WSJ: James Comey must be resigned

[Coyote]

I think you need to change you handle to Dr. Dopey.

If you think that Hillary is as white as driven snow, all you have to do is do a Google search using the term "hillary's corruption scandals". You will get 1,210,000 hits.

Read a few of the articles, come back and try to convince us again.

I don't think Hillary is white as the driven snow. No politician is.

I just typed "Trump" and "pedophile" into Google and got 2,250,000 hits. Using your dumb logic Trump is a pedo. And you call me dopey.

I don't have to prove shit. The accuser has to prove their POV...

Kind of hard when they don't indict her...

Which is kind of the main point. Either you believe the justice system mainly works - and a lack of indictment means a lack of sufficient evidence or, you believe it doesn't work and go along with trial by public opinion.

It's not the point when you get that high different rules.


.

I don't agree - Trump and Clinton occupy the same level. Why different rules in how each was treated by the FBI?

Pretty much every investigation on Hillary Clinton was pushed by Republicans. Even when there was insufficient evidence, they continued to attempt special investigations and more and more hearings. Given that - if there was something indictable, it would have come out.

You really can't justify the fact that Comey treated Clinton's investigation completely differently then Trumps.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It’s no secret that the United States is a house divided in 2017, and that Americans of different political persuasions agree on little when it comes to Washington. But there’s at least one tall exception to this state of affairs, and his name is James B. Comey.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/james-comeys-best-service-1484266535

James Comey’s Best Service

James Comey has been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for years, but according to the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, Comey should be resigned if he cannot fire Donald Trump.

Should he be resigned?

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk

1st he needs to jail Hillary and the cabal, then he can resign.

Comey had his chance to charge Hillary back in July, last year. He flubbed it. Whatever happens to him since, I could care less.

Comey didn't want to end up like Seth Rich.

 

[beagle9]

mm

By the F.B.I?

Probably because they have been trying to get her since whitewater

You do know she is the only first lady that has her finger prints on file with them.

I assume they get over zealous, when a criminal keeps slipping through your fingers they get frustrated.. Human nature

.

So you are making all sorts of excuses for why Hillary should be singled out for different treatment then any other FBI target of investigation. It's not human nature. It's corruption.

I am not making excuses, Hillary had baggage with the F.B.I for years. She was under two separate new investigations.

IDK coyote the older you get the more you realize everyone is just human after all.

I'm pretty old Bear

But there are no excuses for Comey's behavior...none. The FBI cleared her everytime. Don't you think that means there is nothing substantial there? I do. So why make a special pre-election exception and treat her completely differently then say Trump? So differently, in fact, that he defied precedent and rules to do so.

My personal opinion is that comey screwed up the first time by letting Hillary go publicly when it was not over and he caught heck for it.

He tried to make a wrong into a right

The wrong was treating her differently then other investigated people - we do not or should not base investigations on public opinion or decide to treat them differently based on that. Trump was investigated and every bit of it remained PRIVATE - they determined there was nothing criminal and that was all they said. They didn't flagilate him in public, they didn't give ANY details. Now compare that with how they handled Clinton and tell me if you think that is really right? Especially, when they announced - against all precedent, advice and possibly even the law - that they might - MIGHT - investigate again based on Weiner's emails right before the election. I don't see how anyone can't conclude that there is something way wrong in the way things were handled by Comey. The public is - burn her, she's a witch! But Comey is no calmer of the witch burning masses.

This, among other things, casts a shadow on the election's legitimacy. It might not have changed the outcome one iota, but we'll never know.

. Yeah she was treated differently, because she didn't go to jail when others have for far less, but even then she can't stop the with the bull crap, and to humbly bow out gracefully.

 

[Coyote]

mm

So you are making all sorts of excuses for why Hillary should be singled out for different treatment then any other FBI target of investigation. It's not human nature. It's corruption.

I am not making excuses, Hillary had baggage with the F.B.I for years. She was under two separate new investigations.

IDK coyote the older you get the more you realize everyone is just human after all.

I'm pretty old Bear

But there are no excuses for Comey's behavior...none. The FBI cleared her everytime. Don't you think that means there is nothing substantial there? I do. So why make a special pre-election exception and treat her completely differently then say Trump? So differently, in fact, that he defied precedent and rules to do so.

My personal opinion is that comey screwed up the first time by letting Hillary go publicly when it was not over and he caught heck for it.

