It seems like only yesterday that the Dems/liberals were all slamming Comey and how awful he was and demanding his removal. They finally got what they wanted and now they're all whining and crying like babies that he was removed. But don't call them hypocrites, they're very thin skinned about that for some reason....
"This is not fake news. Intelligence officials are hiding connections to the Russian government. There is no question," then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said in a Dec. 10 interview on MSNBC. "Comey knew and deliberately kept this info a secret," he said.
The MSNBC host asked Reid if Comey should resign. "Of course, yes," Reid replied.
The MSNBC host asked Reid if Comey should resign. "Of course, yes," Reid replied.
The Democrats don't even like Comey, they even blame him for helping them lose in 2016, and now they're "outraged" over his firing
You just can't make this abundance of ignorance up, nobody would believe you, they would laugh at such a story, yet it's real
This is hate on steroids, this is their orchestrated resistance, this is about assholes looking to create a negative narrative about EVERYTHING because they know there are idiots out there that swallow EVERYTHING without reflex.
If Comey was retained and he determined nobody from the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the elections (which will be the eventual outcome), Schumer and Pelosi and members of their spoon fed flock like 919 would be crying "Comey helped him win the election and now he's working to make sure he doesn't get impeached". It's who they are, it's the essence of their existence, it's genetics, they're simply incapable of being reasonable people in the political arena.
I think this is helpful perspective
there you go, they're that stupid
fucking idiots, there's no other plausible explanation
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM: ROD J. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI
My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties.
Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted. Silbertnan believes that the Director’s performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt the bureau will ever completely recover.
Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to preserve, protect and defend the traditions of the Department and the FBI.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed that the Director stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion“ because the FBI director doesn’t make that decision.”
Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision an error in judgement.
Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said that the Director’s decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. Holder concluded that the Director broke with these fundamental principles and negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.
Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation, that is antithetical to the interests of justice.
Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President George HW. Bush, along with other former Justice Department officials, was astonished and perplexed by the decision to break with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections. Ayer’s letter noted, Perhaps most troubling is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions. We should reject the departure and return to the traditions. Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.
FROM: ROD J. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI
My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties.
Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted. Silbertnan believes that the Director’s performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed that the Director stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion“ because the FBI director doesn’t make that decision.”
Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision an error in judgement.
Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said that the Director’s decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. Holder concluded that the Director broke with these fundamental principles and negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.
Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation, that is antithetical to the interests of justice.
Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President George HW. Bush, along with other former Justice Department officials, was astonished and perplexed by the decision to break with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections. Ayer’s letter noted, Perhaps most troubling is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions. We should reject the departure and return to the traditions. Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.
[FONT="]MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL[/FONT]
[FONT="]FROM: ROD J. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBl’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.
Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.
The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors.
The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders. Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
In response to sceptical questions at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it. But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.
Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would speak about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or conceal it. Conceal is a loaded term that necessitates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]FROM: ROD J. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBl’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.
Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.
The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors.
The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders. Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
In response to sceptical questions at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it. But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.
Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would speak about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or conceal it. Conceal is a loaded term that necessitates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.
[/FONT]
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 35mMoreComey lost the confidence of almost everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. When things calm down, they will be thanking me!
James Comey will be replaced by someone who will do a far better job, bringing back the spirit and prestige of the FBI.
The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad!
[h=1]Harry Reid accuses Comey of sitting on proof of Trump-Russia ties, possible Hatch Act violation[/h]
-
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 38m38 minutes agoMore
The Roger Stone report on @CNN is false - Fake News. Have not spoken to Roger in a long time - had nothing to do with my decision.
-
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 55m55 minutes agoMore
caught, he cried like a baby and begged for forgiveness...and now he is judge & jury. He should be the one who is investigated for his acts.
-
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour agoMore
years, as a pol in Connecticut, Blumenthal would talk of his great bravery and conquests in Vietnam - except he was never there. When....
.
-
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour agoMore
Watching Senator Richard Blumenthal speak of Comey is a joke. "Richie" devised one of the greatest military frauds in U.S. history. For....
Trump goes after Democrats for crocodile tears and says Comey lost confidence of 'almost everyone' in Washington – as calls grow for independent probe into alleged Trump camp Russia ties
President Trump fired off a series of blasts at fired FBI Director James Comey Wednesday morning, amid a growing storm over his sudden firing of the longtime lawman a day earlier and new calls for an independent Russia probe. 'The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad!' Trump tweeted. He said Comey will be replaced by someone 'who will do a far better job.' Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats and serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, renewed his call for an independent probe of alleged Russia ties, and floated the idea of Comey heading the Senate probe.
President Trump fired off a series of blasts at fired FBI Director James Comey Wednesday morning, amid a growing storm over his sudden firing of the longtime lawman a day earlier and new calls for an independent Russia probe. 'The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad!' Trump tweeted. He said Comey will be replaced by someone 'who will do a far better job.' Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats and serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, renewed his call for an independent probe of alleged Russia ties, and floated the idea of Comey heading the Senate probe.
