• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should James Comey be fired?

Should James Comey be fired?

  • Yes, immediately.

    Votes: 10 13.5%

  • Yes, but not until after the election.

    Votes: 8 10.8%

  • Put him on notice. If he does not rectify the situation by the end of this week, fire him.

    Votes: 5 6.8%

  • No, keep him.

    Votes: 51 68.9%
  • Total voters
    74
finebead said:
Comey should resign. The FBI does not report to congress and he owed them no information, as it against dept. policy this close to an election, especially when there was NO pertinent information. We're looking at some new emails. That is nothing significant, if nothing comes of it. It casts a shadow of suspicion, where none may be warranted.
Click to expand...
If you have to get a subpoena to look at the emails, that means the investigation is officially re-opened. Which is what occurred here. Therefore, as he stated when he was under oath testifying before congress, he notified congress of the re-opening of the case. Note I stated he notified congress. At no time did he get in front of microphones and tell the world, the media, and the country that he re-opened the case. Thus there was no intent to effect the outcome of the election.



I don't think the information is significant enough to inject the FBI into the election, essentially with no new information.
Click to expand...
The FBI isn't in the election. They are investigating additional information obtained that are related to a previously closed case.

If anything turns up in the investigation, there is a process to handle that, and it is called impeachment. It would not mean that Hillary would get off scott free.
Click to expand...
All true. But that doesn't take away from the fact that you are wrong on the above assumptions of Comey's intent.

You are essentially charging Comey with INTENDING to affect the election, just because him reopening the case hurts your candidate.
 
Phys251 said:
https://thinkprogress.org/the-case-for-firing-james-comey-f6e72f397646
Click to expand...

Despite everyone else thinking the opposite. I think this is a pure political move made by Comey for his own ambitions. I think he may want to be President one day, so if he is fired, it's still a win, because then he can still do something in politics and work on a campaign. If Trump wins I wholly expect him to get a great promotion and I think Secretary of State would fit him well, but we shall see if anything comes of this.
 
Caine said:
You are essentially charging Comey with INTENDING to affect the election, just because him reopening the case hurts your candidate.
Click to expand...

Even if that's not true, and he should know better if he wasn't planning to affect the election, he could still use it to his benefit in the future. Honestly, I've never seen such great political potential in a person and in such a great spot. He has a bright future ahead of him in politics. You heard it here first. He has managed to turn this whole thing around and piss off a lot of people in the process. That's some balls right there! Regardless of who actually leaked the memo to the press, but I can see Comey pulling some strings here. Especially if his motives were a combination of personal and political!
 
Absentglare said:
How does meeting with someone influence an election the way that publishing this vague hearsay does ?
Click to expand...

This is considered a huge conflict of interest in any other criminal proceeding other than our government system. Even the appearance that it gave off would make Lynch lose her job if she wasn't attorney general.
 
Caine said:
Again, is it Comey's responsibility that someone other than he published his letter, basically informing certain members of congress that he was re-opening an investigation that he testified to under oath was closed?
Click to expand...

when he had no reason to do so in the way that he did.

Other than trying to tip the election to his party.
 
Phys251 said:
https://thinkprogress.org/the-case-for-firing-james-comey-f6e72f397646

President Obama should fire James Comey. He should do so not because of the political consequences of Comey’s actions — although those consequences could be quite severe — but because Comey’s actions show an unacceptable disregard for the safeguards that exist to protect innocents from the awesome power of a federal police force.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It's amazing to watch the Left finally pick up on the notion that the DoJ shouldn’t be politicized. WTF did you think we were warning ya'll about for the past 6 years?

Comey ignores the letter of the law for Hillary, and to attack him is to UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW. Comey sends a letter to some congressional Republicans saying, “hey, we ran across some new emails, I’ll let you know what’s in them, just like I said I would in sworn testimony” and it’s COMEY IS TRYING TO DESTROY FREEDOM AND MUST BE STOPPED :roll:

It’s just more of the exact same Clinton playbook we’ve seen before – when caught, have your “friends in the media” attack those who caught you.