He tried to make a wrong into a right

The wrong was treating her differently then other investigated people - we do not or should not base investigations on public opinion or decide to treat them differently based on that. Trump was investigated and every bit of it remained PRIVATE - they determined there was nothing criminal and that was all they said. They didn't flagilate him in public, they didn't give ANY details. Now compare that with how they handled Clinton and tell me if you think that is really right? Especially, when they announced - against all precedent, advice and possibly even the law - that they might - MIGHT - investigate again based on Weiner's emails right before the election. I don't see how anyone can't conclude that there is something way wrong in the way things were handled by Comey. The public is - burn her, she's a witch! But Comey is no calmer of the witch burning masses.

This, among other things, casts a shadow on the election's legitimacy. It might not have changed the outcome one iota, but we'll never know.

. Yeah she was treated differently, because she didn't go to jail when others have for far less, but even then she can't stop the with the bull crap, and to humbly bow out gracefully.

Shouldn't Trump be in jail for the shenanigans he pulled with his foundation? How about all the Russia stuff? Oh wait - that's different right?

 

[Wyatt earp]

mm

I am not making excuses, Hillary had baggage with the F.B.I for years. She was under two separate new investigations.

IDK coyote the older you get the more you realize everyone is just human after all.

I'm pretty old Bear

But there are no excuses for Comey's behavior...none. The FBI cleared her everytime. Don't you think that means there is nothing substantial there? I do. So why make a special pre-election exception and treat her completely differently then say Trump? So differently, in fact, that he defied precedent and rules to do so.

My personal opinion is that comey screwed up the first time by letting Hillary go publicly when it was not over and he caught heck for it.

He tried to make a wrong into a right

The wrong was treating her differently then other investigated people - we do not or should not base investigations on public opinion or decide to treat them differently based on that. Trump was investigated and every bit of it remained PRIVATE - they determined there was nothing criminal and that was all they said. They didn't flagilate him in public, they didn't give ANY details. Now compare that with how they handled Clinton and tell me if you think that is really right? Especially, when they announced - against all precedent, advice and possibly even the law - that they might - MIGHT - investigate again based on Weiner's emails right before the election. I don't see how anyone can't conclude that there is something way wrong in the way things were handled by Comey. The public is - burn her, she's a witch! But Comey is no calmer of the witch burning masses.

This, among other things, casts a shadow on the election's legitimacy. It might not have changed the outcome one iota, but we'll never know.

. Yeah she was treated differently, because she didn't go to jail when others have for far less, but even then she can't stop the with the bull crap, and to humbly bow out gracefully.

Shouldn't Trump be in jail for the shenanigans he pulled with his foundation? How about all the Russia stuff? Oh wait - that's different right?

The trump foundation was a civil suit, what about the Russian stuff coyote? Please be specific

 

[usmbguest5318]

To what do you think James Comey must be resigned? I can think of one thing:

• The fact that ideologues have devolved public discourse to a new low whereby it is suffused with next to no integrity and that sad development means must resign himself to being the target of recurrent retribution from partisans on either side of the aisle?

It's ridiculous that people won't just let that man stay out of the news so he can do his job.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I think you need to change you handle to Dr. Dopey.

If you think that Hillary is as white as driven snow, all you have to do is do a Google search using the term "hillary's corruption scandals". You will get 1,210,000 hits.

Read a few of the articles, come back and try to convince us again.

I don't think Hillary is white as the driven snow. No politician is.

I just typed "Trump" and "pedophile" into Google and got 2,250,000 hits. Using your dumb logic Trump is a pedo. And you call me dopey.

I don't have to prove shit. The accuser has to prove their POV...

Kind of hard when they don't indict her...

Which is kind of the main point. Either you believe the justice system mainly works - and a lack of indictment means a lack of sufficient evidence or, you believe it doesn't work and go along with trial by public opinion.

It's not the point when you get that high different rules.


.

I don't agree - Trump and Clinton occupy the same level. Why different rules in how each was treated by the FBI?

Pretty much every investigation on Hillary Clinton was pushed by Republicans. Even when there was insufficient evidence, they continued to attempt special investigations and more and more hearings. Given that - if there was something indictable, it would have come out.

You really can't justify the fact that Comey treated Clinton's investigation completely differently then Trumps.

Coyote your hopeless on this one, didn't you ever become aware that people you respected are not as good as you thought them to be?

How could trump and Hillary be on a clean slate? Comey tried and damn if he did damn if he didn't

And by that fiasco you could see how much power Obama and company has, if you think I am wrong do you remember when Biden and Kerry both went off the chain and Obama reeled them in and they became quiet?

 

[Coyote]

mm

I'm pretty old Bear

But there are no excuses for Comey's behavior...none. The FBI cleared her everytime. Don't you think that means there is nothing substantial there? I do. So why make a special pre-election exception and treat her completely differently then say Trump? So differently, in fact, that he defied precedent and rules to do so.

