Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey

[Arkteia]

Hi,

Actually the big social programs have been passed by Dems--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The Drug insurance program was passed by George Bush, which was a surprise move on the Republicans part. (or maybe the Dems were in power in either the house or senate.)

The democrats look to push social programs. Look at the schools-free lunch-free breakfast, affirmative action, school loans-never ending. Block Grants for everything.

But the best for me is how staunchly they stand up for a woman right to choose. She must control her own body. It is her right. She is mature enough to make this decision.

But, the Gov't or her insurance must pay for her birth control pills. They should be free and paid for by the Gov. Child birth the same now. Medicaid pays for that. People on Medicaid in my state pay from $1 -3, but our liberals insist it should be free.

Of course values can change. We use to of one mind in some things. This is no longer the case. So we will continue to have a divide. And constantly telling people they are wrong leads to dysfunction in lives and Gov't.

Annette

The way I see it, if fundamental Christians want to decrease the number of abortions, they have to provide women with birth control pills. From the practical standpoint, viewing free birth control as unnecessary luxury and at the same time being anti-abortions does not work. Relying on teenage abstinence works even less. Also, if we want to limit the number of kids born to unwed mothers who thus become the recipients of welfare (big spending), we have to provide these low-income, young women with free birth control. And the most effective one. This will be only cost-efficient.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi ARkteia,

I'm not opposed to abortion. I am opposed to wanting birth control for nothing. Medicaid used to pay for drug costs 100%. Maybe 16 yrs ago they decided to have medicaid recipients pay a small portion,(like $1-3 per prescription) to be responsible and have a stake in their own care. Thats what insurance providers do when they have co-pays. People did not decide that the costs prevented their seeking healthcare. No-one died. People have to be invested In some way themselves. Often when you get something for nothing you don't value it as much. Women must be self reliant and be able to take care of their own bodies. Get your boyfriends to pay or your parents, not the state.

In your profession I read that if you give your services for free, it has less value than if there are shared costs with the individual. It matter that they are invested.

Regards,

Annette

 

[ABKIS]

It is Trump's job to know better. We should never make allowances for his incompetence because he is an outsider. That is how he will get away with murder.

Do us a favor and stop seeing him as a "booby" and start seeing him for the conniving criminal he truly is. Dumbing him down and making excuses for him (while holding other politicians to higher standards) is hypocritical and dangerous. One might even say it is typical Trump supporter behavior.

This, this a million times this. Please stop justifying his actions under the guise of "he doesn't know any better". Last I checked, he's a grown man who should be capable of understanding and learning that his actions actually matter now. He cannot just keep acting like some regular (using this term very loosely) Joe Shmoe. He's the president and should learn to behave accordingly.

 

[monarch64]

Hi ARkteia,

I'm not opposed to abortion. I am opposed to wanting birth control for nothing. Medicaid used to pay for drug costs 100%. Maybe 16 yrs ago they decided to have medicaid recipients pay a small portion,(like $1-3 per prescription) to be responsible and have a stake in their own care. Thats what insurance providers do when they have co-pays. People did not decide that the costs prevented their seeking healthcare. No-one died. People have to be invested In some way themselves. Often when you get something for nothing you don't value it as much. Women must be self reliant and be able to take care of their own bodies. Get your boyfriends to pay or your parents, not the state.

In your profession I read that if you give your services for free, it has less value than if there are shared costs with the individual. It matter that they are invested.

Regards,

Annette

Hold on a minute. You say women must be self-reliant and then turn around and advise them to ask their boyfriends or parents to buy them birth control?

I see birth control as preventative health care. Many times hormonal birth control pills are prescribed to women suffering from a range of disorders. Barrier methods such as condoms can prevent many sexually transmitted infections.

I don't think the state (nor anyone else) for reproductive health, but if we're talking about women being self-reliant we need to go further in helping them succeed with that in other ways. Until conservative, religious Americans lighten up already about procreation, women are still not going to talk to their parents about birth control, and boys/men are still going to pretend that they bear no responsibility and that it's all up to her to make sure she doesn't get "knocked up." Until we can have a discussion about the reason for abortions and the reason for birth control and the need for women to be self-reliant, we are spinning our wheels.

