Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Donald Trump to James Comey: You’re Fired!
President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey.
WH statement on Comey firing: pic.twitter.com/W1MffToCvj
— Pamela Engel (@PamEngel12) May 9, 2017
Here is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein writing in a memo that Comey’s July 5, 2016, news conference was a fireable offense:
Newly confirmed DAG Rod Rosenstein lays out the case for firing Comey in memo sent out by the White House https://t.co/K8Zoe0xzVP pic.twitter.com/0MdMjqMCi2
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) May 9, 2017
Read the whole thing, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s letter to Trump and Trump’s letter to Comey.
Published in General
Nothing you have said even touches on my point: Comey was effectively given the green light to decide the case, regardless of what Lynch did “officially.” He announced his decision and stated his reasons for his decision in light of the important public interest in the case. That was the right thing to do.
So do you think Lynch would have charged Clinton with a crime if Comey had recommended so? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
That’s rather immaterial to the discussion isn’t it?
Comey has made institutional credibility a major theme in his explanations of his conduct. He wanted to preserve the integrity of the FBI and I think the DOJ overall. He said that’s why he accepted the responsibility that was abdicated to him from a compromised Loretta Lynch. If we can agree on the fact of his obsession with institutional integrity and take him at his word that he viewed Lynch as compromised, do you really think he would have recommended prosecution if he thought Lynch would not follow through? Wouldn’t such a public institutional failure bring about a crisis of confidence in DOJ that it would never recover from? Wouldn’t it end both of their careers? Could that be why he twisted himself in a pretzel to give Hillary a pass?
I don’t know what was going through his head, but I think you correctly outline the terrible position that the Obama Administration, Lynch in particular and Clinton placed him in.
No, I think he knew that the fix was in. He knew that there would never be a prosecution of the Democratic nominee for president, who just happened to be the wife of the president who launched the AG’s career. I think he did what he thought was best for the FBI, the DOJ, America as a whole, and his own career. In a way, that is kind of admirable, but in another way that makes him the most dangerous FBI director in history.
I don’t know for sure what was in his head either, but above is my opinion about what motivated him. I think I can make a pretty convincing case to support that opinion based on his very recent public statements and the facts of the whole sordid affair. As I said in #246 above, I think he knew the fix was in and that there would be no prosecution, no matter what he did. If he pushed for charges to be filed, that wold have brought down the credibility of the DOJ and ended a lot of careers, including his own. That is my deeply held belief, and reasonable people are allowed to form their own.
You’re speculating while we are talking about facts. Loretta Lynch publicly committed to following through on his recommendation. He had a free hand to make an honest, non-partisan decision. This is a former U.S. Attorney for the SDNY and former Deputy Attorney General. He was a man of substance and there is no support for the view that he was restricted by the Administration (other than your idle speculation and disagreement with his conclusion).
He did what was best for the country, not for his own career.
On the charge of speculation: guilty as charged; cynicism: guilty; lack of faith in the morality of our leaders: guilty. As for belief in the integrity of James Comey, I think he upheld his integrity as he viewed it. But I think he came to the wrong decision for the wrong reason. That’s my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree. You can start by depicting a believable scenario in which Lynch chooses to prosecute the presidential nominee of her own party and the wife of her primary benefactor.
I don’t know if Lynch was trying to make Comey the fall guy, or if Comey was trying to protect Lynch. All I know is they’re both gone, and I’m glad.
Now, how can we get Eric Holder imprisoned for his role in running guns to Mexican drug cartels?
And John Koskinen and Lois Lerner for their roles in a weaponized IRS?
One thing I don’t have to speculate about is the possibility of a proper investigation and eventual indictment without a grand jury. As Andrew McCarthy wrote nearly a year and a half ago:
Whenever challenged, AG Lynch said she would listen to the FBI agents and career prosecutors of the DOJ. That sounds pretty official, but the FBI agents couldn’t compel testimony or production of documents without the help of those career prosecutors, but those career prosecutors weren’t authorized to help the FBI. Comey had to offer Clinton’s henchbabes immunity deals to get them to talk, because there was no grand jury to force them. And there was no grand jury to weigh the evidence to determine whether there was probable cause to indict. No grand jury, no possibility for indictment. That’s not speculation, that’s how our justice system works.
I remember that statement, and am shocked to find that anybody took it at face value.
Exactly, she said that over a year after evidence of the underlying misdeed came to light, and yet still no grand jury had been empaneled. If she was serious about possibly charging Clinton, where was the grand jury?
Look, the Obama White House tried to do a number of things: protect Obama and his legacy by keeping him out of the scandal; protect Hillary Clinton so long as protecting her did not damage Obama in any way. (I have no doubt that Obama would have thrown her under the bus if protecting her made him look bad.) Parts of the mainstream media, Congressional Democrats, and surrogates did their best to accomplish these two goals. The Clinton campaign’s goal was to put the scandal behind her and vilify Trump and make supporting him and voting for him beyond the pale. Her campaign did not do a good job accomplishing this goal. They were pathetic, actually. They relied on the mainstream media, on Hollywood, on pollsters and on some conservatives to push her over the finish line. Comey was the only high-ranking executive branch official to speak up (as I recall) and say publically (and not as anonymous source) that Clinton had done anything wrong at all. Imagine how corrupt our government would be now if she had won?
As for the accusation that Comey took it upon himself to be a prosecutor, remember that it was Lynch who put the burden on him to make the call. That’s why he went public.
When he did that odd press conference, I also thought he was obviously somehow hobbled behind the scenes. It was so strange that he listed all the laws she’d broken, but then said nobody in their right mind would prosecute. It almost seemed like a hostage video. But I was and still am so angry that he didn’t just present the findings to the AG’s office and then resign honorably when they failed to prosecute. I really really really wanted Hillary to face the music, and I still do.
He should have done it by the book: make his recommendation to the AG in private. If he though the fix was in (it obviously was; no grand jury: Q.E.D.) and that his recommendation would be ignored, he should have resigned in protest. Instead he tried to split the baby, which ended his career.
I want his replacement to be the most buttoned up, no nonsense, tight lipped by the book guy ever to take the office. Follow the evidence where it leads. If there is no evidence, then say so and go fight violent drug gangs in Chicago or home-grown terrorists. That’s all.