James Comey bottoms out

Image result for picture of james comey and donald trump


What’s up with the  head of our fine FBI?

His decision has GOP writ on.

He has the wrong job and in brief this is why:

He should be the part we all sit on.


Leave a comment
  • I commented on Comey and Weiner Wiener before, and will stand on that.

  • 1 When was the last time you recall a law enforcement agency determining that there was no probable cause to charge a person with a crime, then commenting on matters having nothing to do with criminal law as Comey did earlier this year?

    2 When was the last time you recall a law enforcement agency publically reporting on the steps of an ongoing criminal investigation as Comey did Friday?

    I have some sympathy with Senator Reid's suggestion that Comey should be investigated for a violation of the Hatch Act. If we are going to act like a banana republic and threaten our political opponents with criminal prosecution, let's go all the way.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Well said. And I totally agree. To your first point, never so close to a presidential election. To the second point, he's a national disgrace and an affront to our democratic electoral system. I wouldn't lose a nanosecond of sleep if they throw the book at him.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    The problem with at least one of you attempted lawyers is that no one has established any intent to interfere with the election. You are assuming that someone well trained in the law was out to rig the election in favor of Chef's candidate.

    I don't remember anyone throwing the legal book at Scott Lassar for saying he had nothing on George Ryan, right before that election.

    I also don't know if he was authorized to comment to Congress, but a partisan attack one way or the other doesn't affect that. Should we throw out the IRS Commissioner if he recommends tax evasion charges against Chef's candidate in the next couple of days?

    Other than that, I have stated my position on this. While I agree with Dana Perino that this is not the Congo where the victor gets to throw the losing opponent into prison (although that sounds like Egypt), if there is probable cause to investigate anyone, the FBI has the authority to do it. Byrne's people were upset that Comey said there were no crimes the last tine, and now your people are upset that Comey said something came up when investigating a Nathan's Famous Wiener.

  • In reply to jack:

    Nice try to outlawyer us, Jack, but you should be aware that intent can be proven by circumstantial evidence. "Richard W. Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005-07 (during the George W. Bush Administration), argued in a New York Times op-ed on Sunday that Comey's intent can be inferred from the absence of a good reason for sending the letter.
    "'Absent extraordinary circumstances that might justify it, a public communication about a pending F.B.I. investigation involving a candidate that is made on the eve of an election is . . . very likely to be a violation of the Hatch Act and a misuse of an official position,' Painter wrote."

    Also, if circumstantial evidence is insufficient in one case, it does not prove it insufficient in another.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    And if his statement is "I thought Congress should know," where is the intent to affect the election?

    And did he have the same intent when he initially said that it was "stupid but not illegal," thereby purportedly putting Hillary off the hook? Should Lassar's intent also be inferred?

    Just because someone wrote an op ed isn't proof of intent, whether direct or circumstantial. Remember all the op eds on that Blago and Ryan didn't do anything?

    Now, if you have the direct or circumstantial evidence, including of what Comey's intent was, I'm sure prosecutors will be glad to consider it.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Also note the text of Comey's remarks (this seems accurate). If to supplement previous testimony that the investigation was complete, out of an abundance of caution, and the FBI cannot yet assess the significance of the new information, where's the intent to do the bidding of Chef's candidate?

  • In reply to jack:

    You should probably read Richard Painter's op-ed. As the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, he is probably as well qualified as you to assess the circumstantial evidence in this case. In assessing the intent of a person, we are not confined to the statements made by that person, self-serving or otherwise.

    If Comey is so concerned with informing the Congress or anyone else of the progress of a criminal investigation, why is he silent on whether the DNC hacks are being conducted by the Russians and how they may be connected to the Trump campaign?

  • In reply to jnorto:

    You were on my back for citing a legal dictionary because it was not a primary source; a " chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration" certainly is not.

    Maybe you can cite some case law, and get back to us.

  • Richard Painter was on Chris Hayes's show tonight and made a convincing case that Comey violated the Hatch Act. Even Senator Grassley came out in denouncing Comey.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Isn't this the same Senator Grassley who said he had no constitutional obligation to hold hearings on Merrick Garland? Seems like both of you have applied political situational ethics. The law should not work that way.

    Note, I am not saying whether or not Comey should have done it. But both of you have accused him of a crime. That requires more than hearsay legal sources, as I noted above. Like I said, Dan Webb said Ryan did nothing wrong, and he spent about $30 million of his firm's resources in an unsuccessful attempt to establish that. Jim Thompson was spearheading that, and he was the corruption fighting U.S. Attorney until he went over to the dark side.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, I didn't accuse him of a crime. That is the opinion of Richard Painter. What I did say is that if he is indeed guilty of a crime, namely the Hatch Act, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    And, on my political expediency point, I saw on Googling Grassley and Garland, repeated references to "Grassley hints at Supreme Court confirmation hearing in lame duck." Besides that seeming to confirm my prediction of a couple of weeks ago Slate points out

    This position is very interesting, because it willfully shreds the already tenuous pretext that the GOP’s Supreme Court obstructionism was about principle, not politics. For months, Republicans have parroted McConnell’s stance, best expressed by Sen. John Cornyn, that “the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president.” But it appears that this articulation of the GOP platform was incomplete. A better formulation of the Republicans’ stance might be this: The American people should decide who appoints the next Supreme Court justice—unless the American people elect Hillary Clinton. In that case, the American people should be disregarded, and the Senate should quickly confirm Garland to prevent the American people’s actual choice from nominating her own preferred candidate.

    Hence, the only real principle here is that Grassley blows in the wind, depending on whether it is easier to dump on Obama, Clinton or Comey. Here there seems to be the poltical need to defend Hillary at all costs. While I said I already voted (and not for the candidate of the American Nazi Party), Clinton, Abedin, and Weiner have a real problem with internet security, and as Colbert pointed out, we don't know what's on Weiner's laptop, it is kind of strange that State Department correspondence is mixed with spam for boner pills. There were also articles today that Abedin previously told the FBI on what computers she had e-mail, but did not mention this one. Remember that the only count on which Blago was convicted in the first trial was "lying to the FBI"?

    Again, I don't claim to have the facts on this, but would you have preferred that this come out 3 weeks later? The head of the House oversight committee already promised 4 years of investigations into Hillary; would you have preferred this having been hidden until then?

    There are also reports that Loretta Lynch will give full support to the FBI in this investigation. Has someone convinced you that she violated the Hatch Act, too?

  • Jack, when you show me that you are a judge on a court having potential jurisdiction over this matter and that you will accept an amicus brief, I will be pleased to write a brief for you, citing statutory and judicial authority.

    Meanwhile, you may have to rely of secondary authority written by people who know more than you do, drawn from law journals, treatises, law dictionaries and --yes, even op-eds.

    When I earlier chided you for using a (non-existent) law dictionary, it was to point out your hypocrisy in citing a law dictionary after you previously declared you would consider nothing but published judicial opinions in deciding what the law is. And, in passing, I have not seen too many citations to judicial opinions in you posting on this thread.

  • jnorto, "when you show me that you are a judge on a court having potential jurisdiction over this matter and that you will accept an amicus brief," I'll accept your conclusions.

    There is no reason why I have to accept secondary authority. And apparently, you have no problem with that hypocrisy, either.

    As I said above, you are accusing someone of a crime, and on what you admit, is on flimsy legal authority.

Leave a comment