Which is why I will continue to support Planned Parenthood and organizations like it. And why I will continue to support early and extensive sexual health education. And why I will continue to preach until the day I die that every time you forbid something, people are going to find a way to do it. Take the mystery and drama out of something, and stop making it intriguing by forbidding it, and you'll decrease the problematic consequences exponentially.

 

[Matata]

Which is why I will continue to support Planned Parenthood and organizations like it. And why I will continue to support early and extensive sexual health education.

 

[redwood66]

Hold on a minute. You say women must be self-reliant and then turn around and advise them to ask their boyfriends or parents to buy them birth control?

I see birth control as preventative health care. Many times hormonal birth control pills are prescribed to women suffering from a range of disorders. Barrier methods such as condoms can prevent many sexually transmitted infections.

I don't think the state (nor anyone else) for reproductive health, but if we're talking about women being self-reliant we need to go further in helping them succeed with that in other ways. Until conservative, religious Americans lighten up already about procreation, women are still not going to talk to their parents about birth control, and boys/men are still going to pretend that they bear no responsibility and that it's all up to her to make sure she doesn't get "knocked up." Until we can have a discussion about the reason for abortions and the reason for birth control and the need for women to be self-reliant, we are spinning our wheels.

Which is why I will continue to support Planned Parenthood and organizations like it. And why I will continue to support early and extensive sexual health education. And why I will continue to preach until the day I die that every time you forbid something, people are going to find a way to do it. Take the mystery and drama out of something, and stop making it intriguing by forbidding it, and you'll decrease the problematic consequences exponentially.

I think smit's point is that they should have some skin the the game even if it is $1-3. Not that abortions should be outlawed. I agree with her on this point.

 

[monarch64]

Red, I was making points about birth control coverage. All points lead to deterring people from abortions. That's all. I see what you're saying. It really rubbed me the wrong way to see someone say women are accountable and should be self-reliant in all ways but then it's also ok for them to ask their boyfriends or parents for help paying for birth control? Didn't add up.

 

[redwood66]

Red, I was making points about birth control coverage. All points lead to deterring people from abortions. That's all.

I agree with the BC aspect of reducing the amount of abortions.

 

[t-c]

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
MAY 16, 2017

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.

The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.

Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.

Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of the memo to a Times reporter.

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey that Mr. Flynn had done nothing wrong, according to the memo.

Mr. Comey did not say anything to Mr. Trump about curtailing the investigation, only replying: “I agree he is a good guy.”

In a statement, the White House denied the version of events in the memo.

“While the president has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the statement said. “The president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey.”

In testimony to the Senate last week, the acting F.B.I. director, Andrew G. McCabe, said, “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment.

Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president, the two people said. It is unclear whether Mr. Comey told the Justice Department about the conversation or his memos.

Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey last week. Trump administration officials have provided multiple, conflicting accounts of the reasoning behind Mr. Comey’s dismissal. Mr. Trump said in a television interview that one of the reasons was because he believed “this Russia thing” was a “made-up story.”

The Feb. 14 meeting took place just a day after Mr. Flynn was forced out of his job after it was revealed he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of phone conversations he had had with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Despite the conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey, the investigation of Mr. Flynn has proceeded. In Virginia, a federal grand jury has issued subpoenas in recent weeks for records related to Mr. Flynn. Part of the Flynn investigation is centered on his financial ties to Russia and Turkey.

Mr. Comey had been in the Oval Office that day with other senior national security officials for a terrorism threat briefing. When the meeting ended, Mr. Trump told those present — including Mr. Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions — to leave the room except for Mr. Comey.

Alone in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump began the discussion by condemning leaks to the news media, saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates.

Mr. Trump then turned the discussion to Mr. Flynn.

After writing up a memo that outlined the meeting, Mr. Comey shared it with senior F.B.I. officials. Mr. Comey and his aides perceived Mr. Trump’s comments as an effort to influence the investigation, but they decided that they would try to keep the conversation secret — even from the F.B.I. agents working on the Russia investigation — so the details of the conversation would not affect the investigation.

