The Putin - Trump Controversy: Here to Stay - Links between Trump and Russia are being officially investigated by the FBI

[Basil II the B.S]

That's not how it works according to your previous post. Can I get coherence for two consecutive ones?

[The spartan]

Anyway, can your side please impeach Trump?

I am not a monolith, your imagined perspective of what I am and believe (I bet you think I have felt guilty over being white ) doesn't help the discussion move forward. Your desperation to lay claim to what "Liberals believe" means that we aren't even going to get off the ground.

[Infidel144]

Hmm...

So Comey should be indicted because he leaked Trump's attempts to obstruct justice. Give me a break.

But:

If I'm passionate it's because I value the rule of law and ethical conduct, not because I disagree with Trump's politics.

[Cope]

Hmm...

But:

It's all so tedious isn't it?

[Aexodus]

Hmm...

But:

what are you getting at?

[Cope]

what are you getting at?

His defense is that Comey's actions should not be subject to prosecution because he believes that they helped to damage Trump. This is not consistent with his previous claim that his interest in the Trump investigation is derived from a desire to facilitate "the rule of law and ethical conduct" rather than a hatred of "Trump's politics".

[Gaidin]

It's all so tedious isn't it?

Hmm...

But:

Well, to my mind, you guys are going a bit insane over-analyzing the memos for one. Comey didn't necessarily have the right as an official to leak them, and even as Director of the FBI probably only had the legal ability to show them to certain people in his inner circle. But either way, the lack of a prosecution plays to Comey's headgame and how and why he wrote them the way he did at the time of writing.

One thing is clear, Trump supporters are whining over how he's not being prosecuted over his handling of the memos. Comey's handling of the memos was handled by DoJ independent counsel Michael Horowitz. Horowitz referred the issue to the DoJ for possible prosecution, and after review, DoJ declined to pursue a criminal case. Like it or not, that is exactly how it's supposed to work.

Unlike the AG just dropping the decision on you. You know, because election politics.

DoJ reviews the Counsel's report(which we won't see until September) with two imperatives. One, clear criminal misconduct must be prosecuted, or else a two-tier system arises. Two, poor judgement, while must be punished, must not be criminalized, or talented people are discouraged from taking jobs all about pain-in-the-ass judgement calls.

That all now out there, the classified-information aspect of this all is way blown up. There were seven memos, and we know Comey tried to avoid putting classified information in any of them, and he believed he had succeeded. Though, even so, after accounting for all of them, the FBI marked two of them "Confidential". What's not sure is if the leaked memo is one of them. We do know the leaked memo has at one point: "NOTE: because this is an unclassified document, I will be limited in how I describe what I said next."

Known: Comey shared this memo with a friend, he shared at least a few with his lawyers. From a classified-information standpoint, it's insanely unclear that Comey knew anything in them was classified. Even if he was wrong, it's a crazy roll of the dice to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was grossly negligent in mishandling them, much less that he willfully mishandled them.

The idea here is not whether there was ever criminal misconduct at all. The relevant idea is the non-criminal impropriety in the handling of sensitive non-public government information, and the protection of communications to which the President(any President) has an assumed privilege that executive officials are obliged to respect regardless of their opinions of the President.

Would he be censured or punished if he were still Director? Possibly. DoJ could probably do that. But, well, that train left the station on May 19, 2017.

To be clear, Comey is allowed to write the memos. Much fire was lit over how he wrote memos for Trump but not for Obama. Who cares? As long as he was accurate, nothing more was required. Though Comey did not seem to regard them as the Government's.

And that is where the mess all starts and ends.

Katsumodo can say what he wants about the memos and you can try to catch him in whatever catch-22 you want to try to catch him in. But, the first thing you need to be aware of is that for all this is just seven memos written by a former FBI Director, it's slightly more intricate than you think. Stop missing the forest.

[Infidel144]

Well, to my mind, you guys are going a bit insane over-analyzing the memos for one. Comey didn't necessarily have the right as an official to leak them,

Well, to your mind, you are going a bit insane over 'us guys' "over-analyzing the memos". Since I, for one, have not analyzed them...

Katsumodo can say what he wants about the memos and you can try to catch him in whatever catch-22 you want to try to catch him in. But, the first thing you need to be aware of is that for all this is just seven memos written by a former FBI Director, it's slightly more intricate than you think. Stop missing the forest.

The first thing you need to be aware of is that this is utterly irrelevant to the point I made, which is not about what Katsumoto has to say about the memos...
Stop seeing trees where there are none.

[Katsumoto]

It's all so tedious isn't it?

It really is. If you guys have a hard-on for catching me out or whatever, at least try. I am not contradicting myself on believing in "the rule of law and ethical conduct" because I think a whistleblower should be not prosecuted for exposing a greater misconduct. Not to mention, as Gaidin pointed out, the illegality of Comey's leaking is so tenuous to the point of being practically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when you consider the sheer amount of misconduct and potential lawbreaking on Trump's part.