In the meantime, I’ll believe the alligator tears about a politicized DoJ when they aren’t so obviously, pathetically, partisan. If you don’t want the FBI to have political impact – DON’T NOMINATE SOMEONE UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION.
 
Caine said:
If you have to get a subpoena to look at the emails, that means the investigation is officially re-opened. Which is what occurred here. Therefore, as he stated when he was under oath testifying before congress, he notified congress of the re-opening of the case. Note I stated he notified congress. At no time did he get in front of microphones and tell the world, the media, and the country that he re-opened the case. Thus there was no intent to effect the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you misunderstand the process, but his INTENT has NOTHING to do with FBI policy:

his letter would be against department policy to not comment on investigations close to an election,
Click to expand...

Again, his intent has nothing to do with the policy, he violated it.
 
cpwill said:
It's amazing to watch the Left finally pick up on the notion that the DoJ shouldn’t be politicized. WTF did you think we were warning ya'll about for the past 6 years?

Comey ignores the letter of the law for Hillary, and to attack him is to UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW. Comey sends a letter to some congressional Republicans saying, “hey, we ran across some new emails, I’ll let you know what’s in them, just like I said I would in sworn testimony” and it’s COMEY IS TRYING TO DESTROY FREEDOM AND MUST BE STOPPED :roll:

It’s just more of the exact same Clinton playbook we’ve seen before – when caught, have your “friends in the media” attack those who caught you.

In the meantime, I’ll believe the alligator tears about a politicized DoJ when they aren’t so obviously, pathetically, partisan. If you don’t want the FBI to have political impact – DON’T NOMINATE SOMEONE UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION.
Click to expand...

Again, you are lying. Comey didn't re-write the laws, he explained that "no reasonable prosecutor" would file criminal charges against Hillary. You are assuming that she broke the law to claim that he ignored the law. This assumption requires you to disregard the official testimony of Comey, the director of the FBI, and all the available facts and evidence in order to artificially prop up your provably false wishful thinking.
 
Caine said:
C'mon... even commentators from the Clinton News Network (CNN) recognize how Lynch's actions have pretty much put Comey in the position he is in.
Click to expand...

An astute observation. Yet another self inflicted wound on the corrupt. Oh the irony.
 
cpwill said:
It's amazing to watch the Left finally pick up on the notion that the DoJ shouldn’t be politicized. WTF did you think we were warning ya'll about for the past 6 years?

Comey ignores the letter of the law for Hillary, and to attack him is to UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW. Comey sends a letter to some congressional Republicans saying, “hey, we ran across some new emails, I’ll let you know what’s in them, just like I said I would in sworn testimony” and it’s COMEY IS TRYING TO DESTROY FREEDOM AND MUST BE STOPPED :roll:

It’s just more of the exact same Clinton playbook we’ve seen before – when caught, have your “friends in the media” attack those who caught you.

In the meantime, I’ll believe the alligator tears about a politicized DoJ when they aren’t so obviously, pathetically, partisan. If you don’t want the FBI to have political impact – DON’T NOMINATE SOMEONE UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Obama can even fire Comey. From what I've picked up the director of the FBI is appointed for a 10 year term, specifically to avoid political pressures and repercussions, as the FBI's (as well as the DOJ's - yeah, well that never happened under this president) are supposed to be apolitical serving only the rule of law, and everyone is supposed to be equal before the law.

Equal before the law is a hard claim to make when this 'intent' loop hole was invented specifically for Hillary, and isn't applied to anyone else.

If Comey knew that Lynch wasn't going to prosecute Hillary regardless of what evidence the FBI uncovered, wouldn't he make the presser and testimony he did? A long litany of the crimes, but an escape clause? Comey can't force the DOJ to prosecute, no matter how much he believes they should, based on the evidence.

So more evidence pertinent to the case shows up. He dutifully reports that he found it, and the FBI dutifully investigates it. What's the problem?