My personal opinion is that comey screwed up the first time by letting Hillary go publicly when it was not over and he caught heck for it.

He tried to make a wrong into a right

The wrong was treating her differently then other investigated people - we do not or should not base investigations on public opinion or decide to treat them differently based on that. Trump was investigated and every bit of it remained PRIVATE - they determined there was nothing criminal and that was all they said. They didn't flagilate him in public, they didn't give ANY details. Now compare that with how they handled Clinton and tell me if you think that is really right? Especially, when they announced - against all precedent, advice and possibly even the law - that they might - MIGHT - investigate again based on Weiner's emails right before the election. I don't see how anyone can't conclude that there is something way wrong in the way things were handled by Comey. The public is - burn her, she's a witch! But Comey is no calmer of the witch burning masses.

This, among other things, casts a shadow on the election's legitimacy. It might not have changed the outcome one iota, but we'll never know.

. Yeah she was treated differently, because she didn't go to jail when others have for far less, but even then she can't stop the with the bull crap, and to humbly bow out gracefully.

Shouldn't Trump be in jail for the shenanigans he pulled with his foundation? How about all the Russia stuff? Oh wait - that's different right?

The trump foundation was a civil suit, what about the Russian stuff coyote? Please be specific

The FBI was investigating Trump over alleged connections between him, his campaign and Russia and it concluded with finding no evidence of a crime (like it did with Clinton except...they didn't publically air it all, unlike Clinton).

 

[Coyote]

I don't think Hillary is white as the driven snow. No politician is.

I just typed "Trump" and "pedophile" into Google and got 2,250,000 hits. Using your dumb logic Trump is a pedo. And you call me dopey.

I don't have to prove shit. The accuser has to prove their POV...

Kind of hard when they don't indict her...

Which is kind of the main point. Either you believe the justice system mainly works - and a lack of indictment means a lack of sufficient evidence or, you believe it doesn't work and go along with trial by public opinion.

It's not the point when you get that high different rules.


.

I don't agree - Trump and Clinton occupy the same level. Why different rules in how each was treated by the FBI?

Pretty much every investigation on Hillary Clinton was pushed by Republicans. Even when there was insufficient evidence, they continued to attempt special investigations and more and more hearings. Given that - if there was something indictable, it would have come out.

You really can't justify the fact that Comey treated Clinton's investigation completely differently then Trumps.

Coyote your hopeless on this one, didn't you ever become aware that people you respected are not as good as you thought them to be?

How could trump and Hillary be on a clean slate? Comey tried and damn if he did damn if he didn't

And by that fiasco you could see how much power Obama and company has, if you think I am wrong do you remember when Biden and Kerry both went off the chain and Obama reeled them in and they became quiet?

I don't think I'm wrong here Bear...simply put: The FBI has always refused to discuss investigations under progress beyond saying they were investigating, and that was it. When it was concluded, the most they would say is they found no evidence of wrong doing or they found evidence enough to support an indictment. One or the other. They DID NOT do that with Clinton.

Now let me add - I don't think Clinton is a lily white saint either, but she was treated differently - very much differently - then Trump.

 

[Dr Grump]

She was connected. Once obama's gone this may change. Still, the entire establishment is against Trump, so she still has a chance to avoid jail as a lot of heat may come down on him for trying to serve justice on her.

Yeah, she was so connected Comey accidentally or purposefully sabotaged her run at the top job.

What justice?

He let her go at first.... So now you want to accuse him on what basis?

.

I'm not the conspiracy theorist who's saying that she was connected. You and jason are.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Kind of hard when they don't indict her...

Which is kind of the main point. Either you believe the justice system mainly works - and a lack of indictment means a lack of sufficient evidence or, you believe it doesn't work and go along with trial by public opinion.

It's not the point when you get that high different rules.


.

I don't agree - Trump and Clinton occupy the same level. Why different rules in how each was treated by the FBI?

Pretty much every investigation on Hillary Clinton was pushed by Republicans. Even when there was insufficient evidence, they continued to attempt special investigations and more and more hearings. Given that - if there was something indictable, it would have come out.

You really can't justify the fact that Comey treated Clinton's investigation completely differently then Trumps.

Coyote your hopeless on this one, didn't you ever become aware that people you respected are not as good as you thought them to be?

How could trump and Hillary be on a clean slate? Comey tried and damn if he did damn if he didn't

And by that fiasco you could see how much power Obama and company has, if you think I am wrong do you remember when Biden and Kerry both went off the chain and Obama reeled them in and they became quiet?

