You don't have to guess you dope, Trump said he fired him because of the Russian investigation. But regardless of [the] recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it! And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”
when your top choice for FBI director has to withdraw because you had to hire his law firm to represent you because of some fuckery you're involved in.
The great unifying trait of Trump supporters is that they'd all fail an 8th grade civics class. Then they'd try to rewrite the textbook to make it say what they (wrongly) think it does, and then call everyone fascists (while not knowing what the definition of fascism is) when called out on it.
So what you're saying is that if I did something highly illegal, but I didn't mean to do it and no one before me had been caught doing it before, I'm good right? If so, what did Comey mean when he said that people in the future could be charged given similar circumstances? Doesn't there have to be some sort of precedent?
Trump said he fired him over the Russia investigation. Trump bragged to the Russians about the firing. Comey was the 3rd individual fired about the Flynn/ Russia investigation. There are at least 3-4 individuals tied to the trump campaign and or administration that have been directly paid by Russians. Come on man.
What does that change? For there to be precedent, someone has to go to trial for it. For someone to go to trial, there has to be an indictment. For an indictment, there has to be someone that says, "hey that's potentially illegal. We should find out for sure" Its a chicken and egg situation here. There can't be precedent without the first time. Comey was put into a shitty position and used an awfully weak excuse to cop-out. His big problem here is that Lynch had already fucked up so Comey couldn't stay quiet on it. And to you guys saying Comey was fired over Russia investigations, I was being facetious. I know good and well he wasn't fired over Hillary.
you realize that if no one has ever been charged under similar circumstances that IS a precedent right?
wait just to clarify BetterCallSaul can you please say the reason you think trump fired comey i will even simplify it for you: a) it was because of the russia investigation b) it was because of the letter he sent right before the election
yes this is exactly what it means. As long as you are the first person to do something, it's not illegal. I was the first person to rob a bank while wearing a chicken suit and as such i got to keep the money.
it's like when small government joe arpaio cost his county nearly 100 million dollars over the course of 20 years in settlements and legal fees.
Nah, he's just buckling down. The devolution of him ITT comes from him feeling attacked and just clutching to straws to the point where he's making a mockery of himself. Instead of admitting that he is a dumbfuck (or took a trip into dumbfuckville), he's trying real hard to find any justification than admit that he just made a dumbass choice based on his stated criteria. This is why I don't have these conversations with Trump voters I know in real life -- I think they're more likely to admit they made a mistake when they come to it on their own instead of being told over and over how fucking stupid they were. I think there are two main categories of Trump voters: assholes and dumbfucks. There is definitely overlap (see Joe, Broadway) but assholes voted for Trump because they generally don't give a shit about others and either want someone who satisfies their selfish desires (rules) or who just torments the fuck out of others (Todd). So while I obviously disagree with them, I can see why they voted the way they did. Saul is one of the people who made a stupid fucking vote. He was so worried about Hillary's trustworthiness and her corruption that he went out and voted for the least trustworthy and arguably most corrupt candidate in the last century (Warren Harding might give him a run on the latter). His vetting process completely broke down, but he doesn't want to hear about it, so he's doubling down. If we left him alone, he might realize his folly on his own eventually (he doesn't seem completely vapid), but since it's the internet, that's no fun. Not nearly as fun as writing this drivel.
This Stickland guy in the Texas House Freedom Causus is potentially a worse human than any politician on the national level.
No that's not what I'm saying. And that's a complete mischaracterization of events, anyway. "Highly illegal" is exactly what Comey opined didn't happen. Having said that, the Justice Department could still bring charges if they are so inclined. Comey only opined that the FBI wouldn't be recommending charges because the FBI didn't think it was a winning case, legally speaking. He doesn't make the final decision on whether charges are pursued.
In this situation, pretty much. Its hilarious how I see all of the "but her emails" references and jokes in this thread but there is nothing I can do to rustle you guys up more than getting into the email discussion. We could go around in this circle for the next couple hours until I get off work easily.
nice takedown on something the supposed liberal media is not covering; bc if they were biased they'd be roasting the GOP for these policies.
Sure thing: Spoiler Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government. With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice: In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order. Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
He's fallen into the same hole rules did, my position is indefensible so let me dance around and try not to admit I'm wrong while eventually just sliding into trolling.
Also, notice when Comey says this: He specifically says "security or administrative sanctions" and makes no reference to legal penalties or criminal penalties. He's saying that her actions were more in line with behavior that would typically result in someone who would be sanctioned administratively (e.g. being written up, suspended, etc.) or lose security clearances. But that's not what the FBI was "deciding now." They look specifically at criminality.
So intent and precedence. Something that would be afforded pretty much no one else. Makes sense. Thanks for "clarifying" the events for me.
intent and precedence keeping them out of prison, or even court, when it is found that they used a private email server to conduct government business including classified information. I sure as shit know that I wouldn't have my job if I pulled that stunt.