She'll just plead the 5th and the people on the Left will accuse the Republicans of being racist and that it is a political witch hunt. It won't go anywhere. It will have no effect on her world view or theirs.
Comey Testimony
- Thread starter Htown77
- Start date
She'll just plead the 5th and the people on the Left will accuse the Republicans of being racist and that it is a political witch hunt. It won't go anywhere. It will have no effect on her world view or theirs.
Let her plead the Fifth. From a political standpoint, that's an admission of sleaziness.
And they'll be called racists anyway.
Also they don't have to act like dicks to her. Just read the transcript of the relevant part of Comey's and ask her if it's true or not true.
That's the game. I am just being honest. There is no chance they will admit or consider that she did something wrong. They are in a knife fight and there is only winning. They know their constituency will either believe their rhetoric or won't even pay attention to it.
Then let her deny it and have a record of her calling Comey a liar.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Maybe he thought it was his duty to his country to stay on to protect the constitution from the likes of trump and sessions.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
So is asking comey to call it a matter instead of an investigation a crime of some sort? It was still what it was and didn't change comey's direction. Much like trump's efforts to obstruct justice, it had no effect because comey ignored it. And, all things being equal, it sure seemed like an investigation when comey appeared on tv and in hearings during the election to discuss their investigation.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
What she did instructing Comey also doesn't have enough teeth to get charged with a crime. Although there is a difference in an "I hope ___" statement and direct instruction to withhold that HRC was under investigation by calling it a 'matter'.
However, Lynch isn't under the scope for this instruction alone. She, as the leader of the DOJ, also privately met with the husband of the woman under active criminal investigation.
So when adding her instructing Comey not to tell the public HRC was under criminal investigation with her having a secret meeting with HRC's husband, that's where the accusations of wrongdoing have teeth. She needs to go on record under oath about both events.
Also, she had much to gain from the inevitable Hillary administration. Oh wait. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Uh, if you say so.
It is probably only political evidence of pressure being placed upon Comey by Lynch meaning it may not be enough to convict her of anything but it is a huge revelation and most of the selective outrage is political. We know she met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac. It's silly to think these things are not evidence of the reality; which is to say they are ruthless and deserve as much skepticism as any Republican. This entire discussion at this point has become one of hypocrisy; will the Left treat Lynch's sloppy handling of the Hillary "matter" the same as they would if it was a Republican? I think we know the answer.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
The irony is that had Bill Clinton not had that conversation with Lynch then Jim Comey would have stayed in the background of the investigation and he would not have been an enemy of the left pre11/8/16 and an enemy of the right post 1/20/17.
Unintended consequences; appearances mean so much. Everyone is looking to score points on the mere appearance of impropriety. There is so much noise out there. It's hard to know what is real especially now that the whole fake news meme has taken off like wildfire. It's hard to know the true extent of it but it has become a tool for denial. I have no doubt that everyone in DC are ruthless lying Machiavellian's. I have no doubt that Trump has some things to answer for.
The thing that gets me (when it comes to appearances) is that it was undisputed that Hillary used unsecured servers. It is undisputed that the Russians hacked. It is undisputed that they hacked during Obama's watch. But the Left ran interference for all of this and solely focused on Trump. That is why I consider much of this to be absolute garbage.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I'm starting more and more to take this approach about life in general and just try to treat everyone with courtesy and not care whether a progressive thinks about me. Life's a lot easier that way. Same would go for conservative politicians.
I dunno. Do you think it's appropriate that a sitting attorney general requests that the FBI conform its language to that of her boss' political talking points in a matter in which she's under investigation leading up to a national election. Nevermind, I know your answer. The answer of someone who believes that an AG who's trying to spin for political points is still interested in a down-the-line investigation.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Dianne Feinstein (of all people) agrees --
“I think we need to know more about that,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) on Sunday’s episode of State of the Union. “And there’s only one way to know about it, and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.”
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/dem...ion-into-loretta-lynch-after-comey-testimony/
Me too. I'm comfortable with myself, warts and all, and I could not care less if some lefty snowflake thinks poorly of me. Lots of people look for excuses to be offended these days, and I'm not going to walk on eggshells trying to keep them from being offended with me.
She occasionally gets something right. It helps that she's probably in her last term.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I will say this about Feinstein. She's pretty far left but she's not an idealogue in the pure sense. She takes her position pretty seriously and has been known to make some pretty strong statements on national security. She doesn't seem the type to just ignore wrongdoing based on party politics.
