Justice Department concludes Comey violated the term of his employment agreement when he leaked classified memos.
Leaking classified information. No charges recommended.
Is anyone in Washington ever held accountable by the same standards used for the average citizen?
To answer that question, obviously not.
More proof that there is an 'elite ruling class'... which Trump was never really part of, Billionaire he may be, but he is still an outsider.
"We found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media," the report found, adding that the former director's actions nonetheless "violated department and FBI policies and his FBI employment agreement."
"Following his firing, Comey told a Senate committee that he authorized the release of some the memos' most explosive contents by asking an associate to provide the information to the New York Times."
So he did not give it to the media, but to an associate who he then asked to give it to the media. And that was all right, apparently.
Yes, they play by different rules, don't they?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 890002001/
The report concluded that no classified information was released.
I find it nothing short of astounding that between Comey leaking a memo after the fact or the POTUS trying to use his influence to interfere with and end an investigation into one of his staff, people are more concerned with the former.
However, it is a violation of FBI policy to keep records outside of the department. Normally in those situations, the employee is fired and should be fired. But I have to say, were I in the same situation where the POTUS had tried to persuade me to end an investigation and interfere with my job and I knew that POTUS to be a liar and somebody who would destroy records to protect himself, I would certainly keep something to prove I was telling the truth.
So let me ask this: you're working a job. Your boss asks you to do something illegal. Do you trust your boss to tell the truth moving forward or do you keep a record to make sure you cover yourself if you're accused later on?
Trump's Justice Department isn't prosecuting a man that Trump fired and hates with a passion.
Apparently it's much ado about nothing.
You are right. I finished the article after posting. It first said classified then changed to sensitive. I saw another report that some of the information was classified later.
But, considering the lies the left believes I don't think me saying classified is too huge a faux pas.
As usual, I see a left leaner making excuses (not you) because......oh yeh. Trump is still alive so it must be ok for any one to do anything.
LOL. I wonder who you are talking about?
Since you have opened that door again with clenched fists, I wonder if you can respond to my point about why Trump isn't prosecuting Comey.
As always, I'm delighted to hear your independent perspective.
Since you choose to lie about me previously, I'll decline.
Since you are grossly misrepresenting what I wrote previously, and refusing to accept responsibility for what YOU wrote previously, I accept your response.
In return, please avoid making cheap shots in my direction when replying to other people. Thank you.
You make false assumptions. My entire point is, is anyone in Washington ever held accountable under the law, as is the average citizen. If all we had were the incident you cite and the one I sited, you might have a point.
Maybe I missed something. What was the law Comey broke as cited in this particular story? He was fired from his job. Isn't that the appropriate punishment for violating the rules of your job?
Yes, you are correct. Obviously, violating the law can lead to jail time while violating a policy does not.
"James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information . . ." (Donald Trump - April 19, 2018)
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta … 6401585155
"We found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the Memos . . . " (OIG Report, August 2019)
Memos: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … memos.html
Don, my primary beef is the lopsided disparity in what behaviors the average citizen is held to, what conduct the average FBI agent is held to and what those in power get away with. This wasn't an accident on Comey's part. It was calculated and premeditated. His behavior is outside of accepted practices and FBI regulations.
If those in power can act at will, ignore anything they want, do as they wish, what's the point of law?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/us/forme … index.html
Seems to happen a lot for anyone in power.
Exactly. I know the say is power corrupted, absolute power corrupts,absolutely.
That isn't just a saying. It is more often true than not. I think those who are found guilty of abuse of power should be held to a higher standard. I don't understand why they are not.
"His behavior is outside of accepted practices and FBI regulations . . . If those in power can act at will, ignore anything they want, do as they wish, what's the point of law?"
His actions broke FBI policy, not the law. As a result he was fired, losing both his career and his pension.
What's more worrying to me is the fact that if he had professed his "loyalty" as demanded by Trump, and "let it go" with regard to Flynn, it's very likely that Trump would never have fired him. That's more concerning in my view.