I have to agree. "If you don’t want the FBI to have political impact – DON’T NOMINATE SOMEONE UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION".

Must be that they thought Hillary was done with that, but we should know by now, it never is and if anything, this might be a foreshadowing of how well her term might end up being, which is to say, rather poorly, apparently.
 
Yup. This is no one's fault but Hillary's and their own.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
RetiredUSN said:
I didn't realize that the FBI should not perform it's duties just because there is a election.

Is this some form of etiquette?
Click to expand...

If Libbos didn't have a double standard, they would have any standards at all.
 
Jesse Booth said:
The White House says it will neither "defend nor criticize" Comey on Hillary emails - CNNPolitics.com



If the head of the Democratic party trusts this man's character enough to give him the benefit of the doubt after a stunt like that, I'm willing to give him the same. We'll see what comes out of the case - James Comey has done an effective job up to this point. Leave him be until we know all the facts of this case.
Click to expand...

He's wise to stay out of it. At least in public. After all, I bet he rues the day he appointed Comey, a Republican. Obama has faith and hope in people, I think, and doesn't realize what the Republican Party has become. He cont'd to try to work with Congress for a couple of years, after it became clear they were just going to obstruct on everything.
 
Comey's toast, no matter who wins the election. But that won't matter to him. He has a nice fat paycheck waiting from a Republican benefactor.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSN said:
I didn't realize that the FBI should not perform it's duties just because there is a election.

Is this some form of etiquette?
Click to expand...

Of course he should perform his duties. As always, the devil is in the details.

If a Director got emails on Day 1, was informed of possible significance to email investigation on Day 8, did not read the emails, waited for a few weeks, then decided to do a vague letter implying he had some emails to probe that may or may not be significant to the email investigation on Day 21 (11 days before a national election), I wouldn't say that is "performing one's duties."

We don't know all the facts at this time, and other things are not verified yet...and what's curious is that Comey isn't saying.

YOU don't care about performing one's duties. All you care about is that it hurts Clinton's election chances. At least be honest about it.

I care about him performing his duties, regardless who it hurts. The facts that are out there so far, which may not be correct, indicate that he did not perform his duties.

There is a law called the Hatch Act that forbids the DOJ, including the FBI Director, from using his position to influence an election. Which may be the case here.

We are a nation of laws, not kings. The law must be respected, esp by those in the FBI and DOJ.

That you are so eager to rule that he was "performing his duties," even though you don't know the facts, belies the fact that you don't care about whether he was following the law or not. Only that it hurts the chances of your guy's opponent. And that sums up Trump and his supporters in a nutshell. No laws. Just a king.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Even if that's not true, and he should know better if he wasn't planning to affect the election, he could still use it to his benefit in the future. Honestly, I've never seen such great political potential in a person and in such a great spot. He has a bright future ahead of him in politics. You heard it here first. He has managed to turn this whole thing around and piss off a lot of people in the process. That's some balls right there! Regardless of who actually leaked the memo to the press, but I can see Comey pulling some strings here. Especially if his motives were a combination of personal and political!
Click to expand...

And here you are attributing political intent to him as if it is fact and commending him for it...

When there is no evidence to suggest that in the least.
 
haymarket said:
when he had no reason to do so in the way that he did.

Other than trying to tip the election to his party.
Click to expand...

Again.... he didn't notify anyone but Congress. If he INTENDED to cause problems with the election, he would have made a ****ing press conference or some other stupid public announcement.

Are you really saying he is responsible for leaking it when he wasn't the one who actually leaked it?
 
finebead said:
I'm sorry you misunderstand the process, but his INTENT has NOTHING to do with FBI policy:



Again, his intent has nothing to do with the policy, he violated it.
Click to expand...

Umm... policy does not equal Hatch Act... which is what you were talking about before.

That DOES require intent.

I would violate a policy before potentially being charged with perjury any day. As he stated, under oath, that he would let congress know if anything changed the status of the case.
 
