Director Comey FIRED!!!

[chipbennett]

Conjecture. Possibly true, but not proven. After all, the FBI says that there was no crime.

Kut (waits)

FBI doesn't ever - never - makes that determination. FBI turns over investigation results to DOJ, and it is DOJ that makes the determination whether evidence constitutes a crime.

As CM said: that's a huge part of the reason that Comey was, and absolutely should have been, fired.

(And in fact, Comey laid out all of the evidence to demonstrate that a crime was actually committed. Comey then interjected that a lack of intent - a matter on which the federal statutes in question are utterly silent - meant that no crime had been committed.)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hi Kut, glad to see you got back safely, sorry to see you posting again.

Actually, if you had ever worked for Government handling classified material and experienced the rigors of handling and storage requirements you might feel differently.

I received a reprimand, because someone else had stamped a sheet of paper SECRET and left it unsecured in my office in a SCIF. It was not actually classified, I had not done it but I received the reprimand. Had they used a different stamp that signified Compartmentalized material I may have been Court Martialed.

Petraes went to jail over much less that Comey admitted Hillary did, before he in effect acquitted her.

All I'll say to that is, don't assume.

 

[Kutnupe14]

FBI doesn't ever - never - makes that determination. FBI turns over investigation results to DOJ, and it is DOJ that makes the determination whether evidence constitutes a crime.

As CM said: that's a huge part of the reason that Comey was, and absolutely should have been, fired.

(And in fact, Comey laid out all of the evidence to demonstrate that a crime was actually committed. Comey then interjected that a lack of intent - a matter on which the federal statutes in question are utterly silent - meant that no crime had been committed.)

You may think that, and in the technical sense, it's true... but in practice.... for ANY LE agency, its not.

 

[actaeon277]

My clearance never went that high (confidential), but anyone in the military who has one is immediately familiar with the standard "I can neither confirm nor deny" statement.
Hell, even stating the top speed and range of any military ship, plane, or missile is classified and can (and has) get a military member locked up, even though those numbers are published in Jane's and other publications.

Those numbers are actually Jane's guessamates.

 

[jamil]

I look at it this way.

1) Media, Democrats, some Republicans claim that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians.

Is the accusation true? I don't know. Is there any evidence? The Clappermatic and Comey both have said there isn't. There seems to be some suspicious circumstances around the Trump campaign that would make reasonable people suspect something, but no real evidence that there was any collusion. Conclusion: I don't know if the accusation is true or false.

2) Trump and his team claim the "collusion" accusation is fake news.

Is that claim true? I don't know. Is there any evidence? Well, there seems to be some suspicious circumstances that would make reasonable people suspect it could be true. There have been some headlines that have proven to be inaccurate, so at least some of it is wrong. But inaccurate reporting may be shoddy reporting and not necessarily fake news. Conclusion: I don't know if the accusation is true or not.

3) Is it worth knowing? Well, it should matter if a foreign government is colluding with an American political campaign to get someone in office they think will be favorable to them. I want my president to be loyal to America only. It's not "America First" if our president owes some political debt to a foreign government that could put that foreign power ahead of us. Conclusion: Yes. Damn straight it matters.

So, to recap. I don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians or not. I suspect that even if so, it's nowhere near the impeachable offense the left wants there to be. I am also surprised that self-avowed nationalists say they don't care about the leader of our nation possibly being beholden to a foreign leader such as Putin. I actually find that astonishing.

 

[churchmouse]

I look at it this way.

1) Media, Democrats, some Republicans claim that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians.

Is the accusation true? I don't know. Is there any evidence? The Clappermatic and Comey both have said there isn't. There seems to be some suspicious circumstances around the Trump campaign that would make reasonable people suspect something, but no real evidence that there was any collusion. Conclusion: I don't know if the accusation is true or false.

2) Trump and his team claim the "collusion" accusation is fake news.

Is that claim true? I don't know. Is there any evidence? Well, there seems to be some suspicious circumstances that would make reasonable people suspect it could be true. There have been some headlines that have proven to be inaccurate, so at least some of it is wrong. But inaccurate reporting may be shoddy reporting and not necessarily fake news. Conclusion: I don't know if the accusation is true or not.

3) Is it worth knowing? Well, it should matter if a foreign government is colluding with an American political campaign to get someone in office they think will be favorable to them. I want my president to be loyal to America only. It's not "America First" if our president owes some political debt to a foreign government that could put that foreign power ahead of us. Conclusion: Yes. Damn straight it matters.

So, to recap. I don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians or not. I suspect that even if so, it's nowhere near the impeachable offense the left wants there to be. I am also surprised that self-avowed nationalists say they don't care about the leader of our nation possibly being beholden to a foreign leader such as Putin. I actually find that astonishing.

And for all the money being dumped into Billery during he campaign and not a word. How beholden would she be to just the Saudi's.

 

[jamil]

And for all the money being dumped into Billery during he campaign and not a word. How beholden would she be to just the Saudi's.