It's also worrying that a sitting president was so eager to pronounce that Comey (whom he saw as a political enemy) had leaked classified information, even before any formal investigation had been concluded. When in actual fact, Comey had done no such thing.
So I agree with you, there are people in positions of authority currently getting away with all sorts of shenanigans. And while Comey has been penalized for his breaches of policy, it's not because the current administration has any interest in justice being done. It's because Comey refused to kowtow to Trump.
I dunno. CBS news tonight said he released classified information. Now I don't know if he did or not - the news reporter was very clear on it.
Somebody is either mistaken or hiding something.
My understanding from what I heard (haven't listened to all outlets) was some stuff was classified after the fact.
Yes, the memo in question is memo 2, which Comey shared with his private attorneys. The report says Comey did not consider its content classified when he wrote it, and did not mark it as such. The FBI did a "classification review" after Comey was fired, and some of the content in memo 2 was classified as "confidential" after the fact. The report says Comey broke FBI policy because he did not immediately alert the FBI to the fact it had been shared with his attorneys after he learned the classification had been changed.
Don your whole statement is biased opinion and conjecture.
Comey, Brennon, and the bunch that tried to support and cover them... these are the people who have been in D.C. for 25, 30 years. They are corrupt as they come, their abuse of power and position is on an epic level.
They believed they knew best, that this was their country to run as they wanted, and to change it as they saw fit. Even long timers in Congress were afraid of what might happen if they got on the badside of the likes of Comey and Brennan.
I remember two years ago watching MSNBC, and a prominent Senator was warning that when you mess around with those in the FBI or CIA bad things happen to you, in reference to Trump and his firing of Comey.
Think about that for a minute without your hate filled bias Don. A Senator, on a national news show, waxed on about how you shouldn't mess with the spooks of America if you know what's good for you, referencing the President.
That collective crew in D.C. was so corrupt, so outside the law, they were guilty of all the things Trump has been accused of and more, in regards to Russia and anyone else.
And proof of how totally corrupt the whole system has become, almost the entire body of the mainstream news (minus Fox) and Congress (minus a few standouts) turns a blind eye to it all, covers it up, and creates lies about those who are trying to expose it.
I understand that they will never prosecute a former First Lady & SoS, they will never bring charges up on a former Head of the CIA, or the DoJ.
That's how things work, once you are an insider no matter how many laws you break, no matter how much evidence is mounted up, they make it go away... you may be blackballed, but never imprisoned.
But don't make up a bunch of BS about Comey being a good guy, or being a victim, honestly to anyone relatively familiar with the facts of this matter, your statement doesn't reflect well.
"Don your whole statement is biased opinion and conjecture."
*goes on to make a statement that's mostly opinion and conjecture*
It's too ridiculous for words Ken. If you suspended your cult-like worshipping of Trump long enough, you might ask some sensible questions like:
Why did Trump ask the Director of the FBI to pledge his "loyalty" to him?
Why did a sitting president constantly contact the Director of the FBI to discuss individual cases on a one to one basis, which itself is a breach of protocol?
Why was the Director of the FBI asked by the sitting president to "let it go" in relation to Michael Flynn, who was later convicted?
Why did Trump, as a sitting president, pronounce that the FBI Director had leaked classified information to the media, as if it were a matter of fact, before any formal investigation had been completed?
Unfortunately you're too busy promoting deep-state conspiracy theories to be concerned by any of that. Comey was found to have broken Department policy and has suffered the consequences. He is no longer in a position to breach any government policies, nor access classified information. Neither does he have a national platform. The same cannot be said of Trump. I know who I'm more concerned about, and it's not Comey.
Indeed it is. The point being, you think your conjecture is based on facts. When in fact, it is based on things even less reliable than my perceptions.
You base your opinion on questionable documentation and the word of the very person who is at the heart of these crimes.
We have overwhelming evidence that there were a group of individuals within D.C. that were corrupt and criminal beyond question. They themselves were the overseers and protectors of the Law, and they decided that they did not commit any crimes, or do any wrong. Refusing each and every one of them to accept any blame, or to hold one another accountable. arrogant and indignant to the last.
