No. The FBI Director serves at the will of the President and the President is absolutely entitled to have a dinner meeting with him- as he did with so many other appointees- to see if his views are in sync with his. Comey had no problem with it as long as he thought his job was secure and then when he lost his job he had all sorts of problems. It's the way Washington and the Corporate world roll in general. And no, the FBI Director is not legally independent and no he is not appointed for a ten year term.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Comey the Clown: Lock him up!!
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
No. The FBI Director serves at the will of the President and the President is absolutely entitled to have a dinner meeting with him- as he did with so many other appointees- to see if his views are in sync with his. Comey had no problem with it as long as he thought his job was secure and then when he lost his job he had all sorts of problems. It's the way Washington and the Corporate world roll in general. And no, the FBI Director is not legally independent and no he is not appointed for a ten year term.
You've not paid any attention to anything, have you. Comey had all sorts of problems with it from the getgo. (Did you pay no attention at all to his testimony under oath?) That's why he kept such careful records. Traditionally, the FBI and its director maintains an arms length distance from the President. THE FBI is a government, domestic, law enforcement agency, and they may be involved with investigating people working in the executive branch of government, including the President himself. The President can appoint and fire a director but he has the Congress of the United States to answer to when he does.Comey had no problem with it as long as he thought his job was secure and then when he lost his job he had all sorts of problems.
Last edited:
Comey himself said that. But he did not release all his memos to the NYT and not every memo contained contained classified information.. The information released to the NYT contained no classified information. No classified information was given by Comey through an intermediary to the NYT. Why do you insist on making things up? If you want to participate in these forums, wouldn't it help to do some outside reading? A lot of stuff posted in these ET forums is simply repeated falsehoods. There are reliable sources outside ET where you can inform yourself of real facts. In the present case, the best source is Comey's testimony under oath to the Senate committee. That's the most reliable, official record at the present time that you would have access to.The fbi said comey memos contained classified info.
The information released to the NYT contained no classified information. No classified information was given by Comey through an intermediary to the NYT. Why do you insist on making things up? If you want to participate in these forums, wouldn't it help to do some outside reading? A lot of stuff posted in these ET forums is simply repeated falsehoods. There are reliable sources outside ET where you can inform yourself of real facts. In the present case, the best source is Comey's testimony under oath to the Senate committee. That's the most reliable, official record at the present time that you would have access to.
Here we are back to you claiming that we're supposed to take the word of comey and his stooge and the nyslimes. They claim the memo didn't contain classified info so we're supposed to consider that the indisputable truth and drop the whole thing.
So i'll ask you the same question i asked before on here. Can we just ask trump if he colluded with russia and if he laundered money from russia in his real estate deals and consider the case closed if he says he didn't? LMAO. Trump says he didn't collude. Russia says they didn't participate. All that's left is to ask Trump if he laundered money, because he hasn't been asked that yet. But if he says he didn't, or more importantly, he says didn't intend to break any laws, then your advice would be to just drop the whole thing, right? LMAO
The word of comey and the stooge and the nyslimes that they didn't do anything illegal is worth exactly nothing, as you are well aware and pretend to be ignorant and claim otherwise.
Comey's stooge said there was no classified info in the memo. Then he changed his story to claim it wasn't 'marked classified'. This is a damning change of story. It is not indisputable truth that the memo is one of the ones containing classified info, but it certainly suggests it.
You've not paid any attention to anything, have you. Comey had all sorts of problems with it from the getgo. (Did you pay no attention at all to his testimony under oath?)
I did. I heard him testify that no one tried to obstruct or interfere with an investigation.
good. Than you also know that he did not release any classified information to the public from his personal memos.I did. I heard him testify that no one tried to obstruct or interfere with an investigation.
good. Than you also know that he did not release any classified information to the public from his personal memos.
No. Try again.
The president was party to that meeting. He/the white house needed to sign off on the classification of the meeting itself and any related content. Did Comey present that for review? Comey might get to sign off or determine what the classification level is for discussions/meetings/material solely related to fbi matters but not when other parties such as the president are involved. The fact that there may not have been previously classified and marked documents transmitted does not mean that the meeting and its notes and contents itself are not classified, and they do not become unclassified simply by failing to present them for review to the parties involved so that they can weigh in- especially when it is the president and you are at the white house. As i said, comey might be the final decider over at the fbi for fbi only matters but not so when the president is involved or if he is at a meeting with other intelligence agencies.
A full investigation and a grand jury can sort this out before he is locked up.
Last edited:
I'm afraid you're stuck with taking his word until there is evidence that his testimony under oath is not true. Statements under oath will always be considered to have more probity than speculation and opinion.Here we are back to you claiming that we're supposed to take the word of comey
I should have said "may know". It is possible to listen without hearing; to read without comprehending.No.
I'm afraid you're stuck with taking his word until there is evidence that his testimony under oath is not true. Statements under oath will always be considered to have more probity than speculation and opinion.
There is already evidence that his testimony isn't true when he stated that papers he created from business dealings were not fbi docs, but were just his own personal notes. That isn't true.
He tried to say that trump spoke to him about his investigation of flynn, and then turn around and claim it's just personal, non business memos he wrote about this discussions. It's ridiculous on it's face.