How does Director Comey still have a job?

Gimmesometruth · Mar 29, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
I didn't edit anything

If my comments are not important to you, I suggest you stop responding to them. Apparently, they are important enough that you take the time to edit them to your liking, to recraft them so as to handle them better. Seems like a lot of time and effort for unimportant comments on an anon forum.

Slyfox696 · Mar 29, 2017

Gimmesometruth said:
If my comments are not important to you, I suggest you stop responding to them. Apparently, they are important enough that you take the time to edit them to your liking, to recraft them so as to handle them better. Seems like a lot of time and effort for unimportant comments on an anon forum.

Another strawman.

Are you going to do the honest thing and provide evidence or not? You accuse me of dishonesty, a clear personal shot at me. I've challenged you to support your opinion and you haven't. The fact is we both know you were wrong and you simply don't seem to have the courage to admit it. So, instead, you take personal shots at me, to dishonestly deflect from how wrong you were.

Comey acted ethically. You have zero valid evidence to suggest otherwise. And I did not dishonestly edit your post, your claim that I did is an intentional falsehood to distract from how wrong you are. If you don't have the desire to debate honestly, just say so. If you do wish to debate honestly, either present an argument about Comey I already haven't exposed as stupid or provide a shred of evidence I didn't respond to something you said which was important.

So which is...do you wish for honest discussion or not?

Absentglare · Mar 29, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
No, it wasn't. Comey testified the investigation into Clinton's server was concluded. Whether or not it was "technically" finished is irrelevant to the testimony Comey gave. It was that testimony which led Comey to write his letter to Congress, as he said he would.

The fact that he planned his unprecedented attempt to influence the election doesn't actually help your case in any meaningful way. If anything, it further supports the idea that Comey had malicious intent.

Slyfox696 said:
Of course he did, but his responsibility is not to Clinton or Trump, but rather himself and the FBI. He testified the investigation was concluded and he testified he would alert Congress of any new developments. He kept his word. He never once testified he would alert Congress about Russian involvement. Completely different.

There's no inconsistency. I can see how you very badly want it to appear like there's inconsistency, but there's not. Comey testified he would do something if certain conditions were met...certain conditions were met and he held true to his word. That's a man of integrity. Just because it hurt your favored candidate doesn't mean it wasn't the ethical thing to do.

He happily influenced the election one way but refused to do anything the other way. That's what inconsistent means.

Slyfox696 said:
And, again, as I've said before, if Comey hadn't said anything and it turned out there was damning evidence on Weiner's computer about Clinton, then Republicans could have easily accused him of influencing the election and helping to throw the election to Clinton, had she won. There was no "good" option here, so Comey took the option which was the right thing to do.
The fact both sides continually poutrage over partisan rhetoric pretty much proves Comey is about as fair as it gets in Washington. Said poutrage can clearly be seen in just this post.

No they couldn't have. His earlier promise to keep them in the loop did not require him to do so on a specific schedule. Furthermore, he had no new evidence or developments. He simply intended to give the impression that there were.

Just more intent to deceive. Your case is spectacularly ****ty here.

Gimmesometruth · Mar 29, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
Another strawman.

Are you going to do the honest thing and provide evidence or not? You accuse me of dishonesty, a clear personal shot at me. I've challenged you to support your opinion and you haven't. The fact is we both know you were wrong and you simply don't seem to have the courage to admit it. So, instead, you take personal shots at me, to dishonestly deflect from how wrong you were.

Comey acted ethically. You have zero valid evidence to suggest otherwise. And I did not dishonestly edit your post, your claim that I did is an intentional falsehood to distract from how wrong you are. If you don't have the desire to debate honestly, just say so. If you do wish to debate honestly, either present an argument about Comey I already haven't exposed as stupid or provide a shred of evidence I didn't respond to something you said which was important.

So which is...do you wish for honest discussion or not?

I have already shown where you did edit my posts, you admitted doing so using your caveat, and as far as Comey, you have been provided with plenty of evidence from those with a much better and deeper understanding of how his office is supposed to conduct itself. As a matter of fact, you edited out my comments about the current investigation into his handling of that process, which contrary to your beliefs, is important and central to the argument. I know I'm not going to convince you to change your mind, it is set in stone as is your proclivity to use multiple unethical posting techniques on the forum.