This shows your overwhelming bias, not mine. Labeling me does not make it so.
No, I actually rely on the actions and the very words of the individuals themselves to determine what went on. You cherry pick your facts, and allow only those which suit your opinions to have any credibility.
John Brennan: "Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin."
“The nation is in a crisis in terms of what Mr. Trump has done and is liable to do. These are very frightening times.”
Brennan is a primary character in creating the "dossier" used as evidence to create an investigation into Trump and all those who supported him.
Brennan spent 25 years working for the CIA. Held the highest positions of power within for over a decade.
James Comey: “Our president must embody respect, and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country. The most important being truth. This president is not able to do that. He is morally unfit to be president,”
When asked if he thought Trump were compromised by the Russians he once replied: "“Its possible." Then added. "It is stunning, and I wish I wasn’t saying it, but it’s the truth,"
Where would you like me to begin, to show the evidence that this crew was working together to cover one another's crimes from detection, to remain in power and to alter the results of the election?
There are summary documents detailing interviews that FBI agents conducted with Bruce Ohr, a top DOJ official who is at the center of the scandal involving 'dossier'.
These documents show that the FBI and DOJ were warned repeatedly by Ohr that ex-British spy Christopher Steele was virulently biased against the target of their investigation, Trump.
The FBI and DOJ ignored the warnings of bias and actively concealed it from the FISC. They never advised the judges that the information contained in the “dossier” was “unverified.”
The court was never told that Ohr’s wife helped cultivate some of the research used against Trump. The FBI and DOJ represented to the judge that Steele was “reliable” when they knew he was not.
And this coincides with Comey holding a press conference on July 5th and clearing Hillary Clinton despite admitting that she broke the law by mishandling classified information on numerous occasions.
On this same day, Comey’s FBI held a secret meeting with Steele (dossier author) in London and opened the Russia investigation into Trump.
For months, Comey’s FBI and Ohr held secret meetings with Steele and other Clinton-connected officials in the government. While all of this was taking place, Comey admittedly told Trump on three separate occasions that he had not broken the law and was not under investigation.
But behind Trump’s back, Comey was investigating the president.
"I thought there's no way ... I'm not going to get fired, because I'm in charge of the Russia investigation. The president's not going to fire the FBI director who's handling the Russia investigation."
Comey seemed to believe that he was untouchable, and would eventually be able to sabotage the President from within his Administration.
From the start, these characters knew the charges against Trump were fabricated lies. They knew Clinton had committed crimes of all variety and covered for her time and again.
This isn't about Trump. This isn't about his Presidency. This is about an out of control cabal in D.C. that were convinced they were the only ones who knew how to run this country, and worked to influence who would become the next President.
There's two things I want to address here Ken. 1. conjecture, 2. your deep-state conspiracy.
"The point being, you think your conjecture is based on facts."
Something based on facts would, by definition, not be conjecture. That's a contradiction in terms. Aside from that, I think it fair to say using conjecture to complain about conjecture is self-defeating. Sadly you don't seem to recognize that. E.g:
"You base your opinion on questionable documentation and the word of the very person who is at the heart of these crimes."
Unless you have evidence that categorically proves Comey's memos are inaccurate, your suggestion that the accuracy is doubtful is just conjecture. Likewise, your suggestion his actions were a "crime" is just conjecture too. Also, when someone says Trump committed obstruction of justice, you shout "innocent until proven guilty". Yet here you are saying Comey committed a crime as if it's a matter of fact, even though he hasn't been convicted of anything.
This suggests you think conjecture is okay when it supports Trump, but not okay when it supports people viewed as Trump's political enemies; that it's okay to say certain people committed crimes as if it's a fact, but not okay to say the same about Trump.
And this is just one sentence from your comment Ken. If I deconstructed the whole comment, highlighting all the the hypocrisy, bias and untruths, almost no sentence would remain untouched.
