor who took pictures of the submarine he was assigned to. As in the military, FBI agents take a pledge to enforce the law as well as procedutres.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by tbop77 on Aug 30, 2019 5:42:41 GMT -5
A procedure in an employee handbook is not the same as a law, so like you said, certainly grounds for termination but certainly not grounds for prosecution. Question for you or anyone else. Don't FBI agents as well as Executives in the FBI and most Federal and state employees have to sign a handbook explaining the do's and don't's of their position and duties? I am sure even Comey had to sign that he read and understood his responsibilities as well as anything not allowed to do. I know in the private business sector this is sop. When you openly break Federal rules in place you can be charged with a crime if the violation warrants it. If you do not believe this ask the sailor who took pictures of the submarine he was assigned to. As in the military, FBI agents take a pledge to enforce the law as well as procedutres. Does the President of the United States place his hand on the bible and swear to uphold the Constitution? Just wondering.....
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,893
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 30, 2019 7:09:11 GMT -5
A procedure in an employee handbook is not the same as a law, so like you said, certainly grounds for termination but certainly not grounds for prosecution. Question for you or anyone else. Don't FBI agents as well as Executives in the FBI and most Federal and state employees have to sign a handbook explaining the do's and don't's of their position and duties? I am sure even Comey had to sign that he read and understood his responsibilities as well as anything not allowed to do. I know in the private business sector this is sop. When you openly break Federal rules in place you can be charged with a crime if the violation warrants it. If you do not believe this ask the sailor who took pictures of the submarine he was assigned to. As in the military, FBI agents take a pledge to enforce the law as well as procedutres. From what I read, what Comey did in violation of the rules was to keep a copy of the memo he made about his conversation with Trump where Trump pressured him to back off (I think it was the Flynn investigation). Comey write a memo to the file (which is standard practice in the FBI) and then took a copy home with him, which is against the FBI rules.
So let's exam why Comey, a high ranking FBI agent, broke this rule. He knew Trump was asking him to do something illegal and unethical. He did not trust Trump, and wanted to document their conversation in case Trump turned on him (which Trump did). He thought the best way to document it was to keep a copy at his house, because he knew Trump could bring in a Trump toady (which he did) who might destroy Comey's files if they said unflattering things about the president. Then, Trump turned on him and began trash talking him, lying about what actually happened, and Comey gave the memo (which was not classified information) to a friend, so the friend could leak it to the news media.
If you were a government official reviewing this case, would you stick with the "Comey did something against the rules and needs to be prosecuted" line, or would you stick with the "Comey witnessed Trump being unethical/illegal and wanted to preserve the evidence of this crime for his own protection so he fudged the rule" route?
Sometimes, there are legitimate reasons (self preservation, preserving critical evidence, exposing a lying president) for people to break the laws. My guess is, whoever did this review recognized that and decided not to aggressively prosecute Comey, given the circumstances.
You clearly believe any violation of the federal laws should be prosecuted, which is fine, but then you need to also demand that for Trump, his administration, and his family, too - the law is the law, if Comey needs to be punished, so do a whole bunch of other people.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 30, 2019 8:07:50 GMT -5
Question for you or anyone else. Don't FBI agents as well as Executives in the FBI and most Federal and state employees have to sign a handbook explaining the do's and don't's of their position and duties? I am sure even Comey had to sign that he read and understood his responsibilities as well as anything not allowed to do. I know in the private business sector this is sop. When you openly break Federal rules in place you can be charged with a crime if the violation warrants it. If you do not believe this ask the sailor who took pictures of the submarine he was assigned to. As in the military, FBI agents take a pledge to enforce the law as well as procedutres. From what I read, what Comey did in violation of the rules was to keep a copy of the memo he made about his conversation with Trump where Trump pressured him to back off (I think it was the Flynn investigation). Comey write a memo to the file (which is standard practice in the FBI) and then took a copy home with him, which is against the FBI rules.
So let's exam why Comey, a high ranking FBI agent, broke this rule. He knew Trump was asking him to do something illegal and unethical. He did not trust Trump, and wanted to document their conversation in case Trump turned on him (which Trump did). He thought the best way to document it was to keep a copy at his house, because he knew Trump could bring in a Trump toady (which he did) who might destroy Comey's files if they said unflattering things about the president. Then, Trump turned on him and began trash talking him, lying about what actually happened, and Comey gave the memo (which was not classified information) to a friend, so the friend could leak it to the news media.
If you were a government official reviewing this case, would you stick with the "Comey did something against the rules and needs to be prosecuted" line, or would you stick with the "Comey witnessed Trump being unethical/illegal and wanted to preserve the evidence of this crime for his own protection so he fudged the rule" route?
Sometimes, there are legitimate reasons (self preservation, preserving critical evidence, exposing a lying president) for people to break the laws. My guess is, whoever did this review recognized that and decided not to aggressively prosecute Comey, given the circumstances.
You clearly believe any violation of the federal laws should be prosecuted, which is fine, but then you need to also demand that for Trump, his administration, and his family, too - the law is the law, if Comey needs to be punished, so do a whole bunch of other people.
