EX-FBI chief Comey’s post to ‘86’ Trump condemned by White House as attempt to put ‘hit’ on president

[RocksInMyHead]

Trump was well within his authority

Has anyone said otherwise?

the compromised deep state hack.

Says you, I guess. Seems like your only criteria for that is "doesn't worship God-Emperor Trump" though, so I'm not sure your opinion on the matter is worth very much.

To stay with your Batman theme the joker has been indicted. Now you riddle me this, how many swamp rats are yet to be charged?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Sounds like the process worked here.

Maybe - now comes the trial.

Tell me does the often touted phrase “ no one is above the law “ apply equally here or is it just liberal jargon.

If Comey's case goes to trial, and he gets convicted by a jury of his peers, then justice will have been served. So, too, will justice be served if Comey goes to trial and is acquitted by a jury of his peers. Something tells me that you would find only one of those results acceptable.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump was well within his authority to remove the compromised deep state hack.

The deep state hack that he appointed to the job.

 

[Postvieww]

The deep state hack that he appointed to the job.

Cute response, but misinformed.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Cute response, but misinformed.

Oh, was he not a deep state hack then?

 

[BPPLEE]

Maybe - now comes the trial.

If Comey's case goes to trial, and he gets convicted by a jury of his peers, then justice will have been served. So, too, will justice be served if Comey goes to trial and is acquitted by a jury of his peers. Something tells me that you would find only one of those results acceptable.

Due process, give him due process!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Oh, was he not a deep state hack then?

US attorneys are appointed by the President, so it can't be that part that's wrong. So you must be right.

 

[Postvieww]

Oh, was he not a deep state hack then?

You ignore the facts. 1. He should have recused himself for conflict of interest. 2. He tried to protect Comey even though the grand jury disagreed. So yes he was.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You ignore the facts. 1. He should have recused himself for conflict of interest. 2. He tried to protect Comey even though the grand jury disagreed. So yes he was.

I was responding to your claim that @essentialsaltes was mistaken with his statement "The deep state hack that he [Trump] appointed to the job." Since Trump definitely appointed him, if there was a mistake, then the only part that could possible be incorrect would be the "deep state hack" claim.

To address your post though:

1. No, he shouldn't. The connection that you've made between the two men (assuming that it's even correct) is so tenuous as to be laughable.

2. As the adage goes, a competent prosecutor could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. It's incredibly rare for grand juries to not issue indictments because the process is completely one-sided and the standard of evidence is lower than that of an actual trial. Usually prosecutors decline to request an indictment in cases that they don't think they can win in court, even if they could convince the grand jury to issue one. It's far more likely that he didn't think the case was winnable - especially because none of the other prosecutors in the office were willing to sign on either, even after he was gone. It's not normal for the US Attorney to be the one to present the case, let alone as the sole signatory. That's normally something handled by deputies.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Due process, give him due process!

Due process cost a lot of money. Because Trump gets upset at people, for doing their job.

 

[DaisyDay]

So Trump is the ethics board now too? Seems like a lot of work for one guy...

Not the way he does it - rage tweeting on the toilet at 3 am comes easily to him.

Maybe - now comes the trial.

If Comey's case goes to trial, and he gets convicted by a jury of his peers, then justice will have been served. So, too, will justice be served if Comey goes to trial and is acquitted by a jury of his peers. Something tells me that you would find only one of those results acceptable.

Or the judge throws the case out for insufficiencies. From all I've read, the charges were drafted very poorly by this newly hatched prosecutor, even taking into consideration that this is her first ever case.

 

[Arcangl86]

You ignore the facts. 1. He should have recused himself for conflict of interest.

His father in law being a friend of Comey's isn't a conflict of interest. Even if it was, as long as he himself wasn't investigating the case, conflict wouldn't apply.

2. He tried to protect Comey even though the grand jury disagreed.

The Constitutional standard for a grand jury is probable cause, a pretty low standard. The Justice Manual however, which is the policy manual that DoJ employees need to adhere to, states that a prosecution should only be initiated if the prosecutor is confident they can secure a conviction. In other words, there needs to be enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a far higher standard.

So yes he was.

There is no indication he acted improperly.