In short Ken, you have no moral high ground with regards to bias or conjecture. You are sitting in the largest of proverbial glass houses, apparently sucked in by the cult of personality that is Donald Trump. I can't help you with that Ken, but if you want me to point every bit of conjecture, hypocrisy, or unsubstantiated argument in your future comments, I can gladly try my best to do that for you.
2. Deep State
"We have overwhelming evidence that there were a group of individuals within D.C. that were corrupt and criminal beyond question."
If you're referring to the House and Senate, I agree, though I'd draw the line at suggesting criminality without examining a specific allegation.
If you're referring to the FBI, then no Ken, what we have is the fact that you and some others have such a cult-like devotion to Donald Trump that you are willing to: 1. ignore any wrongdoing by Trump and his associates and label investigations into that as nothing more than a "witch hunt"; 2. exaggerate anything that even looks like wrongdoing by anyone viewed as Trump's political enemy; and 3. simply fabricate wrongdoing (see Trump's tweet that Comey leaked classified information to the press, which the OIG report confirms is untrue).
"Where would you like me to begin, to show the evidence that this crew was working together to cover one another's crimes from detection, to remain in power and to alter the results of the election?"
Thanks for asking. Create a thread; present a piece of evidence; say what you think it proves; people can decide if they think it proves what you say it does; present another piece of evidence. Only reliable sources though. No right-wing (or left-wing) blogs etc. Look forward to seeing your evidence.
"This isn't about Trump. This isn't about his Presidency. This is about an out of control cabal in D.C. that were convinced they were the only ones who knew how to run this country, and worked to influence who would become the next President."
The individuals in this "cabal" of evil spies, whose day job is literally to operate in secret, haven't kept their conspiracy very secret, or hidden it very deep have they Ken. Was getting the Director of the FBI to email his ultra secret, deep-state memos to his personal lawyers the opening gambit in some dastardly complex plot that's now in motion Ken?
Or is it more likely that this is just about ordinary people, who've spent years working in service of their country, doing their best to figure out what to do in the face of the extraordinary, unprecedented sh1t show that is the current presidency? A unique situation which none of the current policies or rules anticipated.
Seriously Ken, stop swallowing everything those right-wing blogs give you. Those sites are rotting your brain.
But you know what, I stand by what I said, if you'd like to start a "deep-state" thread and present your evidence, feel free. I promise to take it seriously, and not write any satirical responses. I'll be on my best behavior. Fair warning though, I will highlight any assertion you make in that thread that is hypocritical, unsubstantiated, or demonstrably untrue. I can't say fairer than that. Again, I look forward to seeing all your evidence Ken.
That response presented evidence, which you completely ignored.
So no, I won't waste the time creating a thread, besides, I am sure there is an article or two I wrote long ago on related topics, feel free to go read them.
You keep pushing that labeling effort you have going... " cult-like devotion to Donald Trump" and try to tie everything back to it.
Once you swallow the bait put out there, that Trump is a Russian Puppet, KKK and White Supremacist, etc. then anything anyone does or has done to try to ruin his reputation, campaign, Presidency, etc. is allowable, even laudable.
That blinds you to the actions of those who had held power in D.C. for a decade or longer doing what they could to remain in power, to protect Clinton from her illegal activities, and to ruin the opposition (Trump) so that he could not win the Presidency, and when he did, so they could destroy him from the inside.
The efforts of Comey, Brennan, Strzok, etc. their words and actions are matter of record. Their efforts failed.
Whether Trump is a good President or not, is another matter entirely.
You don't see it that way.
It seems you cannot see past Trump, and anyone who does, must be a supporter of Trump in your mind.
"That response presented evidence, which you completely ignored."
No Ken, that response presented lots of unsupported assertions, and quotes without sources. It's literally just a series of statements rehashing what you've heard on right-wing conspiracy sites and blogs. And no, putting something in quotes doesn't magically turn it into evidence that proves your point.
I'm honestly not sure if you genuinely don't understand, or if you are just trolling. I'm choosing my words carefully Ken, as I don't want to be too unkind, but perhaps you're not the best person to criticize anyone for bias or conjecture.