I don't think I'm wrong here Bear...simply put: The FBI has always refused to discuss investigations under progress beyond saying they were investigating, and that was it. When it was concluded, the most they would say is they found no evidence of wrong doing or they found evidence enough to support an indictment. One or the other. They DID NOT do that with Clinton.

Now let me add - I don't think Clinton is a lily white saint either, but she was treated differently - very much differently - then Trump.

The FBI has always refused to discussinvestigations under progress beyond saying they were investigating, and that was it

Oh crap you got me on that one, but again it was internal leaks and comey had to do something in his mind

Was there only one or two in the F. B. I that had a vendetta against Hillary? I think there was a bunch of them



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

She was connected. Once obama's gone this may change. Still, the entire establishment is against Trump, so she still has a chance to avoid jail as a lot of heat may come down on him for trying to serve justice on her.

Yeah, she was so connected Comey accidentally or purposefully sabotaged her run at the top job.

What justice?

He let her go at first.... So now you want to accuse him on what basis?

.

I'm not the conspiracy theorist who's saying that she was connected. You and jason are.

It's no conspiracy, didn't you ever read encyclopedia brown, Sherlock homes, Nancy drew when you were a kid?

Don't quit your day job because you would suck as a detective



.

 

[eddiew37]

mm

I am not making excuses, Hillary had baggage with the F.B.I for years. She was under two separate new investigations.

IDK coyote the older you get the more you realize everyone is just human after all.

I'm pretty old Bear

But there are no excuses for Comey's behavior...none. The FBI cleared her everytime. Don't you think that means there is nothing substantial there? I do. So why make a special pre-election exception and treat her completely differently then say Trump? So differently, in fact, that he defied precedent and rules to do so.

My personal opinion is that comey screwed up the first time by letting Hillary go publicly when it was not over and he caught heck for it.

He tried to make a wrong into a right

The wrong was treating her differently then other investigated people - we do not or should not base investigations on public opinion or decide to treat them differently based on that. Trump was investigated and every bit of it remained PRIVATE - they determined there was nothing criminal and that was all they said. They didn't flagilate him in public, they didn't give ANY details. Now compare that with how they handled Clinton and tell me if you think that is really right? Especially, when they announced - against all precedent, advice and possibly even the law - that they might - MIGHT - investigate again based on Weiner's emails right before the election. I don't see how anyone can't conclude that there is something way wrong in the way things were handled by Comey. The public is - burn her, she's a witch! But Comey is no calmer of the witch burning masses.

This, among other things, casts a shadow on the election's legitimacy. It might not have changed the outcome one iota, but we'll never know.

. Yeah she was treated differently, because she didn't go to jail when others have for far less, but even then she can't stop the with the bull crap, and to humbly bow out gracefully.

Shouldn't Trump be in jail for the shenanigans he pulled with his foundation? How about all the Russia stuff? Oh wait - that's different right?

Since when is paying off an AG an offense And his phony university??? Maybe repubs think he should get a presidential medal?

 

[Wyatt earp]

mm

I'm pretty old Bear

But there are no excuses for Comey's behavior...none. The FBI cleared her everytime. Don't you think that means there is nothing substantial there? I do. So why make a special pre-election exception and treat her completely differently then say Trump? So differently, in fact, that he defied precedent and rules to do so.

My personal opinion is that comey screwed up the first time by letting Hillary go publicly when it was not over and he caught heck for it.

He tried to make a wrong into a right

The wrong was treating her differently then other investigated people - we do not or should not base investigations on public opinion or decide to treat them differently based on that. Trump was investigated and every bit of it remained PRIVATE - they determined there was nothing criminal and that was all they said. They didn't flagilate him in public, they didn't give ANY details. Now compare that with how they handled Clinton and tell me if you think that is really right? Especially, when they announced - against all precedent, advice and possibly even the law - that they might - MIGHT - investigate again based on Weiner's emails right before the election. I don't see how anyone can't conclude that there is something way wrong in the way things were handled by Comey. The public is - burn her, she's a witch! But Comey is no calmer of the witch burning masses.

This, among other things, casts a shadow on the election's legitimacy. It might not have changed the outcome one iota, but we'll never know.

. Yeah she was treated differently, because she didn't go to jail when others have for far less, but even then she can't stop the with the bull crap, and to humbly bow out gracefully.

Shouldn't Trump be in jail for the shenanigans he pulled with his foundation? How about all the Russia stuff? Oh wait - that's different right?

Since when is paying off an AG an offense And his phony university??? Maybe repubs think he should get a presidential medal?

What like Biden?

.