So your fine with the Department of Justice and FBI leaders to break laws, and to try to force a sitting P[resident out of office illegally. Got it. My hope believe it or not, is it does not come out that the Obama Administration was in on this. I want to believe Obama was better than this.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 17:11:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 8:23:22 GMT -5
Is there any place on the planet that it isn't that? No. Never will be.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,490
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 30, 2019 10:19:44 GMT -5
From what I read, what Comey did in violation of the rules was to keep a copy of the memo he made about his conversation with Trump where Trump pressured him to back off (I think it was the Flynn investigation). Comey write a memo to the file (which is standard practice in the FBI) and then took a copy home with him, which is against the FBI rules.
So let's exam why Comey, a high ranking FBI agent, broke this rule. He knew Trump was asking him to do something illegal and unethical. He did not trust Trump, and wanted to document their conversation in case Trump turned on him (which Trump did). He thought the best way to document it was to keep a copy at his house, because he knew Trump could bring in a Trump toady (which he did) who might destroy Comey's files if they said unflattering things about the president. Then, Trump turned on him and began trash talking him, lying about what actually happened, and Comey gave the memo (which was not classified information) to a friend, so the friend could leak it to the news media.
If you were a government official reviewing this case, would you stick with the "Comey did something against the rules and needs to be prosecuted" line, or would you stick with the "Comey witnessed Trump being unethical/illegal and wanted to preserve the evidence of this crime for his own protection so he fudged the rule" route?
Sometimes, there are legitimate reasons (self preservation, preserving critical evidence, exposing a lying president) for people to break the laws. My guess is, whoever did this review recognized that and decided not to aggressively prosecute Comey, given the circumstances.
You clearly believe any violation of the federal laws should be prosecuted, which is fine, but then you need to also demand that for Trump, his administration, and his family, too - the law is the law, if Comey needs to be punished, so do a whole bunch of other people.
So your fine with the Department of Justice and FBI leaders to break laws, and to try to force a sitting P[resident out of office illegally. Got it. My hope believe it or not, is it does not come out that the Obama Administration was in on this. I want to believe Obama was better than this. What law was broken? Please provide the federal law code number. Thanks!
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,893
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 30, 2019 11:25:22 GMT -5
From what I read, what Comey did in violation of the rules was to keep a copy of the memo he made about his conversation with Trump where Trump pressured him to back off (I think it was the Flynn investigation). Comey write a memo to the file (which is standard practice in the FBI) and then took a copy home with him, which is against the FBI rules.
So let's exam why Comey, a high ranking FBI agent, broke this rule. He knew Trump was asking him to do something illegal and unethical. He did not trust Trump, and wanted to document their conversation in case Trump turned on him (which Trump did). He thought the best way to document it was to keep a copy at his house, because he knew Trump could bring in a Trump toady (which he did) who might destroy Comey's files if they said unflattering things about the president. Then, Trump turned on him and began trash talking him, lying about what actually happened, and Comey gave the memo (which was not classified information) to a friend, so the friend could leak it to the news media.
If you were a government official reviewing this case, would you stick with the "Comey did something against the rules and needs to be prosecuted" line, or would you stick with the "Comey witnessed Trump being unethical/illegal and wanted to preserve the evidence of this crime for his own protection so he fudged the rule" route?
Sometimes, there are legitimate reasons (self preservation, preserving critical evidence, exposing a lying president) for people to break the laws. My guess is, whoever did this review recognized that and decided not to aggressively prosecute Comey, given the circumstances.
You clearly believe any violation of the federal laws should be prosecuted, which is fine, but then you need to also demand that for Trump, his administration, and his family, too - the law is the law, if Comey needs to be punished, so do a whole bunch of other people.
So your fine with the Department of Justice and FBI leaders to break laws, and to try to force a sitting P[resident out of office illegally. Got it. My hope believe it or not, is it does not come out that the Obama Administration was in on this. I want to believe Obama was better than this.
Are you fine with the president being able to lie freely, and the DOJ and FBI leaders must sit quietly on the sidelines, remaining silent, even though they know the president is lying his ass off?
They have no obligation to protect the country and our democracy, their only obligation is to not make the president look bad?
Guess I have a different definition of 'patriot' than you do.
I have a feeling if it was Obama who was lying you'd have no problem at all if the FBI leaked information about his lies.
Instead, we got wailing because Obama golfed too much and he forgot to salute a soldier.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,490
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 30, 2019 11:44:57 GMT -5
Someone needs to throw trump a roll of paper towels to wipe away his crocodile tears.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 30, 2019 12:58:48 GMT -5
He’s our first POTUS that has ‘whiny bitch’ as part of his tool bag.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,364
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Aug 30, 2019 13:04:56 GMT -5
So your fine with the Department of Justice and FBI leaders to break laws, and to try to force a sitting P[resident out of office illegally. Got it. My hope believe it or not, is it does not come out that the Obama Administration was in on this. I want to believe Obama was better than this.
Are you fine with the president being able to lie freely, and the DOJ and FBI leaders must sit quietly on the sidelines, remaining silent, even though they know the president is lying his ass off?
They have no obligation to protect the country and our democracy, their only obligation is to not make the president look bad?
Guess I have a different definition of 'patriot' than you do.
I have a feeling if it was Obama who was lying you'd have no problem at all if the FBI leaked information about his lies.
Instead, we got wailing because Obama golfed too much and he forgot to salute a soldier.
I would think they "kinda" do, as a matter of fact that includes protecting the country against whoever is president at the time if needed:
"I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
See no mention of the president in this oath, but the constitution IS mentioned
www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oath.htm
|
|