Jump to content

James Comey is my Homie

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32087

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Again, it's not a matter of one extreme or the other.  Comey isn't a scumbag. He's not even in Trump's ballpark.  That doesn't mean he's a hero, either.  Or that he didn't massively mishandle the situation.  I'm glad he's speaking out about Trump now, but he owns a share of the blame for putting Trump where he is to begin with. 

Yeah, I think this is right.  He way out kicked his coverage from a political standpoint.  I'm not sure he's been fully candid about his motivations, either.  Not that they are that insidious, but embarrassingly self-centered.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23723

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If the excerpts are any indication, this book is masterful trolling.

 

Appears to be the case.  I posted the NYT review in the DT thread.  Apparently Comey hits him on small hands, among other things. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7637

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

"He had smaller hands than me but not significantly so." James Comey about Trump's hands. Haha. That is pure trolling shit that will inflame Trump.

I read that as saying Trump's hands are relatively normal sized. Comey is 6'8", his hands should be a lot bigger than Trumps just scaling for larger body size. I doubt Comey has met many people with hands as big as his are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amobie

Amobie 58

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, DougO said:

He's grasping to save his rep, is what he is.

No.. I think he's doing it for money.  If this was about "saving the country" he wouldn't have waited a year and tried to profit off of it.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23723

Posted
Posted

Hugo's homie Comey, even McCabe calling bullshit on his nonsense.

 

McCabe has denied doing anything wrong. "This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement and intelligence professionals more generally," McCabe said in a statement after his firing.

In a letter submitted by McCabe’s counsel after reviewing a draft of the report, McCabe argues that “the OIG should credit Mr. McCabe’s account over Director Comey’s” and complains that the report “paints Director Comey as a white knight carefully guarding FBI information, while overlooking that Mr. McCabe’s account is more credible for at least three key reasons ...”

McCabe's counsel, Michael Bromwich, in a statement to Fox News, slammed the OIG report. "The core weakness of the OIG report is the lack of any understandable motive for his alleged wrongdoing. It is undisputed that Mr. McCabe was one of three senior FBI officials authorized to share information with the media, including on sensitive investigative matters," he said.

"He chose to exercise that authority in October 2016, during one of the most turbulent periods in the history of the bureau, with the knowledge of Director Comey and other senior members of FBI management. His purpose was to protect the institutional reputation of the FBI against false claims, including that a sensitive investigation was being shut down for political reasons."

McCabe and Bromwich seemingly sought to diminish the credibility of Comey, blasting his "recollection" as "not at all clear."

"Mr. McCabe’s recollection of discussions he had with Director Comey about this issue is extremely clear; Director Comey’s recollection is, by his own acknowledgment, not at all clear. And yet two of the lack of candor allegations are based on Director Comey’s admittedly vague and uncertain recollection of those discussions. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted

"I just don’t see how anyone can pass judgment on Comey during that whole fiasco when it’s very clear the public doesn’t have all the facts "  I chuckled.

I also think it is hilarious that a guy that had, what, 2 meetings and a few phone calls with someone can form such an elaborate opinion on his character.  This is not to say Trump actually has any character, but Comey had less than 2 hours of interaction with him.

Pure money grab coupled with an oversized ego and self aggrandization.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DougO

DougO 5266

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Amobie said:

No.. I think he's doing it for money.  If this was about "saving the country" he wouldn't have waited a year and tried to profit off of it.  

There's definitely a strong possibility he could need the cash for a future legal defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3828

Posted
Posted

I think Comey is a victim of circumstance.   Investigating your possible future boss's boss, and your current boss has a vested interest in the outcome.  Not to mention national implications.

I'm not saying he handled it correctly.  I'm saying it was a no-win situation even if handled correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46177

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, JBJ said:

I think Comey is a victim of circumstance.   Investigating your possible future boss's boss, and your current boss has a vested interest in the outcome.  Not to mention national implications.