Slyfox696 · Mar 29, 2017

Absentglare said:
The fact that he planned his unprecedented attempt to influence the election doesn't actually help your case in any meaningful way. If anything, it further supports the idea that Comey had malicious intent.

...so Comey PLANNED on Weiner exposing himself to minors?

How exactly did that argument work itself out in your mind?

He happily influenced the election one way but refused to do anything the other way. That's what inconsistent means.

First of all, please present any evidence Comey was "happy" to write that letter to Congress. Of course you won't, but I'd love to see your evidence.

Second of all, as I said, Comey testified he would alert Congress if anything new in the recently concluded Clinton case came up. It did and he stuck to his word. No one asked him to talk about Russia in front of Congress and he never testified he would alert Congress.

You are merely making things up. Comey's actions were completely ethical. Just because Clinton lost, that doesn't mean Comey acted unethically.

No they couldn't have.

Of course they could have. Just as you are whining without reason now, Republicans could have whined then, had Clinton won and there was damning evidence on Weiner's devices.

His earlier promise to keep them in the loop did not require him to do so on a specific schedule.

:lol:

And yet, here you are complaining he didn't do it on YOUR schedule.

Furthermore, he had no new evidence or developments.

That is unequivocally false.

Gimmesometruth said:
I have already shown where you did edit my posts

I said show where I didn't answer already answer an important point you made.

Don't make stuff up.

you admitted doing so using your caveat

No, I admitted to removing sections of your posts I already replied to or weren't important. I never once admitted to omitting important parts of your posts.

It would be incredibly dishonest for anyone to suggest anything else.

and as far as Comey, you have been provided with plenty of evidence

False.

from those with a much better and deeper understanding of how his office is supposed to conduct itself.

You have not provided anything. And every other argument in this thread has essentially been the same argument you made.

Why do you keep making things up which are not true?

As a matter of fact, you edited out my comments about the current investigation into his handling of that process

And you just posted an untruth:

Slyfox696 said:
Irrelevant to our discussion. And, as I told Moot, get back to me when that investigation is concluded...I bet it won't be to your liking.

Why would you post a lie about something which can so easily be proven?

So let's see...you consistently accuse me of dishonesty without evidence and the first time you try to present evidence I omitted something without responding to it, I was able to prove to you that I already addressed it.

It sounds like you're doing everything you can to undercut your own credibility in this thread.

which contrary to your beliefs, is important and central to the argument.

No, it's really not. Come to me when you have there's a conclusion Comey acted improperly, THEN you'll have an important piece of evidence. Until then, it's a big nothing burger.

I know I'm not going to convince you to change your mind

No, I will not change my mind when you attack me to avoid admitting you were wrong and I'm certainly not going to change my mind when you make provably false statements which I can so easily prove false.

as is your proclivity to use multiple unethical posting techniques on the forum.

Says the person who posted a lie claiming I edited something out of your comments I clearly responded to.

You're wrong. I've proven you wrong. Now you're just flailing wildly to avoid admitting you're wrong. That's far more dishonest than innocently removing words for character count reasons which are either not important or already responded to.

Absentglare · Mar 29, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
...so Comey PLANNED on Weiner exposing himself to minors?

How exactly did that argument work itself out in your mind?

If you are trying to rebut my argument, you need to first work on understanding it. That requires some mental effort on your part so put your emotions aside and actually think about what i'm talking about.

Comey held a press conference on July 5th and outlined an extraordinary amount of detail into the investigation related to Hillary's emails. This move was already unprecedented. He then testified before congress, promising to fill them in on any new information (why?).

Why did he publicly reveal such a dramatic amount of information, especially notably irrelevant information, about an ongoing investigation where he recommended no charges?

There is something horrible about watching a senior government official, who has used the coercive investigative capacities of the federal government, make public judgments about a subject's conduct which the Justice Department is not prepared to indict... We give the FBI these powers so that it can investigate crimes. And if the Justice Department is not going to prosecute someone, it generally has no business talking about the conduct of that person's affairs.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/comeys-testimony-precedent

Slyfox696 said:
First of all, please present any evidence Comey was "happy" to write that letter to Congress. Of course you won't, but I'd love to see your evidence.