And the reason I call it a cult-like devotion is because that is what your willingness to completely bend reality and abandon reason in his defense suggest. You believe a "cabal" of deep-state evil spies (whose day job is to operate in secret) can't keep their most basic deep-state secrets, a secret. That the Director of the FBI (whom you believe to be one of these evil spies) emailed his evil deep-state memos to his personal attorneys, because he was just bad at being an evil deep-state spy. And that another evil deep-state spy texted his FBI lover, on his FBI phone, telling her all about his evil deep-state FBI plot to oust the president, again just because he was bad at being an evil deep-state spy.
You literally believe that Ken.
I'm sorry, but it's idiotic, and the fact you would go to such extreme lengths to attack ordinary people in the intelligence community, while ignoring the actions of Trump and many of his (convicted) associates, makes you sound like a Trump acolyte.
You know, as I do, that you're getting this stuff from right-wing blogs and conspiracy sites. Those sites can rot your brain Ken, you should steer clear. I'm not suggesting you suddenly become a liberal. I'm just saying you should stay off those extreme conspiracy sites for a bit. They're not healthy.
Truthfully, I respond to you mostly for comments like this.
This provided the best laugh I had all day.
Unlike you, I don't hide who I am, I note my military and government experience, and I don't take anything typed here overly seriously.
So the points I made that you call unverifiable quotes... Here is how you verify them, cut and paste them into a search. Simple.
And yes, after a great deal of investigating that revealed those messages and notes, it was proven that FBI top positioned people tried to alter the election, sabotage a Presidency, and cover for Clinton. These facts have nothing to do with Trump, what they did no decent American could condone.
I didn't call them "unverifiable quotes", I called them "quotes without sources". Not the same thing Ken.
Reading right-wing blogs and conspiracy sites does not constitute a "great deal of investigating" Ken, unless you're investigating right-wing blogs and conspiracy sites.
And no Ken, your "messages and notes" prove only that you are a conspiracy theorist, and like all conspiracy theorists, you interpret everything in a way that confirms your conspiracy. For example:
"Our president must embody respect, and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country. The most important being truth. This president is not able to do that. He is morally unfit to be president"
A comment like this from an FBI Director about a sitting president must surely show there is a conspiracy against the president. Even if it doesn, at the very least it's extremely unprofessional. Except, Comey wasn't the FBI Director when he said this was he Ken?
As you know, he said it almost a year after he left the FBI, in this interview with ABC.
https://abc.go.com/shows/2020/episode-g … -interview
So he was expressing his view as a private citizen.
So these are the quotes you think proves your assertions? There are literally millions of people who think Trump is unfit to be president. That doesn't prove a deep-state conspiracy exists and they're all part of it though Ken, it just proves lots of people think Trump is unfit to be president.
But wait! What if Comey felt this way while he worked at the FBI? Hate to break this to you Ken, but there are likely thousands of people who currently work in government Departments who think Trump is an unfit president. Just as there were likely people who worked in government (including the FBI) who thought Obama was a terrible president. Likewise Bush Jnr, Clinton, Bush Snr, Reagan etc.
The fact some people who work in government departments (including the intelligence services) don't like a current president, is not evidence of a deep-state conspiracy Ken. It's evidence that people who work in government Departments are just ordinary people.
It's a shame you declined my invitation to share your evidence so we could review it, but I suspect it would just be more of the same. I may create my own deep-state thread though and review whatever evidence I can find. I'd have to bleach my brain after spending time on the relevant sites though. You could be of help here. Could you recommend some right wing blogs and conspiracy sites to get me started?
https://abc7ny.com/politics/watchdog-co … s/5500716/
The Justice Department declined prosecution of James Comey after the agency’s internal watchdog found that the former FBI director gave memos containing classified information to a friend.
Comey wrote at least nine memos following conversations he had with President Donald Trump. He provided some of his memos to Daniel Richman, a Columbia law professor, with instructions to share some of the information with The New York Times.