I'm not saying he handled it correctly.  I'm saying it was a no-win situation even if handled correctly.

I thought you called it your pecker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrazilHorn

BrazilHorn 6852

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

here's where i think brisket takes unfair criticism for his fatalistic recent takes. that's the fucking republican official twitter account, fully embracing trump tactics. brisket is right. the gop = trump. they are all in. it makes no sense.

It’s not like DNC didn’t do same for Hillary. They torpedoed Bernie, rigged debates, fluffed reporters etc etc

i cant stand Trump but don’t be naive. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9974

Posted
Posted

I agree with civil libertarians on Comey's actions and inactions as the FBI Director. He wasn't Hoover, but he does like the spotlight on him. He could have turned the spotlight on a lot of scummy cockroaches, but then that wasn't his job, I suppose.

Another take on Trump is so tired and insignificant in the overall scheme of things. 

. . . sorry, I am tired - I just gave another take on Trump. Insignificant, don't you think?

Wait - that was yet another take. 

Time to go quietly . . . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23723

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/james-comey/557981/

full text behind tags

James Comey Is No Hero

The former FBI director has a low opinion of the president who fired him, but his disregard for Justice Department rules helped put Trump in the White House to begin with.

 

 
lead_960_540.jpg?1523637542
Joshua Roberts / Reuters
 
TEXT SIZE
 
 
 

Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American politics.

 

James Comey’s highly anticipated book, A Higher Loyalty, reportedly makes no secret of the disdain in which the former FBI director holds the president who fired him. Comey compares President Trump to a mob boss, calling him a liar living in a “cocoon of alternative reality” and a man who is “unethical, and untethered to truth and institutional values.”

The most damning revelations in the published accounts of the memoir, however, are not Comey’s condemnations of Trump, but his disclosures of his own thinking when he made the decisions that helped put the current president in office.

In July of 2016, Comey held a press conference excoriating Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information, but announcing his decision to decline to prosecute her, said her actions were careless but inadvertent. Then, on October 28, 2016, days before the presidential election, Comey wrote a letter to Congress announcing publicly that the case was being reopened, a decision that experts have argued likely cost Clinton the election. At the same time that Comey was publicly discussing a federal investigation of Clinton, the FBI was investigating whether Trump’s campaign was aiding a Russian influence operation aimed at putting the real-estate mogul in office. Comey kept the latter secret. The investigation into Clinton found nothing new—the inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia is ongoing and has already led to  guilty pleas from several former Trump campaign officials.

 

Why did Comey make that decision? His book, A Higher Loyalty, will be released on Tuesday. But accounts of its contents and excerpts published by outlets that have obtained copies of the book make clear that he concedes that he believed Clinton was going to win. “It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president,” Comey wrote, “my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls. But I don’t know.”

This is an astonishing admission. Justice Department guidelines bar officials from making important disclosures related to investigations close to elections to avoid influencing them. Comey took it upon himself to decide that, based on his concern that keeping the news confidential could call the legitimacy of a Clinton presidency into question, he had to announce that the investigation was being restarted. But that was not his decision to make; the role of the FBI is to investigate crimes, it is not to use its authority to protect or harm the legitimacy of a given politician. A hypothetical Clinton administration’s legitimacy should not have been a factor in Comey’s decision whatsoever; Comey should only have been concerned with following the Justice Department’s guidelines, which exist to protect the integrity of the democratic process, and which Comey followed in the case of the Republican candidate.

 

Perhaps, Comey defenders might argue, the sensitivity of the Russia inquiry as a counter-intelligence investigation prevented him from disclosing anything about it. But the point isn’t that the Russia investigation should have been disclosed, but that the Clinton inquiry should not have been. The fact that the Trump inquiry was kept under wraps while the Clinton inquiry was not simply accentuates the importance of the Justice Department rules against making such announcements close to an election—rules that Comey broke for one candidate but not for the other.