Senior Department of Justice officials begged him to not send the letter just 11 days before the election. He did it anyway.

You seem confused about what the word 'happy' means- with infinitive, it means someone is willing to do something. The fact that he chose to do so is trivially sufficient.

Slyfox696 said:
Second of all, as I said, Comey testified he would alert Congress if anything new in the recently concluded Clinton case came up. It did and he stuck to his word. No one asked him to talk about Russia in front of Congress and he never testified he would alert Congress.

And he gave his word ...? (Perhaps because he wanted to have the excuse ready for why he intentionally meddled in the election)

Slyfox696 said:
You are merely making things up. Comey's actions were completely ethical. Just because Clinton lost, that doesn't mean Comey acted unethically.

We aren't discussing the outcome of the election. We are discussing Comeys inconsistency in regards to unsolicited public disclosures of information that damaged Hillary and complete silence on information that would have damaged President Trump. Please try to set your emotions aside and focus.

Slyfox696 said:
Of course they could have. Just as you are whining without reason now, Republicans could have whined then, had Clinton won and there was damning evidence on Weiner's devices.

:lol:

No, they could not have simply whined over information they didn't have access to. Comey doesn't have to feed republicans unnecessary amounts of irrelevant information.

Slyfox696 said:
And yet, here you are complaining he didn't do it on YOUR schedule.

No, actually, you are confused by your own emotions on this point as well. I did not produce the schedule for the election and i did not determine FBI or DOJ policy that prohibits attempts to influence elections. I also did not force Comey to assert a refusal to influence the election with information damning to republicans while going out of his way to waive that policy for information damaging to democrats.

Slyfox696 said:
That is unequivocally false.

You are again confused. They did not find any new evidence. Did you forget that Comey admitted they found nothing in the shared Weiner/Abedin device?

Gimmesometruth · Mar 29, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
And you just posted an untruth:

Why would you post a lie about something which can so easily be proven?

It is not "untrue", you removed that point from my very first post that you responded to. Right from the start....to the end, you cannot honestly post responses. This is why I'm not interacting further, it reminds me why I should not have started it up again.

Slyfox696 · Mar 30, 2017

Part 1

Absentglare said:
Comey held a press conference on July 5th and outlined an extraordinary amount of detail into the investigation related to Hillary's emails. This move was already unprecedented. He then testified before congress, promising to fill them in on any new information (why?).

Why did he publicly reveal such a dramatic amount of information, especially notably irrelevant information, about an ongoing investigation where he recommended no charges?

Because when he held the press conference and testified before Congress, the investigation had been concluded and he had recommend to the the Justice Department no charges be filed. And he was called by Congress to testify.

It wasn't an ongoing investigation. The investigation had been concluded, even if it hadn't officially be closed.

Senior Department of Justice officials begged him to not send the letter just 11 days before the election. He did it anyway.

Yes, just like he promised Congress he would. What's unethical about that?

See, the problem you have seems not to be with Comey's ethics, but rather how you feel his actions influenced the election. I'm sorry, just because you don't like the results, that doesn't mean his actions weren't ethical.

And he gave his word ...? (Perhaps because he wanted to have the excuse ready for why he intentionally meddled in the election)

So are you arguing he knew Weiner would expose himself to a minor?

You claimed earlier I need to work on understanding your position...perhaps you should work harder on using logical statements? Because what you wrote reads like you're suggesting Comey, under oath, gave his word to inform Congress later because he knew that later on, there would be a reason for him to alert Congress. Which suggests Comey can either see into the future or had an elaborate plot planned with the political party has has twice upset in the last six months.

If that's NOT what you mean, then clarify. But that's essentially what your words here are saying.

We aren't discussing the outcome of the election. We are discussing Comeys inconsistency in regards to unsolicited public disclosures of information that damaged Hillary and complete silence on information that would have damaged President Trump.

Except it is not inconsistent, as I have pointed out repeatedly to you.

Why do you continue to use words which have already been disproved?

Please try to set your emotions aside and focus.

:lol:

Set aside MY emotions? What, do you think I wanted Donald Trump to win? Do you even have the first clue as to how asinine this comment is? It's your emotions which have fueled this discussion, not mine. I didn't want either Clinton or Trump to win, but if I had had a gun held to my head, I would have chosen Clinton.