You're being a little over-generous. She was pretty much ok with Clinton lying under oath because of party politics. However, you are mostly correct. She's more pragmatic and reaches across party lines far more often than true partisan hacks like Barbara Boxer ever did.
And with how nutty modern California Democrats have become, she's not very liberal. When I lived in California back in the '80s, she was considered a solid ally of the Left. I don't think she has moved Right, but her party has shifted so radically to the Left that she looks pretty moderate compared to the freak show that now dominates California Democratic politics.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Kind of like how Reagan would be a Democrat now?
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
No, the Dems are even farther to the left than they were in 1972. No way Reagan would be a part of that. Reagan would still be a Republican. But he would be pushing his party back to the right.
FIFY.
The social agenda of the Democrats by itself would horrify Reagan enough to keep him (and probably 80 percent of the public from the '80s and '90s) away. He wouldn't be a Tea Partier or Trumpite either. He'd probably most resemble McCain (pro-military, fiscally center-right, willing to work with the other side to a point), but instead of having the personality of an angry Walmart greeter, he'd be personable.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Reagan was hard on Israel, he worked with Iran, he gave illegals citizenship, he was against authoritarianism governments, etc.
JFK is the last President to be successful with supply side (voodoo) economics.
Well it depends on what the Constitution is. If the Constitution is a written set of supreme laws, then Trump and especially Sessions have not violated or attacked it to my knowledge. If the Constitution is whatever someone personally feels like is morally right to them (see our current Supreme Court approach), and if anyone feels Trump and Sessions are doing anything wrong, then I guess they are violating and attacking the "Constitution".
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I don't know if they've violated anything or not. Neither do you or anyone else posting here.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Here is the link to the full Hill piece where Jonathan Turley (law prof at George Washington who goes on TV alot) takes Comey's behavior apart
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...opinion-the-damaging-case-against-james-comey
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...opinion-the-damaging-case-against-james-comey
"..... Comey’s position would effectively gut a host of federal rules and regulations. He is suggesting that any federal employee effectively owns documents created during federal employment in relation to an ongoing investigation so long as they address the information to themselves. FBI agents routinely write such memos in investigations. They are called 302s to memorialize field interviews or fact acquisitions. They are treated as FBI information.
The Justice Department routinely claims such memos as privileged and covered by the deliberative process privilege and other privileges. Indeed, if this information were sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) it would likely have been denied. ..... Of course, Comey did not know if there was a privilege or classification claim by either the Justice Department or the White House because he never asked for review. He just woke up in the middle of night upset about Trump’s name calling and released the damaging information.....
... Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and unclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641, which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”
There are also ethical and departmental rules against the use of material to damage a former represented person or individual or firm related to prior representation. The FBI website warns employees that “dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”
One such regulation is § 2635.703, on the use of nonpublic information, which states, “An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.”
The standard FBI employment agreement bars the unauthorized disclosure of information “contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI” that impact the bureau and specifically pledges that “I will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”
Comey is also subject to bar rules on releasing information inimical to the interests of his former employer. For example, under professional rule 1.6, lawyers need to secure authority to release information that “(1) reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client; (2) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client to the disadvantage of the client; [or] (3) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person.”
Comey actually showed both how to and how not to disclose such information. When Comey released the information, he knew that he was going to be called to Congress where he could disclose this information properly after giving the White House a chance to claim privilege. Instead, he decided to release the information early. Why? ....."
The Justice Department routinely claims such memos as privileged and covered by the deliberative process privilege and other privileges. Indeed, if this information were sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) it would likely have been denied. ..... Of course, Comey did not know if there was a privilege or classification claim by either the Justice Department or the White House because he never asked for review. He just woke up in the middle of night upset about Trump’s name calling and released the damaging information.....
... Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and unclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641, which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”
There are also ethical and departmental rules against the use of material to damage a former represented person or individual or firm related to prior representation. The FBI website warns employees that “dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”
One such regulation is § 2635.703, on the use of nonpublic information, which states, “An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.”
The standard FBI employment agreement bars the unauthorized disclosure of information “contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI” that impact the bureau and specifically pledges that “I will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”
Comey is also subject to bar rules on releasing information inimical to the interests of his former employer. For example, under professional rule 1.6, lawyers need to secure authority to release information that “(1) reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client; (2) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client to the disadvantage of the client; [or] (3) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person.”
Comey actually showed both how to and how not to disclose such information. When Comey released the information, he knew that he was going to be called to Congress where he could disclose this information properly after giving the White House a chance to claim privilege. Instead, he decided to release the information early. Why? ....."
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