Mr. Comey was known among his closest advisers to document conversations that he believed would later be called into question, according to two former confidants, who said Mr. Comey was uncomfortable at times with his relationship with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Comey’s recollection has been bolstered in the past by F.B.I. notes. In 2007, he told Congress about a now-famous showdown with senior White House officials over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The White House disputed Mr. Comey’s account, but the F.B.I. director at the time, Robert S. Mueller III, kept notes that backed up Mr. Comey’s story.

The White House has repeatedly crossed lines that other administrations have been reluctant to cross when discussing politically charged criminal investigations. Mr. Trump has disparaged the ongoing F.B.I. investigation as a hoax and called for an investigation into his political rivals. His representatives have taken the unusual step of declaring no need for a special prosecutor to investigate the president’s associates.

The Oval Office meeting occurred a little more than two weeks after Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Comey to the White House for a lengthy, one-on-one dinner in the residence. At that dinner, on Jan. 27, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Comey at least two times for a pledge of loyalty — which Mr. Comey declined, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates.

In a Twitter posting on Friday, Mr. Trump said that “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

After the meeting, Mr. Comey’s associates did not believe there was any way to corroborate Mr. Trump’s statements. But Mr. Trump’s suggestion last week that he was keeping tapes has made them wonder whether there are tapes that back up Mr. Comey’s account.

The Jan. 27 dinner came a day after White House officials learned that Mr. Flynn had been interviewed by F.B.I. agents about his phone calls with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak. On Jan. 26, Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates told the White House counsel about the interview, and said Mr. Flynn could be subject to blackmail by the Russians because they knew he had lied about the content of the calls.

 

[E B]

The bombshell everyone saw coming:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/...flynn-russia-investigation.html?smid=tw-share

 

[E B]

Jinx, t-c!

 

[telephone89]

 

[Arkteia]

Hi ARkteia,

I'm not opposed to abortion. I am opposed to wanting birth control for nothing. Medicaid used to pay for drug costs 100%. Maybe 16 yrs ago they decided to have medicaid recipients pay a small portion,(like $1-3 per prescription) to be responsible and have a stake in their own care. Thats what insurance providers do when they have co-pays. People did not decide that the costs prevented their seeking healthcare. No-one died. People have to be invested In some way themselves. Often when you get something for nothing you don't value it as much. Women must be self reliant and be able to take care of their own bodies. Get your boyfriends to pay or your parents, not the state.

In your profession I read that if you give your services for free, it has less value than if there are shared costs with the individual. It matter that they are invested.

Regards,

Annette

Annette,

I think that what you say would have made sense for Obamacare. If "they" - creators of the program - had the guts to raise taxes, from everyone, to provide comprehensive health insurance, it would have worked better than pushing the cost on holders of the private insurances. Because, give or take, Canada, GB, New Zealand or any country that has good public health system, has higher taxes. This is why ACA is not working now, because they were scared to raise taxes, because no one does it in this country, you know...

As to birth control, I am thinking of sexually active teenagers. Several years ago, they could go to PP and get free birth control (and some education in STDs, btw). Sex-ed at schools does not work well for one reason - teenagers are almost ashamed to ask questions in front of the class. So PP used to do a great job. Now they are underfunded and overwhelmed, even this part is out of the window...

Teenagers are impulsive, and between spending money on pot and birth control, they'd probably make their priorities, so if we do not want to have issues of teenage pregnancy (be it abortions or grandparents raising grandchildren, both are unwelcome), we just have to provide them birth control for free.

Same thing in poor communities, really, their situation is so bad...

As to my profession, everything depends on the provider. Some never take pro bono cases, some do sliding scale, some take pro bono. It is up to the person, and I can not blame the ones who flatly refuse, either. What I would prefer? I'd want someone to organize a "neighborhood help" system. We have enough land, and we have these homeless under the bridge, and we have people trained as carpenters, and electricians, and doctors, and hairdressers. If everyone donates - not money, time - to do something for the poorest members, it will work better. I could consult on Saturdays, the hairdresser can cut their hair, a carpenter can make a home for them. Money, as I have found out, end up in places with huge overheads, that end up demanding more donations. But time, direct help, could be more efficient. And I don't understand why everyone needs to go abroad to build something for the poor, while our own people are so neglected.