[Cope]

It really is. If you guys have a hard-on for catching me out or whatever, at least try. I am not contradicting myself on believing in "the rule of law and ethical conduct" because I think a whistleblower should be not prosecuted for exposing a greater misconduct. Not to mention, as Gaidin pointed out, the illegality of Comey's leaking is so tenuous to the point of being practically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when you consider the sheer amount of misconduct and potential lawbreaking on Trump's part.

No one believes, or has ever believed, that you're motivated by anything other than a pathological opposition to Trump. What's tedious is having to contend with the laughable facade of impartiality that you've constructed and are so utterly dedicated to. More amusing even that this however, is your claim that "a whistleblower should not be prosecuted" for "exposing misconduct" whilst being seemingly ignorant of the fact that this is exactly what Wikileaks and the Russian operatives were doing when they revealed the improprieties of the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

[Gaidin]

It really is. If you guys have a hard-on for catching me out or whatever, at least try. I am not contradicting myself on believing in "the rule of law and ethical conduct" because I think a whistleblower should be not prosecuted for exposing a greater misconduct. Not to mention, as Gaidin pointed out, the illegality of Comey's leaking is so tenuous to the point of being practically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when you consider the sheer amount of misconduct and potential lawbreaking on Trump's part.

Let's get one thing straight. There's whistleblowing and there's whistleblowing. If people are trusted with handling classified information and they want to blow the lid off of it as opposed to going through the IG(who just tore Comey a new for not even whistleblowing classified information btw[well, we'll find out what it was in september], for all DoJ declined prosecution), then have your consequences. You've broken the law. Don't do this crap if you can't stomach the fallout. And don't take the job if you can't stomach what you're working with. There's a reason Snowden's hiding his pasty white ass in Russia.

[Love Mountain]

what are you getting at?

Infidel's accusing Katsumoto of being a political partisan.

[Aexodus]

I just didn’t understand why infidel seemed to be contrasting Comey whistleblowing to “lawful and ethical conduct”, as if the two are different.

[Cope]

I just didn’t understand why infidel seemed to be contrasting Comey whistleblowing to “lawful and ethical conduct”, as if the two are different.

Because Comey allegedly leaked classified memos (which would contradict the notion of lawfulness).

[Gaidin]

Because Comey allegedly leaked classified memos (which would contradict the notion of lawfulness).

Except not even DoJ seems to think that can be proven. Worst case you're looking at, in Comey's intent, some form of sensitive, but unclassified, material. Which is very easy to get punished over. Chronologically, no document was classified until they were out of Comey's control, and he believed there was no classified information in them. We have improper behavior, but not criminal. Comey alone is living breathing proof that agency heads that control this have been wrong about the information before. But, now you have to prove they intended to be wrong.

[Love Mountain]

Except not even DoJ seems to think that can be proven. Worst case you're looking at, in Comey's intent, some form of sensitive, but unclassified, material. Which is very easy to get punished over. Chronologically, no document was classified until they were out of Comey's control, and he believed there was no classified information in them. We have improper behavior, but not criminal. Comey alone is living breathing proof that agency heads that control this have been wrong about the information before. But, now you have to prove they intended to be wrong.

We'll see what the report says, but I doubt they'll reach any worthwhile conclusion. The only bad thing about this is Republicans clawing over this story regardless of what comes out of it.

[Aexodus]

Because Comey allegedly leaked classified memos (which would contradict the notion of lawfulness).

Frankly after Snowden and Manning, I don’t really think it’s that important whether or not something is classified if the contents of the leak benefit the voting public.

[Gaidin]

Frankly after Snowden and Manning, I don’t really think it’s that important whether or not something is classified if the contents of the leak benefit the voting public.

Nothing like an honest assessment of Trump forcing a career diplomat to retire, huh?

[Cope]

Frankly after Snowden and Manning, I don’t really think it’s that important whether or not something is classified if the contents of the leak benefit the voting public.

That's fair enough, but it is laughably hypocritical for people who've whinged endlessly about Russian operatives using illegally obtained information to damage the DNC and Clinton campaign to now claim we should exonerate those who've illegally leaked information which is detrimental to the president. It only serves to prove (if we needed any more evidence) that said people were motivated by their opposition to Trump rather than their commitment "ethics" or "the law".

[Aexodus]

Nothing like an honest assessment of Trump forcing a career diplomat to retire, huh?

Don’t get me started on thst debacle. There’s nothing admirable or useful in the leaking of that memo.

That's fair enough, but it is laughably hypocritical for people who've whinged endlessly about Russian operatives using illegally obtained information to damage the DNC and Clinton campaign to now claim we should exonerate those who've illegally leaked information which is detrimental to the president. It only serves to prove (if we needed any more evidence) that said people were motivated by their opposition to Trump rather than to "ethics" or "the law".

If it was American’s who stole the podesta emails then I’d agree with you.