Should Trump Re-Hire Comey?

[Forty Two]

I think Trump should float the trial balloon out there that he's considering re-hiring former FBI director Comey, and see what the Democrats say...just for fun.

[Svartalf]

a snowball's chance in a volcanic lake of lava of it happening

[Brian Peacock]

Easy Comey, easy goey.

[pErvinalia]

He should hire him for the Presidents V basketball team.

[mistermack]

Comey has actually ruined his own reputation with this story about Trump asking him to drop an investigation.

When people look at it soberly, they will notice that he said nothing about it, to anyone, till he was sacked.
So either he was suppressing a serious matter, or it wasn't serious as he now claims.
He can't win either way. He's fucked by his own petard.

[Forty Two]

Also, the most anyone has said Trump said about it was "I hope you can let this go..." Without context, that's too ambiguous to mean anything. So what if he hopes that? He's not allowed to hope? I hope you can let this go? What if Comey said "We can't, we have probable cause ...." or "We'll have to see where the investigation leads..." I find it hard to believe that a President's expression of hope is a crime or some sort of impeachable offense.

[Brian Peacock]

Also, the most anyone has said Trump said about it was "I hope you can let this go..." Without context, that's too ambiguous to mean anything.

But that's not too ambiguous to mean absolutely nothing though, is it - the 'this' being the FBI's investigation of a Russian and Turkish shill appointed to high office by the President, and the 'hope' being the President's desire to see the investigation dropped?

[Forty Two]

Also, the most anyone has said Trump said about it was "I hope you can let this go..." Without context, that's too ambiguous to mean anything.

But that's not too ambiguous to mean absolutely nothing though, is it - the 'this' being the FBI's investigation of a Russian and Turkish shill appointed to high office by the President, and the 'hope' being the President's desire to see the investigation dropped?

Of course, there is no evidence that Flynn was that, is there? Or, is there? Let me know...

A shill for Turkey? Turkey is a NATO ally and has been since 1952, before West Germany, and 30 years before Spain.

We're not at war with Russia, and having relationships with Russia is not a crime or an ethical violation, is it? Or, is it? I remember the prior administration "resetting" the relationship with Russia, looking to become friends and allies and build a positive relationship. Heck, they were doing so well at it, that Obama all but laughed in Mit Romney's face when Mit suggested Russia was a foreign policy threat -- Obama said "the 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back" - meaning we aren't enemies with Russia, like it was the soviet union - we're working together.

Now, though, if someone has communications with a Russian bank or Russian official, we're being asked to infer that it's nefarious - that now anyone talking to Russians is up to something.

If a President "hopes" an investigation to be dropped is improper, you'll have to show a legal basis.

See also http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... mey-russia -

Unlike the investigation of Mrs. Clinton, the investigation of Flynn has continued. Plus, Comey does not appear to have indicated to his subordinates, to his Justice Department superiors, or to Congress that he felt threatened. Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and Comey’s former deputy (now acting director) Andrew McCabe have not intimated, even vaguely, that their investigative activities have been hampered. Again, the investigation is proceeding apace.

On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated. On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved. Case dismissed.

Doesn't this all just boil down to "we know Trump is up to something bad?"

[Brian Peacock]

Oh sorry, I forgot: "Yeah, but Democrats..." trumps every time.

[Forty Two]

Oh sorry, I forgot: "Yeah, but Democrats..." trumps every time.

It does when people are trying to pretend that commonplace communications and actions by every administration for some reason, now, amount to impeachable offenses.

I'm not just saying "yeah but Democrats" - I'm saying "yeah, but there is no illegality here - there is no crime or misdemeanor - there is no breach of any ethical requirement." The fact that the same kind of stuff went uncommented upon during the previous administration just shows how contrived this all is.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, it's OK because lying about secret meetings with foreign powers is 'commonplace'.

[Forty Two]

Yeah, it's OK because lying about secret meetings with foreign powers is 'commonplace'.

Trump lied about "secret meetings" with "foreign powers?" No, of course not. The allegation is that Flynn lied about his communications with the Russian ambassador. But, there is, so far, no evidence that anybody did anything illegal.

Those kind of contacts ARE commonplace.

