Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
If you believe that then you should agree his firing was justified.
Comey and Mueller
- Thread starter Musburger1
- Start date
If you believe that then you should agree his firing was justified.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I've not said it wasn't justified. Rosenstein's reasoning is sound. It was just done incorrectly with very poor timing if you're really using the justification that you say you're using. Had Trump not been all over him about needing loyalty and all of that jazz it would have helped. And then, after firing him, not saying in many different ways that he fired him because of the Russia/Flynn/et all deal. Rosenstein wrote the memo very well. The Chief Executive simply can't stop flapping the gums and giving away the game.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
That is not the same thing as saying it was.
Rosenstein made a further mistake by not recusing himself from this entire Muller matter at the outset. Why? Because Rosenstein is a likely fact witness. It was his memo that led to the firing of Comey. The facts and reasoning of that memo might all be reasonably in question. This was a clear case for recusal, was not close, IMO. His failure to do so casts suspicion on his motive.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Pretty amazing now that it's looking more and more like Comey was trying his best to help Hillary, but between his ego and his indecision, he ended up killing her chances. The FBI finds out about the email situation in September, and they sit on it for a month, in part because thanks to the partisanship from Peter Strzok and others, they were laser focused on the Russia issue. So in late October, Comey looks at the case again and finally says "if we don't at least pretend to do something with this, it will look like we tried to cover it up before the election." So he re-opens the case, goes through the formality of announcing what he's already decided he was going to do before ever conducting an investigation, then goes on camera to make the statement so that he could preserve the reputation of the FBI, because he wanted to spare the FBI of looking partisan (or something...), but then changes the wording to remove anything damaging to Obama and softens the findings, while at the same time changing the law itself so that negligence is no longer something that would bring about prosecution.
Apparently people decided that someone setting up a private server, deleting emails and smashing hard drives were not the actions of someone who was just being a little careless.
So bravo Jim. You managed to alienate both sides of the aisle not by being the FBI's white knight and standing above the fray as you've tried to spin it, but basically by being a horrible director.
Apparently people decided that someone setting up a private server, deleting emails and smashing hard drives were not the actions of someone who was just being a little careless.
So bravo Jim. You managed to alienate both sides of the aisle not by being the FBI's white knight and standing above the fray as you've tried to spin it, but basically by being a horrible director.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Funny how in the context of what we now know, that whole "i want people who are loyal to me" conversation makes a whole lot of sense. Considering Comey called a meeting with Trump to tell him that CNN knew about this dossier and was basically just waiting for an excuse to run it, and then within a week CNN runs a story about Comey holding a meeting to brief Trump about the memo... I think I'd be asking that question, too.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I listened to Ray McGovern who is ex-CIA say he thinks Comey was trying to essentially blackmail Trump when he told him about the Steele dossier peepee allegations. Then Trump fired Comey because he wasn't going to take someone coercing him to "go along with the deep state". Kind of crazy but the source of the info was thought provoking.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
It was out there and he needed to be made aware. Especially since it was going to break. I’m one who believes the worst about Trump and IF the tape exists it is because some Russian handler posing as a Miss Universe party planner walked him right into the scene and he was completely unwitting. I listened to a former state department guy with over a decade in Moscow laugh that this scenario sounds like a typical Russian operation. During his time there he assumed that EVERYTHING he did in his home was likely being recorded. I think Trump should be more worried about what the Russians have on him financially.
What do the Russians have on him financially, and where did your derive your information?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Strzok was accompanied by a roomful of FBI lawyers who refused to let him answers many questions -- what are they so afraid of?
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/fbi-lawyers-instructed-strzok/
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/fbi-lawyers-instructed-strzok/
ps - Ive personally defended government actors at depos many times. But they were never criminal cases. For us, essentially the hardest part was insisting that the right questions be asked the right way. Sometimes the other side was simply unable to appropriately articulate the question in the necessary manner. It was always a little frustrating to sit there while they bumbled around trying to figure it out. I cannot recall a single instance where we were trying to hide anything. It was just the opposite actually. We were always as forthcoming as possible within the rules and procedures we had to follow. I can even remember having to go back on the record several times to make clarifications or revisions. Usually, I would take my person into a different room, make sure of the facts, then require that they go back on the record to voluntarily fix whatever needed fixing. I was never involved in a situation like this with Strzok where the Govt is willing to move the earth to not allow a govt witness to tell the truth.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Rod Rosenstein today:
Will supplement as they go ....
More - Deputy AG Rosenstein will not respond to Rep. DeSantis on whether anyone in the Obama admin directed Halper to approach the Trump campaign
Rosenstein also refused to answer whether he read the Carter Page FISA warrant prior to signing off on it. Which seems odd since signing it was him personally attesting and certifying, under oath, to a federal court, that the information he never even read was completely true and accurate
Rosenstein is also refuseing to discuss Obama's wiretapping and spying of the Trump campaign
Jim Jordan to Rosentein: “We have caught you hiding information!”
"I certainly agree with the findings of the inspector general report. I think those messages clearly do indicate bias."
Will supplement as they go ....
More - Deputy AG Rosenstein will not respond to Rep. DeSantis on whether anyone in the Obama admin directed Halper to approach the Trump campaign
Rosenstein also refused to answer whether he read the Carter Page FISA warrant prior to signing off on it. Which seems odd since signing it was him personally attesting and certifying, under oath, to a federal court, that the information he never even read was completely true and accurate
Rosenstein is also refuseing to discuss Obama's wiretapping and spying of the Trump campaign
Jim Jordan to Rosentein: “We have caught you hiding information!”