 

[katharath]

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
MAY 16, 2017

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.

The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.

Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.

Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of the memo to a Times reporter.

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey that Mr. Flynn had done nothing wrong, according to the memo.

Mr. Comey did not say anything to Mr. Trump about curtailing the investigation, only replying: “I agree he is a good guy.”

In a statement, the White House denied the version of events in the memo.

“While the president has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the statement said. “The president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey.”

In testimony to the Senate last week, the acting F.B.I. director, Andrew G. McCabe, said, “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment.

Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president, the two people said. It is unclear whether Mr. Comey told the Justice Department about the conversation or his memos.

Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey last week. Trump administration officials have provided multiple, conflicting accounts of the reasoning behind Mr. Comey’s dismissal. Mr. Trump said in a television interview that one of the reasons was because he believed “this Russia thing” was a “made-up story.”

The Feb. 14 meeting took place just a day after Mr. Flynn was forced out of his job after it was revealed he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of phone conversations he had had with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Despite the conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey, the investigation of Mr. Flynn has proceeded. In Virginia, a federal grand jury has issued subpoenas in recent weeks for records related to Mr. Flynn. Part of the Flynn investigation is centered on his financial ties to Russia and Turkey.

Mr. Comey had been in the Oval Office that day with other senior national security officials for a terrorism threat briefing. When the meeting ended, Mr. Trump told those present — including Mr. Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions — to leave the room except for Mr. Comey.

Alone in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump began the discussion by condemning leaks to the news media, saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates.

Mr. Trump then turned the discussion to Mr. Flynn.

After writing up a memo that outlined the meeting, Mr. Comey shared it with senior F.B.I. officials. Mr. Comey and his aides perceived Mr. Trump’s comments as an effort to influence the investigation, but they decided that they would try to keep the conversation secret — even from the F.B.I. agents working on the Russia investigation — so the details of the conversation would not affect the investigation.

Mr. Comey was known among his closest advisers to document conversations that he believed would later be called into question, according to two former confidants, who said Mr. Comey was uncomfortable at times with his relationship with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Comey’s recollection has been bolstered in the past by F.B.I. notes. In 2007, he told Congress about a now-famous showdown with senior White House officials over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The White House disputed Mr. Comey’s account, but the F.B.I. director at the time, Robert S. Mueller III, kept notes that backed up Mr. Comey’s story.

The White House has repeatedly crossed lines that other administrations have been reluctant to cross when discussing politically charged criminal investigations. Mr. Trump has disparaged the ongoing F.B.I. investigation as a hoax and called for an investigation into his political rivals. His representatives have taken the unusual step of declaring no need for a special prosecutor to investigate the president’s associates.

The Oval Office meeting occurred a little more than two weeks after Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Comey to the White House for a lengthy, one-on-one dinner in the residence. At that dinner, on Jan. 27, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Comey at least two times for a pledge of loyalty — which Mr. Comey declined, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates.

In a Twitter posting on Friday, Mr. Trump said that “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

After the meeting, Mr. Comey’s associates did not believe there was any way to corroborate Mr. Trump’s statements. But Mr. Trump’s suggestion last week that he was keeping tapes has made them wonder whether there are tapes that back up Mr. Comey’s account.

The Jan. 27 dinner came a day after White House officials learned that Mr. Flynn had been interviewed by F.B.I. agents about his phone calls with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak. On Jan. 26, Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates told the White House counsel about the interview, and said Mr. Flynn could be subject to blackmail by the Russians because they knew he had lied about the content of the calls.

I'm curious, just how much further can Trumpers bury their heads in the sand? I can't wait to watch them decide that they're fine with this, too, LOLOL!

 

[bunnycat]

I'm curious, just how much further can Trumpers bury their heads in the sand? I can't wait to watch them decide that they're fine with this, too, LOLOL!