JumpinJack said:
Comey's toast, no matter who wins the election. But that won't matter to him. He has a nice fat paycheck waiting from a Republican benefactor.
Click to expand...

Got a link to that story about this "benefactor" you speak of?
 
JumpinJack said:
Of course he should perform his duties. As always, the devil is in the details.

If a Director got emails on Day 1, was informed of possible significance to email investigation on Day 8, did not read the emails, waited for a few weeks, then decided to do a vague letter implying he had some emails to probe that may or may not be significant to the email investigation on Day 21 (11 days before a national election), I wouldn't say that is "performing one's duties."

We don't know all the facts at this time, and other things are not verified yet...and what's curious is that Comey isn't saying.

YOU don't care about performing one's duties. All you care about is that it hurts Clinton's election chances. At least be honest about it.

I care about him performing his duties, regardless who it hurts. The facts that are out there so far, which may not be correct, indicate that he did not perform his duties.

There is a law called the Hatch Act that forbids the DOJ, including the FBI Director, from using his position to influence an election. Which may be the case here.

We are a nation of laws, not kings. The law must be respected, esp by those in the FBI and DOJ.

That you are so eager to rule that he was "performing his duties," even though you don't know the facts, belies the fact that you don't care about whether he was following the law or not. Only that it hurts the chances of your guy's opponent. And that sums up Trump and his supporters in a nutshell. No laws. Just a king.
Click to expand...

The hatch act requires INTENT.

Since he sent this letter to members of the Congressional hearing that he testified in front of, and not directly to the media and the public... I don't see any intent to influence the election.

People keep ignoring the obvious point that I keep making...... that Comey isn't responsible for what some congressman decides to do with that information.
 
Caine said:
Umm... policy does not equal Hatch Act... which is what you were talking about before.

That DOES require intent.

I would violate a policy before potentially being charged with perjury any day. As he stated, under oath, that he would let congress know if anything changed the status of the case.
Click to expand...

Let's assume that he planned this move in advance by swearing that bizarre oath.

How does that absolve him of obvious hypocrisy ? He claimed that he couldn't sign off on the report where Russians were found responsible for the hacks, though he agreed with the contents, simply because he didn't want to influence the election.

Hmmm... he didn't want to influence the election when it would help Hillary; but he did want to influence the election when it would hurt her. Gee, i wonder why that would be ?
 
JumpinJack said:
That you are so eager to rule that he was "performing his duties," even though you don't know the facts, belies the fact that you don't care about whether he was following the law or not. Only that it hurts the chances of your guy's opponent. And that sums up Trump and his supporters in a nutshell. No laws. Just a king.
Click to expand...

That you are so eager to rule out the possibility that he was performing hit duties is almost as bad - it's fortunate that you are not so blindly partisan that you can admit that we do not have all the facts in, unlike some of the posters riding their high horses in this thread.
 
joG said:
Why would you want to fire him. He did exactly the right thing and apparently against his boss's wishes, if I understood the woman correctly. I still cannot believe he didn't touch base with Obama, but no matter. Keeping this secret till after the election would have been tantamount to gross manipulation and intransparency
Click to expand...

If this was held until after the election, the screaming would be ... Why the H***didn't you let us know!
 
Caine said:
Again.... he didn't notify anyone but Congress. If he INTENDED to cause problems with the election, he would have made a ****ing press conference or some other stupid public announcement.

Are you really saying he is responsible for leaking it when he wasn't the one who actually leaked it?
Click to expand...

That WAS a public announcement. It was not "classified." It was an outright letter to Congress, which Comey knew would be given to the public. He also did a letter to FBI staff (not classified). It was intentionally public.

Followed by a release of a former, closed probe of Bill Clinton.

You don't have to know what's in his mind. You only need to look at what he did. His intent is written all over it. He has a big job waiting for him from the others in his party. Obama was obviously wrong in selecting him as FBI Director. Obama is naive, I think, in not realizing how partisan some people are. He thinks others truly try to do their jobs, regardless of politics, when that isn't true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom