Say what? Would you have the FBI, Congress, the press, or anyone overlook, rather than investigate, the "Russia thing" and "Saturday Night Massacre-esque" appearance of Trump firing the man tasked with leading the investigation into circumstances and events that may be tied to him personally and which even
Senators in his own party recognize he's at every turn he's already acted to
obstruct the investigative process being conducted to uncover the full picture of what in fact happened, who was involved in what nature and to what extent?
Regardless of what one thinks of the IRS-Tea Party "thing," it didn't result from a foreign actor's guileful legerdemain having been deployed in the U.S. electoral process in a way that benefitted him. Trump's glibly ignorant attitude, one that by discounting the significance of the matter borders on his exculpating the Russians, toward
a series of events that amounts to the "cuckolding" of the U.S. POTUS and electoral process is more disconcerting than even Richard Nixon's actions to do so without a foreign actor's involvement.
I mean really. Would you countenance someone else inserting themselves into your family's squabbles and debates? I know nobody in my family would. On the contrary, any such person would become subject to the scorn and wrath of every member of my family that would start with a "butt the "F" out" (less vulgarly than that, but that'd be the message) heard from each of us to whom someone even mentioned the matter.
Part of the reason he was fired- Dereliction of Duty- in failing to arrest Her Thighness Clinton
-Geaux
I'm sorry, but
that is not at all among the various reasons the WH has stated are why Comey was fired. Is the WH telling you things they tell nobody else who asks?
Rosenstein's memo to Trump does note several actions that Comey took that were in contravention with FBI/DoJ protocol. There are, for me, at least two salient factors about that, however:
- As someone who founded and ran a successful firm that I later sold, which resulted in my becoming part of a far larger firm's senior executive team, I know damn well that there's no such thing as an organizational protocol (rule, procedure, custom, etc.) that's exists to obviate an executive's exercising his/her professional judgment that is in partial or complete contravention of the standing protocol. One doesn't fire execs for doing that because it's among the things that, when the situation warrants it, they are there and paid to do.
Insofar as AG Lynch had averred to accepting the FBI's recommendation on how to proceed in the Clinton matter, the decision of whether to prosecute Mrs. Clinton was thus delegated to Dir. Comey. One need not agree with his decision; the fact remains it nonetheless became his to make. He didn't usurp anyone's authority. That authority was delegated to him. One does not, even if one can, dismiss senior execs for making a decision they were, regardless of whether they wanted to do so, charged with making.
Were a C-whatever to do that, they would have a very, very hard time finding anyone of high caliber who'd willfully opt to work for/with them. One'll surely note that Trump didn't have an FBI Director lined-up and ready to appoint prior to firing Comey and he still doesn't, that despite Trump's having stated he'd long before doing so, determined to dismiss Comey. It's all but certain that few who are highly suited to that role want it because in firing Comey -- combined with having done so on the "DL," in a manner of speaking, without allowing Comey to resign, and such that on-television is how Comey learned he'd been fired -- Trump's made clear his vindictive capriciousness. Hell, my firm treats mail clerks and outside contractors better than that.
- Rosenstein himself stated that he was informed of Trump's intent to fire Comey before he wrote the memo. Were I in Rosenstein's shoes, what I did, whether I'd write such a memo, and, if I did write it, what I wrote in it, would have depended entirely on how badly I needed/wanted to keep my current position. If I did actually write such a thing, it wouldn't contain my sincere ideas, it'd say my boss wanted it to say. (1) Why wouldn't it? He'd already told me he'd made his decision, so it's not as though what I might write would change his mind. It'd merely be a matter of whether I write it, or didn't, thus got myself fired, and someone else writes it instead.
Those two points pertain to Rosenstein's memo. There remains, however, the "elephant in the room": the "revolving door" of reasons Trump (via his press team) provided for why he fired Comey.
Lastly there is still the fact that you have responded to my post, but you've not responded directly to what it was actually about, which was directly in keeping with the thread theme -- though there is so much haranguing about "Russia," where were the watchdogs during the "tea party" crack down -- the OP introduced. You'll notice that in my initial post, I did respond directly to the OP's questions/comments and I asked a question of my own.
Now, I courteously diverted from thread's central theme -- which only tangentially and by way of example has anything to do with Comey's dismissal -- to respond to your comments, but I'm not going to do it again because I want to discuss the core topic. This is, after all, the CDZ and remaining on-topic is among the requirements. So, if you'd like to continue any discourse with me in this thread, please directly answer the question I originally posed. As a reminder, here it is:
Would you have the FBI, Congress, the press, or anyone overlook, rather than investigate, the "Russia thing" and "Saturday Night Massacre-esque" appearance of Trump firing the man tasked with leading the investigation into circumstances and events that may be tied to him personally and which even
Senators in his own party recognize he's at every turn he's already acted to
obstruct the investigative process being conducted to uncover the full picture of what in fact happened, who was involved in what nature and to what extent?
Note:
- Let's not kid ourselves. We're talking about lawyers here, and there's no such thing as a good lawyer who cannot facilely argue either side of a given matter, regardless of on which side s/he actually finds himself. If the matter weren't at least arguable, I wouldn't raise that point, but, obviously given the political atmosphere associated with Comey's firing, there's plenty that one can argue about no matter how strong, cogent, or weak be any given argument one may present. A poor argument, even when it's the only is still an argument.
