Should Obama fire James Comey (after the election of course)

Bullshyt! How could he not know this would influence the election. It already has and you claim he isent an idiot. He had to know.

You would be hard-pressed to prove that his motive was to gain political advantage... The question would be political Advantage for who? Certainly not for himself. If he's being accused of gaining political Advantage for Trump then how come he wasn't charged with violation of the Hatch Act when he came out and said although Hillary was guilty of gross negligence we're not going to charge her. Wasn't that political Advantage for Hillary? And malfeasance is a legal term that does not fit any description involving what he did.

Ok Guijohn, I am going to try to appeal to your intelligence rather than your partisanship. Hopefully you can see objectively that the argument is that these two instances are not the same. These are two completely different issues.

1) Comey's letter raised an innuendo. It had no details. It suggested that there was something new and incriminating. But it didn't say what that was, how likely it was or even if there was anything new.

This tosses a wrench into to with no details. This letter is an innuendo, it raises a possible connection without anything certain. And, this was done 11 days before the election.

And besides... an FBI Director who takes a public action, using his position to influence an election is malfeasance. We can argue about the details... and you might disagree with the interpretation... but you are wrong that this doesn't fit the description of malfeasance. It absolutely does.

There is no question that Comey's action hurt Hillary's chances. He became a big part in the final days of the election. That is the problem.

What Comey did with that letter was extraordinary. It has never been done before. Many prosecutors... including prominent Republicans.. pointed out that what Comey did was not normal. It is not the way the system is supposed to work.

2) The reason that the FBI said they didn't recommend charges for Hillary is that there was no evidence that could be used to convict her. This is the way our legal system is supposed to work. After an investigation, the investigators and the prosecutors make a decision about whether to go forward. If there isn't a good chance that they will win in trial... they make the decision to end the investigation.

What the FBI did with the Hillary case was standard practice. You consider the evidence. If you determine there isn't enough evidence to give you a chance at winning in trial (even if there is some evidence), you drop it.

Comey did give Hillary a public criticism of her actions. I didn't howl about this. First, it was warranted (and even as a partisan I can admit this). Second, it was early enough in the election that it could become part of the discussion rather than a last minute hand grenade.

------

So we have these two cases. One was extraordinary, last minute and unsupported by facts. The other was deliberative, timely and supported by a careful look of lots of evidence after an careful investigation.

So please, try to take off your partisan hat and look objectively. Do you see why it was the Letter that represents the unwarranted intrusion on the elector process?

First let me address the legal definition of malfeasance: Intentional conduct that is wrongful or unlawful, especially by officials or public employees. Malfeasance is at a higher level of wrongdoing than nonfeasance (failure to act where there was a duty to act) or misfeasance (conduct that is lawful but inappropriate)

At best you may be able to use the word misfeasance... at best.

Next, we don't know that his comments have hurt Hillary because the election has not taken place. As far as the tightening of the polls, according to CNN this is normal and expected. CNN states this is exactly where the Democrats were back in 2012 at this time.

Also you are incorrect when you state that the reason comey did not recommend indictment during his first public address was that there was no evidence. There was plenty of evidence... He listed it but then he said because there was no intent he didn't believe any prosecutor would try it. According to federal law intent is not required and it's not up to him to decide what is prosecutable or not... It should have went to a grand jury to decide. That my friend is standard practice. As a law enforcement official charged with investigation it is not his place to decide nor does he have discretion when it comes to prosecution But in all fairness to him he wasn't calling the shots it was his boss the Attorney General who strings are being pulled by Obama by way of Bill Clinton. He was a sacrificial lamb sent out to give that first public address basically to give the go-ahead for Hillary's campaign indicating to the public that she had done nothing wrong. That's where the manipulation to the electoral process first occurred and until you are able to concede this I am not able to concede that his second address to Congress was inappropriate.

