Comey.
Fox news judge Napolitano thinks it's significant, but not in a bad way for Comey -
Fox News' Judge Napolitano apologized to former FBI director James Comey on Fox and Friends this morning and admitted Comey did not break the law when his memos were leaked to the press.
...
NAPOLITANO: "Correct, correct. Now, I jumped the gun here the other day. Not knowing that Professor Richman had a security clearance and one of you, I think, said to me did Jim Comey break the law? I said, it appears he did. It now appears did he not. We didn't know about the professor having the clearance, which is why as a judge, I ought to have known, you have got to get all the facts before you form a judgment."
LOST said:
BCC said:Of course, but they never accused him of criminal conduct or suggested that the Attorney General investigate him.
LOST said:Ken Starr was totally trashed by Clinton and his allies
Where is the line between facts and conspiracy theories?
Where is the line between legitimate criminal investigations and the "criminalization of politics"?
It appears to me that since certain allies of Trump are being investigated for possible crimes supporters of Trump are pushing possible the idea of criminal conduct by Trump critics. The best defense is a good offense.
Bill Clinton probably wishes he had thought of that. Who knows what crimes Ken Starr could have been accused of?
BCC said:If the IG reports no criminal activity the Right will go after the IG and suggest that he is guilty of crimes.
Them most likely place it will be found is when the IGs full report is published.
Was MCCabe's firing criminalizing politics ?
Is questioning the conduct of Comey with regard to leaking the memos criminalizing politics?
Firing McCabe was not, in and of itself criminalizing. In fact it may have had nothing to do with politics.
Comey is a different matter. Trump had every right to fire Comey. Comey had every right to write his book and criticize Trump. Going after Comey with the idea that he is a criminal is rather far-fetched and I think represents the criminalization of politics. Here are my reasons:
At the Republican National Convention and during the campaign the Trumpites chanted "Lock her up". It's been a theme of the extreme Right that Hillary is a criminal. That is the "criminalization of politics". I do not recall a previous Presidential campaign where one side suggested that the opponent was a criminal.
Now, Comey, more than anyone else was responsible for Hillary's loss and Trump's election by his announcement shortly before the Election that he was re-opening the investigation of Hillary's e-mails. But here is the rub. Comey declined to seek an indictment of Hillary.
To the Trumpites it is so apparent that Hillary is guilty of crimes that Comey's not seeking her indictment must be the result of criminal activity.
Please,
Comeys investigation of Hillary was a text book lesson in how not to conduct an investigation and it could be one of the reasons it was recently announced the IG was investigating Comey.
We will know shortly if the IG appointed by Obama thinks she is guilty of anything.
And yes, if he cuts everyone some slack the right will remember who appointed him and if he calls for criminal indicts he left will light their hair on fire. That's today's politics.
nohero said:
BCC said:Could you explain the significance of this?
The news about Comey was that he gave the memos destined for the NYT to someone who was working pro bono for the FBI and who could be classified as his attorney, thereby claiming Lawyer-client privilege.
If pursued it can be a way to avoid any possibility of him being found guilty of anything involving the memos and being a leaker.
nohero said:
Fox news judge Napolitano thinks it's significant, but not in a bad way for Comey -
Fox News' Judge Napolitano apologized to former FBI director James Comey on Fox and Friends this morning and admitted Comey did not break the law when his memos were leaked to the press.https://crooksandliars.com/201...
...
NAPOLITANO: "Correct, correct. Now, I jumped the gun here the other day. Not knowing that Professor Richman had a security clearance and one of you, I think, said to me did Jim Comey break the law? I said, it appears he did. It now appears did he not. We didn't know about the professor having the clearance, which is why as a judge, I ought to have known, you have got to get all the facts before you form a judgment."
He still doesn't have all the facts
Please,
Comeys investigation of Hillary was a text book lesson in how not to conduct an investigation and it could be one of the reasons it was recently announced the IG was investigating Comey.
We will know shortly if the IG appointed by Obama thinks she is guilty of anything.
And yes, if he cuts everyone some slack the right will remember who appointed him and if he calls for criminal indicts he left will light their hair on fire. That's today's politics.
I have no idea what the "text book" on investigations says. If you have a background in criminal investigation perhaps you can enlighten me on the specifics of what the FBI under Comey did incorrectly.
The IG is investigating the DOJ, not Hillary Clinton. I am not sure how narrow or broad his report will be. For example he could conclude that, as you say, the investigation was a "text book lesson" on what not to do without making any judgment as to what that investigation would have concluded about Hillary Clinton's conduct if it had been done in conformance with the text book.
I am also not sure that the IG can call for criminal indictment. He recommended the firing of McCabe. recommending the firing of a DOJ official is probably the extent of his authority.
Of course it's all speculation and you speculate from your admitted political position of being "Anti-Hillary". I do not share that and from everything I know I have strong doubts that Hillary Clinton has committed crimes.
Now, I have watched Hillary Clinton for 25 years and have watched Trump for over thirty years and my view is that the former is an ambitious politician and the latter is a conman and fraud.