Comey’s admission that he believed Clinton would win is also dramatically at odds with Comey’s own sworn testimony before the Senate in May of 2017. “There was a great debate. I have a fabulous staff at all levels and one of my junior lawyers said, ‘Should you consider that what you’re about to do may help elect Donald Trump president?’” Comey said. “And I said, ‘Thank you for raising that, not for a moment because down that path lies the death of the FBI as an independent institution in America. I can’t consider for a second whose political fortunes will be affected in what way.’” Now, Comey admits Clinton’s political fortunes were a factor in his decision, which means that by his own assessment, he personally put the FBI’s political independence at risk.

Comey’s explanation in a Higher Loyalty also makes little sense. If a potential Clinton administration’s legitimacy might be thrown into question by concealing the restarted investigation, why did Comey not have even greater concerns about a Trump administration, given the fact that the FBI believed that Trump’s campaign may have been drawing aid from a hostile foreign power, an allegation far more serious than mishandling of classified information?

 

The answer may lie in the political asymmetry I’ve been writing about for two years: The FBI is petrified of criticism from its conservative detractors, and is relatively indifferent to its liberal critics. Comey may have known that the Republican outrage over not disclosing the reopened Clinton investigation would dwarf whatever frustration Democrats might express at the opposite course of action, had he kept it under wraps as Justice Department guidelines obligated him to do. Indeed, despite the role Comey’s decision played in helping Trump win the White House, Republicans have spent the Trump administration demanding political purges of the FBI and prosecutions of the president’s critics and rivals. While Republicans bear the responsibility for attempting to politicize federal law enforcement, the Democrats’ feeble acquiescence to this dynamic has only enabled them.

That asymmetry is illustrated painfully in the parade of Democrats Comey trots out to reaffirm his decisions. According to Comey, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tearfully told the former FBI director, “You were in an impossible position”; former President Barack Obama told Comey “nothing—nothing—has happened in the last year to change my view” of Comey’s integrity;  Attorney General Loretta Lynch told him to “look beat up,” after a private meeting, implying that she agreed with his decision. The list of affirmations is Trump-like in its self-aggrandizement: For all Comey’s disdain for Trump, the former FBI director has a Trumpish tendency to talk up other people’s high opinions of him.

Comey has a long record of public service, and Trump has none to speak of more than a year into his presidency. Yet there’s another way in which the virtuous and forthright Comey resembles the degenerate and deceitful Trump. Both are the main characters in their own cinematic dramas, the heroes of their own great epic stories, a mindset that blinds each of them to the consequences of their actions on other people.

Comey cares a great deal about honor, and regards the president as dishonorable. But in 2016, Comey robbed the American people of the opportunity to fairly judge each candidate in the 2016 election. That would be the case even if Clinton had prevailed; that she lost simply dramatizes the consequences of his decision. He chose honor over duty, and the nation, the political process, and the independence of FBI all continue to suffer for it.

Trump fired Comey for self-interested reasons, an act that may amount to obstruction of justice. But by that point, Comey had proven himself unfit to hold his office.

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ragnarok

Ragnarok 103

Posted
Posted

Comey's problem is that he has zero credibility after running an investigation that gave immunity to key targets without getting any testimony from them incriminating anyone, much less the key target. In fact, it appears that they were given immunity in exchange for NOT incriminating Hillary.  This includes the IT guy who knowingly erased key evidence that was under a preservation order.  Who did he give up for his immunity?  Nobody.  It is proof of a corrupt investigation. He will never have any credibility after that.  Comey's book sheds no light on any of this, but recycles salacious gossip, and his own bitchy opinions. He will always be hated by half the country for costing Hillary the election, and by the other half for keeping her out of prison.  I don't see how he can keep a straight face talking about honor.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
77horn

77horn 216

Posted
Posted

Interesting

Quote

 The book also includes a detailed description of Comey’s handling of the investigation regarding Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. That investigation led Comey to make a series of unusual and controversial public statements over the course of the summer and fall of 2016 – statements Clinton and others believe influenced the election.