Comey testified on June 7, 2017 that his goal in giving documents to Richman was to prompt the appointment of a special counsel to take over the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. The maneuver worked, as Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel on May 17, 2017.
Comey is also the one responsible for clearing Hillary Clinton of her various Classified information violations and other assorted charges.
Isn't it a great system, one of the D.C. insiders (ruling elite or whatever label you want to attach) breaks a bunch of laws and someone else in the establishment lets them off the hook, clears them of all crimes. And then someone else lets that person off the hook, for all the crimes they commit, and so on, and so on.
But hey, so long as someone says they didn't do enough to bring them up on charges, that's all that matters.
I'm absolutely fascinated that a director of the FBI has the authority to not bring charges against someone like Hillary Clinton. Under every OTHER administration, it is a decision of the Justice Department. Loretta Lynch was head of the Justice Department at the time. She didn't even comment on how James Comey overstepped his boundaries. It was as if she didn't care that he was doing her job.
I have a question on this topic that doesn't relate to a specific reply, so I'm replying to the opening comment.
The conclusion of the report says: "In a country built on the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to Department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances . . .".
My question is, what should a Director of the FBI do if the current president tries to exert undue influence over an ongoing investigation (regarding Michael Flynn). But that Director also genuinely believes the DoJ can't be trusted to do anything without external pressure because it's operating as the president's personal law firm; and he genuinely believes the party that controls both the House and Senate (this was 2017), including the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, can't be trusted to do anything either?
What should the Director of the FBI do in that circumstance? Comey chose to put the information into the public domain, rightly or wrongly. What should he have done? What would you have done?
In the scenario you have laid out there is nothing legal, ethical and moral that he CAN do. The answer, then, is to walk away clean and put it all behind him. Perhaps a public statement as to why he's leaving?
If this can be considered a matter of conscience, a good man's conscience, and that conscience sees harm to his nation, would you really advocate walking away clean?
If so, I can't agree. Besides the "for evil to flourish . . . " quote I mentioned to Don, your response seems to be one that would fit those three monkeys; "See no evil . . . etc."
If you felt the situation really had national interest implications is that the stance you would take? Since "normal" had long since passed, wouldn't you have the courage of your convictions?
Which is why I stated a public statement as to causes of quitting might be in order. But I do find that acting immorally is not a matter of conscience, for conscience IS our moral guide.
But if it really had national interest implications, far beyond merely working with a President I didn't like, I might go public as well. If it were to start a war, for example. Not liking the President, even not agreeing with the moral implications of what he was doing, is insufficient to violate my own morals. IMO.
If you were in Comey's shoes, it sounds like your option of making a public statement is essentially what Comey did. albeit via a leak.
I understand that not liking a president or his policies is not a justification for violating your morals, but, what if you felt it went beyond that? What if you felt a real danger to your country. Would that be a moral justification for his actions?
Of course, I could be all wrong. Comey could be a part of the 'Deep State', but at this point, I don't see that. I see a man acting on conscience.
One determining factor was his, (as previously mentioned), 11th hour Hillary announcement that very well could have influenced some voters to vote for Trump. If he was totally an anti-Trump tool, then he would not have done that.
I do understand I am out on a limb with my perception of Comey as an honest man, but until shown otherwise, there is no other place I can be.
What should he do? Show integrity by abiding by the terms of his employment. I'll hold judgement on the rest until the next report comes out. But, if his conduct was as many are saying he had no integrity, no moral compass and wasn't in a position to 'do the right thing' since it appears he chose not to do the right thing at every turn and may not have the intelligence to know right from wrong.
I have a different opinion of Comey. I think you are wrong.
If his motives were suspect because of party, then the reopening of the Hillary investigation comment at the 11th hour should put the "party" motivation to rest.
So if his actions weren't party-driven, what motivation is left? It must be either an action of conscience or a deep-state move.
Can you think of a different motivation? Before you answer that, review Comey's pre-FBI director and FBI director history. I don't think you will find anything that would taint him with that deep-state or party affiliation.