Nobody has accused Trump of lying about secret meetings with foreign powers. The allegation against Trump is that he said he hoped Comey would let Flynn go. Note, the thought behind the allegations against Flynn was that Flynn was telling the Russian ambassador that sanctions would be "revisited" after Trump took office. However, those sanctions are all still in place.

Note - In 2008, Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the Iranians that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller confirmed to Michael Ledeen, who was a consultant with National Security Counci and the US State Department, his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

So, we had confirmation of Obama campaign associates communicating in secret with Iran in 2008. Criminal?

What's really going on here should be pretty obvious.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, it's OK because lying about secret meetings with foreign powers is 'commonplace'.

Trump lied about "secret meetings" with "foreign powers?" No, of course not. The allegation is that Flynn lied about his communications with the Russian ambassador. But, there is, so far, no evidence that anybody did anything illegal.

Yeah, we're talking about Flynn - on that we can agree (though I thought that was pretty obvious). And again, I'll grant that Flynn or Sessions lying about their meetings with Russian operatives is not, in and of itself, an illegal act. So you point is that... what?

Those kind of contacts ARE commonplace.

OK. But in accepting that secret meetings with the agents of foreign powers is a commonplace activity for political aspirants and appointees are we also expected to accept that lying about it, repeatedly, is also commonplace. Are you happy to be represented by lairs who lie about these things as long as you favour their brand of politics?

Nobody has accused Trump of lying about secret meetings with foreign powers.

Nice to see you're keeping up with events - but I'm wondering who this point is aimed at?

The allegation against Trump is that he said he hoped Comey would let Flynn go. Note, the thought behind the allegations against Flynn was that Flynn was telling the Russian ambassador that sanctions would be "revisited" after Trump took office. However, those sanctions are all still in place.

. Firstly, we don't know what Flynn or the Russians promised or were promised in those meetings which Flynn lied about, or in the meetings Sessions lied about, or in the meetings that other named Trump affiliates had. Secondly, in spite of your conjecture above Flynn's boss made him an offer he couldn't refuse and he stepped down - do you think that was a mistake?

And so to the standard red-herring...

Note - In 2008, Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the Iranians that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller confirmed to Michael Ledeen, who was a consultant with National Security Counci and the US State Department, his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

So, we had confirmation of Obama campaign associates communicating in secret with Iran in 2008. Criminal?

What's really going on here should be pretty obvious.

What's really going on is that many people seem overly-invested in avoiding the contemplation of certain unpalatable possibilities.

I'm not a Democrat. I have no affiliation with that party. I have no obligation to them as a political institution. I'm not here to represent the Democrats, or to agitate on their behalf, or to promote their ideals, or score points against their political opponents. I make no claims for the default rectitude of the Democrats nor maintain, let alone care if, they are a political organisation without guilt. My points and arguments are not tied to the Democrats nor contingent on their domestic opposition to the Republican party - and so every time you resort to the "Yeah, but Democrats..." two-step, and draw on any vague shade of false equivalence in justification, it falls on deaf ears I'm afraid. On this issue I'm concerned with a broader matter: that if a nation cannot rely on the assured robustness and independence of its democratic institutions and processes then the people of that nation cannot truly call themselves free. Every systems has its weaknesses and flaws of course, but the possibility that a general election result can be swayed by the interference and manipulation borne of a confederacy between a domestic party and a foreign power is a bit more than your regular democratic weakness or procedural flaw - regardless of who's elected to office.

[JimC]

When someone in authority says to a subordinate investigating something he doesn't want investigated, for potentially venal reasons, "I hope you can let this go" it is not ambiguous whatsoever, it is a clear example of corrupt pressure...

[pErvinalia]

Also, the most anyone has said Trump said about it was "I hope you can let this go..." Without context, that's too ambiguous to mean anything. So what if he hopes that? He's not allowed to hope? I hope you can let this go? What if Comey said "We can't, we have probable cause ...." or "We'll have to see where the investigation leads..." I find it hard to believe that a President's expression of hope is a crime or some sort of impeachable offense.

He shouldn't even be questioning the investigation at all to the top cop. It reeks of interfering in justice.