I would hope that this would be the prevailing conversation if she were elected. I hope the people who want to learn the truth about the accusations of Trump colluding with Russians would also want to get to the bottom of that. But I suspect that the sides would flip positions if Billery had won. I suspect that Trump supporters would want it exhaustively investigated and the Hillary supporters would trivialize it. And I suspect that only Fox News and other more conservative news sources would be reporting on that non-stop, while the rest of the media will sort of play it down.

I just think America, or really, the whole civilized world is less inclined to care what is the truth than we care about confirming what would be the most delicious truth. Right now, Democrats think the most delicious thing to consume is that there was some kind of collusion with Russians to win the election. They can't stand that Hillary lost to a guy like Trump. That their ideology was rejected by so many. That there must be some way to dig up some illegitimacy of his presidency. Just like Republicans tried to do with Obama in 2009. I think we need to be willing to believe even things that taste bad if that's really the truth.

 

[bwframe]

...Trump colluding with Russians...

Fake news!

 

[Route 45]

I have to wonder just how "beholden" a President is to Russia when he launches missile strikes against a Russian ally while Russian troops are on the ground in that country.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[oldpink]

It's even funnier that you think that wheels that turned that machine suddenly stopped. Can I get a show of hand of people who think the NSA has actually stopped spying on people it isn't supposed to be spying on? ....yep, didn't think so.

You know, a tu quoge argument isn't really an argument at all, right?

 

[jamil]

Fake news!

When investigators have investigated and have found no collusion, I can say the news reports contrary to that were inaccurate. I can even strongly suspect that they were fake news. Catch them red handed, then I'll believe it was fake news.

For me, fake news doesn't mean any news which tends to be contrary to my currently held belief. It means the news was fabricated. And I think there is some evidence of fabricated news. Remember the dossier? That seemed very contrived. I strongly suspect that was actual fake news.

 

[jamil]

I have to wonder just how "beholden" a President is to Russia when he launches missile strikes against a Russian ally while Russian troops are on the ground in that country.

As inconsequential as the strike was (we likely spent way more to blow up stuff that cost way less), it doesn't tend to prove there was no collusion.

I tend to most suspect that there wasn't direct collusion, at least to an impeachable level that reaches the president. Until they show a direct link from Russians to Trump, there's nothing impeachable. Given the tone and tenor and coordination of the reporting it seems obvious that a narrative is being constructed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have to wonder just how "beholden" a President is to Russia when he launches missile strikes against a Russian ally while Russian troops are on the ground in that country.

A missile strike that they gave the Russians advance notice of, and did so much damage planes were flying from the target within the week.

 

[spencer rifle]

A missile strike that they gave the Russians advance notice of, and did so much damage planes were flying from the target within the week.

Pfft. The Japanese bombarded Henderson field with 14" and 8" HE for hours and it was up and running in about a DAY.

 

[oldpink]

A missile strike that they gave the Russians advance notice of, and did so much damage planes were flying from the target within the week.

Sulu: Captain, truth incoming!
Captain Kirk: Shields up.

Keep up that armor-plated narrative, dude.

 

[jamil]

Keep up that armor-plated narrative, dude.

It's a legitimate point. If you're asserting that doing something that would tend to harm the country you're being accused of colluding with is evidence that there's no collusion, it's fair to say that a strike which didn't really cause any real harm isn't all that compelling. I'm not trying to say there is collusion. I'm just talking about the logic of the point made.

 

[oldpink]

It's a legitimate point. If you're asserting that doing something that would tend to harm the country you're being accused of colluding with is evidence that there's no collusion, it's fair to say that a strike which didn't really cause any real harm isn't all that compelling. I'm not trying to say there is collusion. I'm just talking about the logic of the point made.

I get it, but I find the Dems' contention that Putin much preferred Trump over Hillary because he believed that Trump was such a pushover compared to Hillary is as stupid as it gets, especially in light of just how effective Hillary was in responding (NOT) to Benghazi and various other international situations during her tenure as Secretary of State.
I'm old enough to remember how the Dems never missed an opportunity to prop up the Soviet Union, but suddenly when they delude themselves into believing that the Ruskies cost them the election in a vain effort to convince themselves that HRC really wasn't such an abysmal candidate, they see a Red under every bed.

 

[BugI02]

I always wondered who people are accusing of "covering up" for Hillary? Comey? Did he do the investigation? If not, are we questioning the integrity of the agents who conducted the investigation? Or did they give Comey the smoking gun and he decided to do nothing with it and the agents would be ok with that? There are plenty of leaks in the USDOJ and if Comey had done something like that feel confident that there would have been quite an uproar. Having seen similar accusations regarding my dept, politics, and investigations (on a much smaller scale of course), I have learned long ago that much of what we THINK we (the public) know is rarely very accurate. Much of what we know comes from various media sources and are often inaccurate.

I think you answered your own conjecture about why there were no leaks of material critical of Comey's defacto exoneration of Clinton. Leaking requires the co-operation of that same media; which was, shall we say, uninterested in the manifold sins of Mr Obama and company

 

[Denny347]

I think you answered your own conjecture about why there were no leaks of material critical of Comey's defacto exoneration of Clinton. Leaking requires the co-operation of that same media; which was, shall we say, uninterested in the manifold sins of Mr Obama and company

Yeah, I did catch my circular logic...after I wrote it. Being a professional contrarian is hard work...