Did I say it was party motivated. Nope.
As I said. I'll withhold judgement until the other report is released, but if any that many are speculating is true, he's an ass who thought his personal opinion took precedent over the will of the American people. And was willing to peddle lies to get his way.
Perhaps it was deep state.
But more likely, seems to me, is that Comey set himself up as the moral guide for the country; if he didn't like what he saw he would take steps to stop it. Legal or not, ethical/moral or not, he would take steps. And he did so.
Yes he did. Now we must let history judge his actions.
It brings to my mind your thread on MLK: he, too, set himself up as the moral guide for the country. He was proven right in that the country was ready to accept his idea of what was moral and what was not (at least relative to racial discrimination): is the country ready to accept that one man should violate laws because he thought another man was wrong in his actions?
I fear that there a lot of people that will applaud his actions, simply because they don't like Trump for whatever reason, and ignore the rest of the question. Such people, seems to me, are happy to forget the whole story when it is against an action they don't like, while forgetting that if one person can get away with it everyone should be able to. Whether they will agree with all those other people in their actions is more than a little doubtful. Those same people will, for example, support civil disobedience...unless it is done by white supremacists or other group/individuals they disagree with.
Another example may be Julian Asange (I think I've got the right name): while many see great damage, some of it to specific individuals that have done nothing wrong, others view him as a hero.
While I wouldn't name Assange as a comparison, I would wonder if Snowden was an apt comparison.
I hope it has been obvious that I have not followed the anti-Trump mantra. so my support of Comey's action can hopefully be viewed without that taint.
However, I wouldn't be so generous as to put him in league with MLK Jr. ;-)
That's actually the name I wanted - Snowden.
Not another MLK? Are you sure? If he convinces us all that we are all a...god...for lack of better term, responsible for defining morality and acting on that morality regardless of rules, laws or other's morality?
That's my point, in a twisted sort of way - either he was right in ignoring rules of the rest of us or he was not. Which will be determined in the future.
Personally, I would predict that he will fade into the sunset and be forgotten. NOT another MLK in any form.
Although there is no legal or moral justification, as a man of conscience, I would do what Comey did.
'Normal' had long since fallen by the wayside. Based on my opinion of the current political climate, (at the time of Comey's action), and my opinion of Comey, (be it right or wrong), I find no fault with his actions.
I am reminded of that saying about evil and good men remaining silent.
How does an act with no moral justification fit with a description of a "man of conscience"? The two seem at opposite ends from each other.
Yeah, Fylnn was charged for lying about having words with a Russian ambassador. Yeah, it's picked and choose who will be considered above the law. It's very clear both sides love to play the game...
by Sychophantastic 3 years ago
If this private email server is such a big deal, worthy of prosecution and jail time, then shouldn't the FBI pursue charges against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/geor … 97373.htmlWhy was there no outrage about private emails servers when this happened?Are...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
Director Comey and the on going investigation into possible Russia collusion by the Trump team has one huge problem. What was the crime? Was there intent?By Mr. Comey's own standard, when dealt with the Hillary email scandal, he said there was no intent to violate our secrets even though she...
by John 4 months ago
Running rough shod over the Constitution by making these impeachment inquiries secretive nd cherry picking what they leak will hurt our country in the long run. Having a liar like Adam Schiff run the proceedings already brings great disrepute to the House of Representatives. He is a complete...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
James Comey just admitted he was a "leaker" to the media - should he be arrested?James Comey has been testifying today and in the course of his testimony has exonerated President Trump, made it clear that the President was never under investigation, and in a surprising revelation admitted...
by Demas W Jasper 4 years ago
What will it mean, when and if the State Department withholds some of those personal emails she was referring to, and does so on the basis that they contain classified information?
by Don W 3 months ago
Some facts:1. It is the legal duty of everyone in government to report anything they believe to be fraud, misconduct, or misdemeanor and it has been since the first whistleblower law was enacted in 1778: "Resolved, That it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|