Probably for a very long time. Honestly, the Bottom-of-the-Barrel-ers probably have little idea what goes on day to day in this political drama. if I called my father right now an asked him what he thought of this, he probably wouldn't even know what I was talking about. We barely speak now because of Trump and the mega regressive republicanism. After he got political letter in the mail scaring him in to thinking his Medicare was going away, and I told him it was a scam and he called me a know it all liberal, I knew there can now be no end at all to the ability to see and know nothing except what one is told (by Fox) by the unthinking. Even AFTER I asked him to read the letter all the way through, and it turned out I WAS EFFING RIGHT that it was a scam by a conservative politician trying to get campaign funding from him. Even after that, they still believe so yeah...I thing this could go on indefinitely. As has been posted on here by some people, Republicans appear to be fine with anything that happens as long as they are still able to push their agenda.

 

[Matata]

Chaffetz ready to subpoena Comey memo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...cd9e4b0a7458fa402fb?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

 

[redwood66]

Yep. We should see it.

 

[Arkteia]

I'm curious, just how much further can Trumpers bury their heads in the sand? I can't wait to watch them decide that they're fine with this, too, LOLOL!

Well, the GOP congress is pushing its laws under Trump's name. And I think they might be expecting four years of Trump and four years of Pence. While if they impeach Trump now, in four years, no one will vote for Pence, either.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,
Arkteia --I agree that neighborhood help activities would be a wonderful idea. I also think a national service of some sort would help. We had two voluntary orgs, Vista and of course the Peace Corp that used to serve people. I am behind in the latest goings-on in those orgs.
Teenagers are pretty outspoken nowadays, I think. They seem fearless to me We do need open sex ed for sure. I'm glad P>P> provides it, but no free care.

Monnie, Self reliance does not mean people are isolated from and must do everything by themselves..
Hopefully you get child support from your ex. That would not mean you were not self reliant. Even if you got help from your parents, it would not mean you are not self reliant. I am speaking of the Gov't.
Even if you got some help from the Gov't you may still be self reliant. To pay a portion of something makes you in fact more self reliant.

Annette

 

[t-c]

Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation
By REBECCA R. RUIZ
MAY 17, 2017

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has appointed Robert S. Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director, to serve as a special counsel to oversee its investigation into Russian meddling in the election, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein announced on Wednesday.

The appointment of Mr. Mueller dramatically raises the stakes for President Trump in the multiple investigations into his campaign’s ties to the Russians. It follows a swiftly moving series of developments that have roiled Washington, including Mr. Trump’s abrupt dismissal of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and the disclosure that the president urged Mr. Comey to drop the bureau’s investigation into his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.

“I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authorities and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination.”

While a special counsel would remain ultimately answerable to Mr. Rosenstein — and by extension, the president — he would have greater autonomy to run an investigation than a United States attorney.

Mr. Mueller is expected to announce his resignation from the law firm WilmerHale.

 

[redwood66]

Interesting take on the Comey memo. It seems he can't claim obstruction of justice without incriminating himself if he did not report it to DOJ.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/16/gregg-jarrett-comeys-revenge-is-gun-without-powder.html

 

[t-c]

Or...Comey can claim that his memo is evidence of an ongoing investigation (into Michael Flynn, into Russian interference) that he didn't want to derail or make public by reporting because, according to that article from "surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months."

 

[redwood66]

Then it is not obstruction of justice since he had a duty to report it if it was. He is absolutely smart enough to know that. His testimony will be interesting.

 

[E B]

And the drips keep dripping...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/...tional-security-adviser.html?mtrref=t.co&_r=0

 

[MollyMalone]

Interesting take on the Comey memo. It seems he can't claim obstruction of justice without incriminating himself if he did not report it to DOJ.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/16/gregg-jarrett-comeys-revenge-is-gun-without-powder.html

Honestly, redwood, I snorted when I read that op-ed piece from Gregg Jarrett. The only support he offers for his claim that "Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey" is a citation to 18 USC § 4 (defining the obscure crime of misprision of a felony) -- and to 28 USC § 1361, a friggin' civil procedure statute that is totally irrelevant.

