Insight into why Comey was fired . . .

[turtlespeed 221]

. . . Evidently, there IS substantiated evidence that he should have been terminated.

It seems like it was the right call.

He assumed that the policies were "Robust enough" 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/15/james-comey-admits-he-was-wrong-about-carter-page-wiretap.html

[nigel99 529]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

. . . Evidently, there IS substantiated evidence that he should have been terminated.

It seems like it was the right call.

He assumed that the policies were "Robust enough" 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/15/james-comey-admits-he-was-wrong-about-carter-page-wiretap.html

I disagree. He is admitting that there were/are procedural flaws that he was not aware of at the time. 

Yes Trump and his ilk, like the sound bite of ‘I was wrong’. Most large organisations have procedural weaknesses and flaws and yes the leadership takes ultimate responsibility for them. By that measure Trumps dysfunctional White House is ‘his’ problem and he should take responsibility for it. So by your measure on Comey Trump should resign

[jakee 1,534]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

. . . Evidently, there IS substantiated evidence that he should have been terminated.

It seems like it was the right call.

Except that was't why he was fired.

[turtlespeed 221]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Except that was't why he was fired.

Justice comes in mysterious ways . . .

[TriGirl 319]

Quote

Michael Horowitz, who led the watchdog probe, found that the FBI had sufficient justification to open the investigation and conducted the inquiry without political bias, though he noted that the bar is set low to open such investigations.

It's nice when people can admit they were wrong, isn't it?  Though the article does include the above quoted text, the bolding (mine) is not noted anywhere else in the responses from the right.  Instead of appreciating that, when presented with evidence to the fact, someone can admit their flaws, this group wants to scream, "I told you so!" and claim Comey was wrong about EVERYTHING.  Yet, they can't seem to admit when their own flaws are so obviously exposed.  

So, according to the president, since Comey admitted flaws in the system in the case, he can't possibly be right about, or have acted appropriately toward, or have shown any professionalism in any other situation? Got it.

[turtlespeed 221]

6 hours ago, TriGirl said:

It's nice when people can admit they were wrong, isn't it?  Though the article does include the above quoted text, the bolding (mine) is not noted anywhere else in the responses from the right.  Instead of appreciating that, when presented with evidence to the fact, someone can admit their flaws, this group wants to scream, "I told you so!" and claim Comey was wrong about EVERYTHING.  Yet, they can't seem to admit when their own flaws are so obviously exposed.  

So, according to the president, since Comey admitted flaws in the system in the case, he can't possibly be right about, or have acted appropriately toward, or have shown any professionalism in any other situation? Got it.

What is sounds like to me is that even if they had justification to open the investigation, the process was akin to the chase scene in a Benny Hill episode.

Maybe look at it this way:

If I get pulled over for having a head light out, is that probable cause to dismantle the entire vehicle, scrutinizing every connection and fastener, knowing that the whole process will draw the attention of the local news?

 Seems a bit like overkill.  Seems like they were trying to kill a spider using a sledgehammer.

[wmw999 2,485]

31 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

If I get pulled over for having a head light out, is that probable cause to dismantle the entire vehicle, scrutinizing every connection and fastener, knowing that the whole process will draw the attention of the local news?

In many part of the country, that’s what happens when minority drivers are pulled over. Yeah, I know you’re not down with that, but it definitely happens often enough for people’s paranoia to be justified. 

Wendy P. 

[sfzombie13 324]

it may not be probable cause to dismantle the car, but they will damned sure bring the dogs out and handcuff you while they run them through looking for something.  as for the process, we haven't had a fair one in decades.

[TriGirl 319]

On 12/23/2019 at 8:53 AM, turtlespeed said:

What is sounds like to me is that even if they had justification to open the investigation, the process was akin to the chase scene in a Benny Hill episode.

Maybe look at it this way:

If I get pulled over for having a head light out, is that probable cause to dismantle the entire vehicle, scrutinizing every connection and fastener, knowing that the whole process will draw the attention of the local news?

Nowhere near an equitable comparison.  

[turtlespeed 221]

16 hours ago, TriGirl said:

Nowhere near an equitable comparison.  

Why is that your conclusion?

[TriGirl 319]

The process to get the warrant was flawed (what Comey admitted). But once the warrant was granted, the next steps happened based on what was learned when the investigators were following the intent of the warrant that, though flawed in its reasoning, was still granted legally in the first place.  A routine stop for a broken headlight does not result in the dismantling of an entire vehicle.  Come on.  

[brenthutch 444]

32 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

The process to get the warrant was flawed (what Comey admitted). But once the warrant was granted, the next steps happened based on what was learned when the investigators were following the intent of the warrant that, though flawed in its reasoning, was still granted legally in the first place.  A routine stop for a broken headlight does not result in the dismantling of an entire vehicle.  Come on.  

No, but a routine stop for a broken headlight does/can/will result in a questioning which can lead to a search which may end up as a vehicular disassembly. 

[billvon 3,030]

On 12/15/2019 at 8:57 PM, turtlespeed said:

Insight into why Comey was fired . . .

It's pretty simple.  He went from being a conservative hero (by giving Trump an October surprise and reopening the investigation into Clinton) to a conservative enemy (by not being Trump's sycophant.)   Any high ranking appointed official in the US government who does not worship Trump is fired.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Well, it's not quite that simple.

Almost, but not quite.

Comey was looking at the "Russia Connection". 

The current FBI 'model' of organized crime has changed. A lot. 

It's not a bunch of old Sicilian guys, extorting money through garbage & protection; selling drugs and illegal gambling.

It's now "become international, fluid, sophisticated, and had multi-billion dollar stakes. Its operators were cross-pollinating across countries, religions, and political affiliations, sharing only their greed. They did not care about ideology; they cared about money. They would do anything for a price."

And Trump is likely involved with it.

So he had to shut down Comey and the FBI, or they might find out about his involvement.
It's kind of funny.

" In August 2018, national security and intelligence community expert Natasha Bertrand noted in The Atlantic that the FBI and Justice Department agents Trump attacked most relentlessly had one major similarity: “their extensive experience in probing money laundering and organized crime, particularly as they pertain to Russia.”

Now, why would Trump go after people who are good at finding Russian mafia and money launderers? 

Hmmmm...

Quotes taken from Heather Cox Richardson's FB post from 12/27:

https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/posts/2116122628531792?__tn__=K-R

[turtlespeed 221]

10 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

And Trump is likely involved with it.

Just as much as Biden, and Hillary are involved with Ukraines.

[billvon 3,030]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Just as much as Biden, and Hillary are involved with Ukraines.

1) He didn't do it

2) OK he did it but it's not that bad

3) Clinton did it first

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

6 minutes ago, billvon said:

1) He didn't do it

2) OK he did it but it's not that bad

3) Clinton did it first

4) Fools believe Russian propaganda

[turtlespeed 221]

On 12/31/2019 at 10:09 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

4) Fools believe Russian propaganda

The bigger fools discard the info out of hand.

[jakee 1,534]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The bigger fools discard the info out of hand.

So what? No-one is dismissing it out of hand. They're dismissing based on the fact that all available non-foreign propaganda based information shows it to be false.

 

That you apparently can't tell the difference just shows once again the depth of your anti-democrat bias.