LOST said:Now, I have watched Hillary Clinton for 25 years and have watched Trump for over thirty years and my view is that the former is an ambitious politician and the latter is a conman and fraud.
Conman and fraud are true. But he is also a narcissist and a bigot, and he does not understand or care for the constitution. That's a much bigger problem.
BCC said:Ken Starr was totally trashed by Clinton and his allies
yeah. people keep on saying this, but I've yet to see any concrete examples. Clinton, in fact, pretty much kept his mouth shut on the whole thing, as I recall, even in the face of an Attorney General who basically fed him to the dogs.
so, how exactly was he trashed? and by whom?
gerritn said:
LOST said:Now, I have watched Hillary Clinton for 25 years and have watched Trump for over thirty years and my view is that the former is an ambitious politician and the latter is a conman and fraud.Conman and fraud are true. But he is also a narcissist and a bigot, and he does not understand or care for the constitution. That's a much bigger problem.
But it's because he is so adept at being a con man and fraud that got him the position which causes the problem.
Comey went into the lions' den (Fox News) to reject the "leaking" claim.
Former FBI Director James Comey, in a wide-ranging interview with Fox News on Thursday, defended sharing his memos about conversations with President Trump with multiple people, while denying it was a “leak.”
“That memo was unclassified then,” Comey told anchor Bret Baier during an appearance on “Special Report.” “It's still unclassified. It's in my book. The FBI cleared that book before it could be published.”
Comey acknowledged giving the memos to at least three people including his friend, Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman. He said he sent Richman a copy of the two-page unclassified memo and “asked him to get the substance of it out to the media.”
“The reason I'm smiling, Bret,” Comey said. “I don't consider what I shared Mr. Richman a leak.”
LOST said:
I have no idea what the "text book" on investigations says. If you have a background in criminal investigation perhaps you can enlighten me on the specifics of what the FBI under Comey did incorrectly.
Please,
Comeys investigation of Hillary was a text book lesson in how not to conduct an investigation and it could be one of the reasons it was recently announced the IG was investigating Comey.
We will know shortly if the IG appointed by Obama thinks she is guilty of anything.
And yes, if he cuts everyone some slack the right will remember who appointed him and if he calls for criminal indicts he left will light their hair on fire. That's today's politics.
The IG is investigating the DOJ, not Hillary Clinton. I am not sure how narrow or broad his report will be. For example he could conclude that, as you say, the investigation was a "text book lesson" on what not to do without making any judgment as to what that investigation would have concluded about Hillary Clinton's conduct if it had been done in conformance with the text book.
I am also not sure that the IG can call for criminal indictment. He recommended the firing of McCabe. recommending the firing of a DOJ official is probably the extent of his authority.
Of course it's all speculation and you speculate from your admitted political position of being "Anti-Hillary". I do not share that and from everything I know I have strong doubts that Hillary Clinton has committed crimes.
Now, I have watched Hillary Clinton for 25 years and have watched Trump for over thirty years and my view is that the former is an ambitious politician and the latter is a conman and fraud.
The DOJ includes Cmey as FBI head and how he conducted the Hillary investigation
Perhaps that investigation will explain why her separation order was never signed,, or top secret e-mails that were found on her server, not the Government server, 2 years after they were supposed to have been returned to the Government --- for starters.
Horowitz recommended a criminal investigation of MCCabe. Now we shall see if Sessions manages to actually arrange for an impaneled Grand Jury.
nohero said:
Comey went into the lions' den (Fox News) to reject the "leaking" claim.
Former FBI Director James Comey, in a wide-ranging interview with Fox News on Thursday, defended sharing his memos about conversations with President Trump with multiple people, while denying it was a “leak.”
“That memo was unclassified then,” Comey told anchor Bret Baier during an appearance on “Special Report.” “It's still unclassified. It's in my book. The FBI cleared that book before it could be published.”
Comey acknowledged giving the memos to at least three people including his friend, Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman. He said he sent Richman a copy of the two-page unclassified memo and “asked him to get the substance of it out to the media.”
“The reason I'm smiling, Bret,” Comey said. “I don't consider what I shared Mr. Richman a leak.”
www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/...
I would say, what you took away from this, depends on where you started
LOST said:
gerritn said:But it's because he is so adept at being a con man and fraud that got him the position which causes the problem.
LOST said:Now, I have watched Hillary Clinton for 25 years and have watched Trump for over thirty years and my view is that the former is an ambitious politician and the latter is a conman and fraud.Conman and fraud are true. But he is also a narcissist and a bigot, and he does not understand or care for the constitution. That's a much bigger problem.
gah - Trump is not 'adept' at being a con man. He's horrible at it. His con clearly works on only the most gullible, or those who don't care about the con but play along to enrich themselves.
How can you say he is not adept when he conned his way into the White House?
There seem to be millions who are among the "most gullible".
LOST said:
How can you say he is not adept when he conned his way into the White House?
There seem to be millions who are among the "most gullible".
yes. that's the problem.
Could you explain the significance of this?