 

[Coyote]

Which is kind of the main point. Either you believe the justice system mainly works - and a lack of indictment means a lack of sufficient evidence or, you believe it doesn't work and go along with trial by public opinion.

It's not the point when you get that high different rules.


.

I don't agree - Trump and Clinton occupy the same level. Why different rules in how each was treated by the FBI?

Pretty much every investigation on Hillary Clinton was pushed by Republicans. Even when there was insufficient evidence, they continued to attempt special investigations and more and more hearings. Given that - if there was something indictable, it would have come out.

You really can't justify the fact that Comey treated Clinton's investigation completely differently then Trumps.

Coyote your hopeless on this one, didn't you ever become aware that people you respected are not as good as you thought them to be?

How could trump and Hillary be on a clean slate? Comey tried and damn if he did damn if he didn't

And by that fiasco you could see how much power Obama and company has, if you think I am wrong do you remember when Biden and Kerry both went off the chain and Obama reeled them in and they became quiet?

I don't think I'm wrong here Bear...simply put: The FBI has always refused to discuss investigations under progress beyond saying they were investigating, and that was it. When it was concluded, the most they would say is they found no evidence of wrong doing or they found evidence enough to support an indictment. One or the other. They DID NOT do that with Clinton.

Now let me add - I don't think Clinton is a lily white saint either, but she was treated differently - very much differently - then Trump.

The FBI has always refused to discussinvestigations under progress beyond saying they were investigating, and that was it

Oh crap you got me on that one, but again it was internal leaks and comey had to do something in his mind

Was there only one or two in the F. B. I that had a vendetta against Hillary? I think there was a bunch of them



.

I don't know because it was always "unnamed" sources or "sources within the FBI".

Politico has a good article - basically, because the Dems met with Comey over it: Democrats confront FBI director over Clinton, Trump probes

Democrats are furious about the gap between the FBI chief's public comments about the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and Comey’s ongoing silence about any investigations into ties between President-elect Donald Trump and Moscow.

...Democrats also want Comey to publicly disclose any FBI probes into links between Trump and his associates and the Kremlin. Reportedly, intelligence officials last Friday briefed Trump on unverified allegations of collusion between Moscow and Trump aides the FBI has investigated.​

 

[beagle9]

mm

I'm pretty old Bear

But there are no excuses for Comey's behavior...none. The FBI cleared her everytime. Don't you think that means there is nothing substantial there? I do. So why make a special pre-election exception and treat her completely differently then say Trump? So differently, in fact, that he defied precedent and rules to do so.

My personal opinion is that comey screwed up the first time by letting Hillary go publicly when it was not over and he caught heck for it.

He tried to make a wrong into a right

The wrong was treating her differently then other investigated people - we do not or should not base investigations on public opinion or decide to treat them differently based on that. Trump was investigated and every bit of it remained PRIVATE - they determined there was nothing criminal and that was all they said. They didn't flagilate him in public, they didn't give ANY details. Now compare that with how they handled Clinton and tell me if you think that is really right? Especially, when they announced - against all precedent, advice and possibly even the law - that they might - MIGHT - investigate again based on Weiner's emails right before the election. I don't see how anyone can't conclude that there is something way wrong in the way things were handled by Comey. The public is - burn her, she's a witch! But Comey is no calmer of the witch burning masses.

This, among other things, casts a shadow on the election's legitimacy. It might not have changed the outcome one iota, but we'll never know.

The Country DEMANDED a report on Hitlery and Comey was under intense pressure to deliver one.

So he gets in front of a microphone, lays out a case for prosecuting her, cites all the laws she broke, etc and then says he's not going to recommend she be prosecuted.

Think maybe Janet Lynchmob told him that Hitlery wasn't going to get prosecuted no matter what he found?

That

The country demanded a report on Trump's Russian ties and didn't get one. What's the difference?

Who demanded? I still can't figure out what trump or Russia did wrong ?

They gave the public transparency


.

. Someone did, and thanks for that.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's no conspiracy, didn't you ever read encyclopedia brown, Sherlock homes, Nancy drew when you were a kid?

Don't quit your day job because you would suck as a detective
.

I was more an Agatha Christie type myself.

What I did do was look at evidence. You have none.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course you're an apologist for Hillary a damn kid could see how guilty she is as much as Bush Jr bullshitted his way into the Iraq War.
Stop it will you are embarrassing yourself.
.

Guilty of what? Post some evidence. You can't, can you?

She's guilty of violating the espionage act, to name one thing.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
She's guilty of violating the espionage act, to name one thing.

Tell what part of the Espionage Act that she has violated.