Here's the text of 18 USC § 4:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4
On its face, the statute makes plain that concealment is an essential element of misprision. So although you wouldn't know this from reading Jarrett's shoddy piece, there is a line of Federal court decisions holding that the mere failure to report a felony does not constitute a violation of 18 USC § 4. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1997), where the Federal appellate court in Texas vacated Johnson's plea of guilty to misprision because the only evidence on the record was that he had not gone to authorities to report conversations which, the government alleged, constituted violations of what was then the Neutrality Act (now the Arms Export Control Act).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14806734468103617188

P.S. I see that in his tagline, Jarrett touts himself as a "former defense attorney," which seems designed to suggest he has expertise in the practice of criminal law. But take a look at the profile of him that appeared in a 1997 issue of his law school alumni magazine, and you'll see that his first 5 years out of law school -- his only stint as a practicing attorney -- were as an associate at Gordon Rees (then a small, civil litigation & business law firm, less than 10 years old) "where he defended mostly civil cases". Page 9 here:
http://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=alumni_mag

 

[redwood66]

I am no attorney so I would not know these things. Are you suggesting anything or just putting me in my place? I am just posting information like everyone else does. Maybe you should write an op-ed rebuttal?

My response might be a tad rude but yours was less than gracious. If snark was not your intention then I apologize.

 

[MollyMalone]

I am no attorney so I would not know these things. Are you suggesting anything or just putting me in my place? I am just posting information like everyone else does. Maybe you should write an op-ed rebuttal?

Oh gosh, redwood, I wasn't trying to put you down! I'm truly sorry that my criticism of Jarrett's handiwork came across as being critical of you. Jarrett's piece irked me because he's holding himself out as an expert imparting accurate information -- not one of, to quote him, "those who don't know the first thing about law" -- when he's actually being sorely misleading (why I said you wouldn't know from reading what he wrote that silence doesn't make someone guilty of misprision), and inexcusably so imo.

 

[LLJsmom]

Honestly, redwood, I snorted when I read that op-ed piece from Gregg Jarrett. The only support he offers for his claim that "Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey" is a citation to 18 USC § 4 (defining the obscure crime of misprision of a felony) -- and to 28 USC § 1361, a friggin' civil procedure statute that is totally irrelevant.

Here's the text of 18 USC § 4:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4
On its face, the statute makes plain that concealment is an essential element of misprision. So although you wouldn't know this from reading Jarrett's shoddy piece, there is a line of Federal court decisions holding that the mere failure to report a felony does not constitute a violation of 18 USC § 4. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1997), where the Federal appellate court in Texas vacated Johnson's plea of guilty to misprision because the only evidence on the record was that he had not gone to authorities to report conversations which, the government alleged, constituted violations of what was then the Neutrality Act (now the Arms Export Control Act).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14806734468103617188

P.S. I see that in his tagline, Jarrett touts himself as a "former defense attorney," which seems designed to suggest he has expertise in the practice of criminal law. But take a look at the profile of him that appeared in a 1997 issue of his law school alumni magazine, and you'll see that his first 5 years out of law school -- his only stint as a practicing attorney -- were as an associate at Gordon Rees (then a small, civil litigation & business law firm, less than 10 years old) "where he defended mostly civil cases". Page 9 here:
http://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=alumni_mag

Thanks for providing the context Molly and the case law to support it. So cool!

 

[redwood66]

Oh gosh, redwood, I wasn't trying to put you down! I'm truly sorry that my criticism of Jarrett's handiwork came across as being critical of you. Jarrett's piece irked me because he's holding himself out as an expert imparting accurate information -- not one of, to quote him, "those who don't know the first thing about law" -- when he's actually being sorely misleading (why I said you wouldn't know from reading what he wrote that silence doesn't make someone guilty of misprision), and inexcusably so imo.

Thank you for clarifying Molly. The internet makes it so hard to discern tone. I apologize for my reaction.

From experience I do take the opinion that if a law enforcement sees a crime being committed they have a duty to report it. But I can see both sides here and I believe if Comey wrote the memo he was practicing CYA for future reference.

 

[t-c]

Then it is not obstruction of justice since he had a duty to report it if it was. He is absolutely smart enough to know that. His testimony will be interesting.

Just because Comey didn't report immediately doesn't mean there was no obstruction of justice. He recorded the incidence and put it in FBI files -- it's now evidence. And Comey's memos have proven reliable before; his testimony will definitely be interesting.