This is not about my emotions, as I literally have no emotions on this subject. You, on the other hand...

Slyfox696 · Mar 30, 2017

Part 2

No, they could not have simply whined over information they didn't have access to. Comey doesn't have to feed republicans unnecessary amounts of irrelevant information.

Either you're not taking the time to understand the point or you're choosing to dishonestly ignore the point. Which is it?

If Comey hadn't alerted Congress and there HAD been damning information on Weiner's device, then Comey WOULDN'T have fed them unnecessary irrelevant information, it would have been very important and necessary information. What don't you understand about this?

Also, you seem to be ignoring this as well:

FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Sunday the agency hasn't changed its opinion that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges after a review of new emails.

FBI clears Clinton -- again - CNNPolitics.com

That notification happened before the election as well. Granted, absentee ballots would have already been sent in, but the vast majority of Americans had this information before they voted. The FBI TWICE cleared Clinton before the election, yet you're still trying to claim he acted unethically? I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.

And in case you want to argue "you can't unring the bell", just remember the bell was only rung because of Clinton's (and Weiner's) actions...not Comey's.

No, actually, you are confused by your own emotions on this point as well.

No, you are literally whining about Comey's actions before the election. I'm not confused about your nonsensical argument.

I did not produce the schedule for the election

Neither did Comey.

i did not determine FBI or DOJ policy that prohibits attempts to influence elections.

You've yet to make a logical argument to suggest Comey ATTEMPTED to influence the election. I agree with you his letter did, but, as I've said, Comey's responsibility is not to Clinton or Trump, but rather himself and the FBI.

Comey did his job. He didn't set the election schedule and the FBI was asked to investigate Clinton. They did. He reported their findings. He testified the investigation was concluded and that he'd alert Congress if something new came up. Something new came up and he alerted Congress.

Your accusation Comey did not act ethically is nonsense.

They did not find any new evidence.

Are you really not going to be honest about what you said?

Absentglare said:
Furthermore, he had no new evidence or developments.

There was most certainly a new development, which was they found information related to Clinton's server on a device of Weiner's. That's a new development.

Seriously, it's not hard to craft a logical and honest argument. Please do so in your next post.

Gimmesometruth said:
It is not "untrue"

I literally proved it was.

you removed that point from my very first post that you responded to.

Because it was irrelevant. But you repeated it (as did Moot), so I responded to it.

Are you really not going to honestly acknowledge how much of a failure your position on this is? You claim I omit important parts of your posts to dishonestly take your words out of context, but the only example you provided clearly shows your statement is not true.

Right from the start....to the end, you cannot honestly post responses. This is why I'm not interacting further, it reminds me why I should not have started it up again.

Yes, because it reminded you of how utterly ridiculous your position on this is. You can't claim someone doesn't address your points and then provide an example where that person addressed your points. It is a lie to say I did not address anything of importance you said. And, as I have told you repeatedly, if you think there is something important I did not reply to, then post it.

But you won't post it. Because you can't. Because you know your comment about my alleged dishonesty is a lie, a lie you cannot support. The fact is you knew you were being utterly destroyed in this thread and you tried to hide from your defeat by posting a lie about me.

James Comey acted ethically. I've acted ethically. You, however, posted a personal attack on me, which was a lie, just so you could deflect from your defeat in our argument. Just consider that the next time you want to accuse someone of not acting ethically.

VanceMack · Mar 30, 2017

I'm not overly concerned about the job Comey himself is doing. I am a bit concerned about the power all our intel agencies seems to have. His testimony during the recent hearings should give every American citizen at least a reason to stop and think for a minute about the power we have given them. Congress is supposed to have oversight over the FBI...yet we see not just in this most recent hearing but in several hearings where congress asks questions and the FBI just outright refuses to answer. Meanwhile...the NSA has built data collection facilities and HSA has interpreted the Constitution to believe that they have the right power and authority to spy on EVERYONE...but only look at the data they have already collected after they have a warrant. Unless the data collection gives them a cause to start an investigation. In which case...lucky...they already have the data at their disposal.

How does Director Comey still have a job?

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Slyfox696

Absentglare

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Slyfox696

Absentglare

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Slyfox696

Slyfox696

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.