Jordan: "Mr Rosenstein, why are u keeping information from Congress?"
Rosenstein: "I am not keeping any info from Congress that is appropriate..."
Jordan: "In a few mins, Mr Rosenstein, I think the House of Reps is going to say something different."
‘You Should be Recused’ rather than SessionsRosenstein: "I am not keeping any info from Congress that is appropriate..."
Jordan: "In a few mins, Mr Rosenstein, I think the House of Reps is going to say something different."
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
This is pretty disappointing. IG Horowitz never interviewed the head of Lynch's FBI security detail or Bill Clinton's Secret Service detail regarding their illicit tarmac meeting.
Apparently he was willing to simply take the word of Lynch and Clinton's that the meeting was "unplanned"
Seems impossible that the Secret Service would ever let an ex-POTUS simply have a random tarmac meeting without some advance work and security checks
Apparently he was willing to simply take the word of Lynch and Clinton's that the meeting was "unplanned"
Seems impossible that the Secret Service would ever let an ex-POTUS simply have a random tarmac meeting without some advance work and security checks
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Holy mackerel -- Peter Strzok says the FBI let him personally decide which of his texts should be handed over to the IG. He determined their relevancy.
This is not how the federal rules on discovery work. Not even close
This is not how the federal rules on discovery work. Not even close
Rep. Goodlatte: Now, you and Ms. Page used personal phones and accounts to communicate. Have you turned over those communications to the Inspector General?
Strzok: No, sir.
Rep. Goodlatte: If not, why not?
Strzok: Sir, they asked, and working with my attorney, the Inspector General and I arranged an agreement where I would go through my personal accounts and identify any material that was relevant to FBI business and turn it over. It was reviewed. There was none. And my understanding the inspector general was satisfied with that action.
Rep. Goodlatte: We know from texts that you and Ms. Page would transition to iMessage and Gmail. Who determined that messages were only personal in nature and not business-related, especially since you’ve just testified at length that a number of the communications that you have made on government communications devices were personal in nature?
Strzok: Sir, the broad, broad context of what I used personal email and phones for was personal communication. For those things that were work-related, almost universally that material was translated into FBI systems. Certainly, if it was anything that was a record or would constitute needing to be there, it was provided. But I made that decision.
Strzok: No, sir.
Rep. Goodlatte: If not, why not?
Strzok: Sir, they asked, and working with my attorney, the Inspector General and I arranged an agreement where I would go through my personal accounts and identify any material that was relevant to FBI business and turn it over. It was reviewed. There was none. And my understanding the inspector general was satisfied with that action.
Rep. Goodlatte: We know from texts that you and Ms. Page would transition to iMessage and Gmail. Who determined that messages were only personal in nature and not business-related, especially since you’ve just testified at length that a number of the communications that you have made on government communications devices were personal in nature?
Strzok: Sir, the broad, broad context of what I used personal email and phones for was personal communication. For those things that were work-related, almost universally that material was translated into FBI systems. Certainly, if it was anything that was a record or would constitute needing to be there, it was provided. But I made that decision.
That entire testimony was a clown show.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I'm probably missing a really obvious one or something, but when was the last time anyone suffered any serious repercussions as a result of testifying before Congress? I don't count losing their job (although that almost never happens either) because plenty of partisans are there to give them a nice consultant job.
Check this out. Dem lawmaker says Strzok deserves a purple heart for having to sit through these questions. https://www.pluralist.com/posts/147...itting-through-tough-questions/partners/44197
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The FBI certified that it verified all sources AND SUB-sources in the Page FISA application -- complying with the so-called "Woods Procedures (noted here as "Apr 5, 2001 procedures")."
This was a lie.
The FBI had not carried out verification at the time the application was signed and submitted (in Oct 2016) and it still hasn't as of July 2018.
The truth is that throughout the Page FISA application, the FBI vouched for the prior credibility of Christopher Steele himself. And they did this without verifying any of Steele's sources or sub-sources. In fact, the FBI did not even know the names of Steele's sources on Page.
In short, the FBI perjured itself.
The Congress needs to revisit its rubber-stamp of this court and the process. There is no telling how many other American citizens have had their rights violated in a similar fashion. The court needs to be suspended pending a review.
This was a lie.
The FBI had not carried out verification at the time the application was signed and submitted (in Oct 2016) and it still hasn't as of July 2018.
The truth is that throughout the Page FISA application, the FBI vouched for the prior credibility of Christopher Steele himself. And they did this without verifying any of Steele's sources or sub-sources. In fact, the FBI did not even know the names of Steele's sources on Page.
In short, the FBI perjured itself.
The Congress needs to revisit its rubber-stamp of this court and the process. There is no telling how many other American citizens have had their rights violated in a similar fashion. The court needs to be suspended pending a review.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
BILL PRIESTAP (Strzok's boss at the time) even admitted under oath to Congress that verification of the Steele dossier was only in its "infancy" in October 2016 when the Page FISA application was submitted
All of these people must be rooted out of the Government and not allowed back, if not tried for perjury
All of these people must be rooted out of the Government and not allowed back, if not tried for perjury
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