Comey writes that he felt obligated to take more of a personal role as the public face of the investigation rather than deferring to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch – in part because of something involving Lynch that he cryptically refers to as a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.”

In early 2016, the U.S. government became aware of information from a classified source, and “the source and content of that material remains classified as I write this,” according to the book.

“Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” Comey writes, without further elaboration.

Comey book

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5908

Posted
Posted
On 4/13/2018 at 1:54 PM, sheeeit said:

"I just don’t see how anyone can pass judgment on Comey during that whole fiasco when it’s very clear the public doesn’t have all the facts "  I chuckled.

I also think it is hilarious that a guy that had, what, 2 meetings and a few phone calls with someone can form such an elaborate opinion on his character.  This is not to say Trump actually has any character, but Comey had less than 2 hours of interaction with him.

Pure money grab coupled with an oversized ego and self aggrandization.  

Why isn't Clay Davis your avatar? 

 

Vu8JXA0.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PittsburghTiger

PittsburghTiger 6349

Posted
Posted

On Sunday, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch released a statement slamming former FBI Director James Comey just hours before a blockbuster interview of him with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos is set to air.

In a 330-plus word statement, Lynch highlighted what she claims are her career accomplishments before turning her attention to Comey’s upcoming interview. Addressing the issue of the criminal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, Lynch wrote:

Over almost two decades as a federal prosecutor I have aggressively prosecuted drug dealers, violent gangs, mobsters, and money launderers, upheld the civil rights of all Americans, and fought corruption of all types –– whether by elected officials from both sides of the aisle or within organizations like FIFA. Through it all I have never hesitated to make the hard decisions, guided by the Department of Justice’s core principles or integrity, independence and above all, always doing the right thing.

The Justice Department’s handling of the Clinton email investigation under my leadership was no exception. It was led by a team of non-partisan career prosecutors whose integrity cannot be overstated and whom I trusted to assess the facts and make a recommendation – one that I ultimately accepted because I thought the evidence and law warranted it.

Everyone who works for the Department of Justice has an obligation to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the work of the department. That is why, at the critical early stages of this case, I followed the departments long-standing policy of neither confirming nor denying the fact of an ongoing investigation. This policy both pre-dates my tenure in the Department and will live on long after the current debate is over. It neither misleads nor misinforms, but instead both protects investigations and guarantees equal treatment of those under scrutiny, whether well-known or unknown. Any suggestion that I invoked this bed rock policy for any other reason is simply false.

Throughout the process I did what I always do: rise above politics and uphold the law. At no time did I ever discuss any aspect of the investigation with anyone from the Clinton campaign or the DNC.

I have known James Comey almost 30 years. Throughout his time as Director we spoke regularly about some of the most sensitive issues in law enforcement and national security. If he had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/29459/breaking-loretta-lynch-releases-statement-slamming-ryan-saavedra

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyBear1861

SmokeyBear1861 107

Posted
Posted

Lmao this spineless faggot covered up Bills crimes in his "investigation". Covered up drug cartel money laundering for HSBC after sitting on their board. And now, he just got trolled by a four chin meme that someone wrote into the top secret bullshut "dossier" and leaked by media. 

1523845280732_pol.png

Ahahahahahahahahaha 

nintchdbpict000293920256.jpg

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheFlyingBoat

TheFlyingBoat 913

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Lmao this spineless faggot covered up Bills crimes in his "investigation". Covered up drug cartel money laundering for HSBC after sitting on their board. And now, he just got trolled by a four chin meme that someone wrote into the top secret bullshut "dossier" and leaked by media. 

1523845280732_pol.png

Ahahahahahahahahaha 

nintchdbpict000293920256.jpg

You know that has been completely debunked right? The timeline for the "4chan trolled the CIA" story doesn't line up at all with reality and you're a moron for believing it.

Edited by TheFlyingBoat
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...