And let's once again be clear here... it is more than evident that this second address was also not his idea but was forced by the probability of the Agents who were working on this case resigning and going to the Press. People may claim that these agents are pro Trump, and while that is an easy charge to make by people on the left who have an axe to grind, the simple explanation is that these career law enforcement agents who actually do the investigation recognize Hillary's guilt, know when they are being ramrodded by people above them in appointed and elected political positions of power and probably felt that it would have been their only recourse to cause the investigation to continue and protect the integrity of the FBI as an institution.

It seems like this is the main area that we disagree on. Please explain if I have your position wrong.

You are saying that if there is any evidence of wrongdoing that a case must be taken to a grand jury. I am claiming that a grand jury is only used when a prosecutor believes that there is sufficient evidence to warrant it. Note that the key difference is "any evidence" vs. "sufficient evidence".

According to federal law all the elements of the crime were met. It is then up to a grand jury to decide whether or not there should be an indictment. If there is an indictment it is then up to the judge and or jury to decide guilt or innocence. In the case of a public figure who has entrusted to her the public welfare and there is a question as to a violation of that trust it is incumbent upon the appointed political figure to allow the people, ie, the grand jury to make that determination. That is our system,that is standard procedure, that eliminates the perception of impropriety and political leverage.

Two comments.

1) I think you are wrong about how Grand Juries work. A Grand Jury is a tool used by a prosecutor. A prosecutor has the discretion over whether a case should go to a Grand Jury or not. You are using the phrase "all the elements of the crime were met" as your standard. I don't know what that means... and I don't think that is a legally valid standard.

A prosecutor who doesn't have enough evidence to go to trial will often decline a Grand Jury if they don't feel it would be worth it.

2) It would have been far more fair if this case had gone to a Grand Jury, let's say in April or May. That would have given Hillary a chance to defend herself with time before the election. This would have been far more fair than what happened.

I am assuming that however much you dislike Hillary Clinton, you agree that any hearing against her should be fair and give her a chance to defend herself.

A Grand Jury 5 or 6 months before an election would have been far better than a vague letter with no details dropped as a hand grenade 11 days before the election.

Of course, you should think objectively before you decide whether you think this would have been a good thing. The last time Hillary had the chance to defend herself against a hostile investigation in the Benghazi hearings, her poll number shot up.

it gets more entertaining all the time

http://www.mediaite.com/online/don-lemon-calls-out-rudy-giuliani-for-hinting-at-comey-letter-days-before-it-went-public/



Mr. Comey better be thinking about that at-will job he's in.

As a police officer putting together a felony packet one of the basic things that I was taught was to ensure that before proceeding that the offender has met the standard whereby all elements of the crime specified in the statute have been satisfied.

Elements of a Crime

An individual commits a crime if he or she acts in a way that fulfills every element of an offense. The statute establishing the offense also establishes the elements of the offense. In general, every crime involves three elements: first, the act or conduct (“actus reus”); second, the individual’s mental state at the time of the act (“mens rea”); and third, the causal link between the act and the offense. In a criminal prosecution, the government has the burden of proof to establish every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt; and third, the individual's conduct must be the cause of the crime.


18 U.S. Code § 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


If the grand jury had been impaneled before the director came out this summer and let Hillary off the hook I would have been satisfied with whatever they decided.

As a police office Giujohn, you are the correct person to answer these questions.

1) Am I correct that it is the discretion of the prosecutor to bring a case before a grand jury?

2) Have you ever felt that you had put together a felony packet that you felt satisfied all the elements of a crime that the prosecutors didn't bring before a grand jury?

My understanding is that this happens quite often (where the officer feels there is evidence, and the prosecutor disagrees and there is no grand jury). Correct me if that is not your experience.

You are correct that the prosecutor can either in panel a grand jury or go to trial without them. In my personal experience as a police officer I've never had a felony packet kicked back although I've had one or two misdemeanors thrown out.

Having said that and while I will not furnish you the details I've experienced in one situation and I have known other investigators who experienced the same whereby the individual and the circumstances we're such that there was a media frenzy surrounding the issue and in every one of those situations so as not to engender an appearance of impropriety the district attorney in his discretion opted to allow the grand jury system to take its course. In the case of the Secretary of State running for president where there are questions of possible treason and putting our nation's secrets and operatives in jeopardy politics should have been divorced from the situation immediately and all necessary steps taken to ensure the air of propriety and fairness.

I think I am also correct that the prosecutor can decide to neither impanel a grand jury or go to trial. You didn't specifically answer that. But Ok, I am not sure it is relevant anyway.

I would have been fine with Hillary going in front of a grand jury in April or May. It would have been a political and media circus. I don't know if TV cameras would have been allowed in (I suspect that Hillary would have wanted them). Hillary has fared well against your side every time she has been given a fair fight. I think she has grown to relish them.

And do you really think that a super-majority of jurors would end up agreeing with your side? Think of what would have happened if Hillary had emerged from the grand jury without having been indicted. She would have emerged even stronger.

A grand jury would have been fair. What Comey ended up doing was not fair. Dropping a vague letter with no specifics 11 days before an election is either idiocy... or malfeasance.

I'm not sure you know how a grand jury works. Most time it's done in secret. There never has been and never will be cameras during a grand jury proceeding. Also Hillary may or may not have been called and most likely not. Also she can't have an attorney represent her if she is called. The grand jury also that subpoena power. And they can directly examine witnesses. They are not there to determine guilt or innocence but to establish probable cause for a trial by way of indictment or what is called a true bill... I don't think she would have fared very well.


And the director committed no malfeasance... Apparently you didn't read or understand the definition. Malfeasance involves a violation of the law... There was none on the directors part.

I do know how a grand jury works. I was speculating that maybe Mrs. Clinton could have waived her right to privacy (which I believe was instituted to protect the accused). I don't know the rules on that.

But you can be sure that even with the grand jury in "secret" there would have been wall to wall media coverage with cameras rolling as she entered the building and cameras rolling as she exited the building with her big ****-eating smile. And cameras rolling as the prosecutor read the results. And cameras rolling as every pundit and talking head gave their speculation about what was going on inside. And I will note that the Congressional panel that did her so much good in the polls also had subpoena powers and the ability to directly examine witnesses. She still did pretty well.

I assert that using a government position to intentionally influence the result of a national election is malfeasance. Whether or not that is what Comey did... well maybe we should convene a grand jury (and just maybe after the election we will... although that isn't necessary if Hillary decides to just fire him).

But now we are going around in partisan circles. Is this still fun for you?

Loads.

It seems you completely ignored your training then.


What is the proper place of custody and when and how was it removed?

or if you are arguing that one of the other items on this list occurred, then provide evidence to support it.

Frankly, based on your argument here, we can see why you are no longer a police officer. You don't seem to follow the facts but let your personal bias blind you.

If you keep asking questions that are so obviously ridiculous and easy to show how wrong you are people are going to believe that you are really one of my sock puppets and are being used just to show how smart I am.


Proper place of custody is:

a secured server under the authority and control of the United States government.


Delivered to anyone in violation of this trust:

Classified material sent to people who do not have a clearance, i.e., Chelsea Clinton.

So how was the law violated since the law requires the removal from a proper place of custody if the documents were not in that proper place?


Your evidence of her sending classified documents to Chelsea and explanation of how it broke the law? In order for that to occur, Hillary Clinton had to have lawful possession of classified documents. (read the law.) Since the documents were never in their legal place, how did she have lawful possession?

Like I said, you have not shown all elements of the crime. You are completely ignoring parts of the law. I can only guess you weren't retained as a police officer because you weren't competent.

Retained as a police officer? I'm over 60 years old. I moved to a government desk job. I'm double-dipping pensions thank you very much.

Your questions were answered.

You obviously need education on the construct of legal statutes, their meanings, and how they are applied... But you're not going to get a free lesson from me.

So your answer is to pretend you know more than I do?

A prosecutor would laugh you out of his office with your evidence.