F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia

Trump has now admitted he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation
“When I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’”
Holt specifically asked Trump why he fired Comey. So what? Am I a liar, or are you nitpicking?
Memorandum for the Attorney General

FROM: Rod J Rosenstein

SUBJECT: Restoring public confidence in the FBI

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

• What was Clinton FBI probe about?

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his "goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it." But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would "speak" about the FBI's decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or "conceal" it. "Conceal" is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Ford, wrote that "it is not the bureau's responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted." Silberman believes that the Director's "Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt the bureau will ever completely recover." Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had "chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, department from the department's traditions." They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W Bush, observed the Director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI director "doesn't make that decision". Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorneys General under President George W Bush, called the decision "an error in judgement." Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Clinton and Attorneys General under President Obama, said that the Director's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season." Holder concluded that the Director "broke with these fundamental principles" and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI".

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual event as "real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation," that is "antithetical to the interests of justice".

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President HW Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was "astonished and perplexed" by the decision to "break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections." Ayer's letter noted, "Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department's widely-respected, non-partisan traditions."

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions."

If I can? I can and just did.

 

Trump wouldn't know competence if it slapped him across the mouth. He has chased all the competent people out of his inner circle.

 

My point is that you are CLEARLY having difficulty responding! There is still a post of mine that you have failed to respond to. Didn't you see it?

 

I think he has border personality disorder to be precise. In other words, he cray.

 

How was @Antiduopolist trying to change history by calling it nonsense?

 

Are you actually a Trump fan?

 

What silly nonsense you spew. ALL the classified material Comey had access to doesn't become unclassified when he leaves. It remains classified.

 

WTF do you keep yammering on about? Is it one of those "questions" with your own predetermined answer (shock!)?

 

You're flatly wrong in your analysis about the nature of discussions with the President, insanity and incompetence aside:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-trump-comey-privilege-qa-20170608-htmlstory.html

 

*LOL*!

Yes, Bonespurs wanted someone "competent" to look into his campaign's ties to Russia.

 

Ah, so that is why Comey's firing relieved that "great pressure"!

Still really looking forward to seeing how he treats his new Attorney General, incidentally. Will more tears and tantrums ensue when he doesn't shut Mueller down?

 

Gallons of tears will gush down orange furrowed skin.

 

He didn't tell me what he thinks happened.

 

The classified remains classified, but private meetings with the president are not if he reinvents history. It was unclassified and Comey, as Director, has the power to declassify material and he did. Some of the material was reclassified after Comey had released it.

 

What facts do Limbaugh and Hannity report?

 

Wouldn’t know. I don’t listen to them like you do.

 

Cute

 

SMPP

 

I like Trump as much as I like Clinton.

They're both revolting, and the non-choice between them an appalling spectacle staged by the oligarchy.

But a witch hunt is a witch hunt, and sham that it was, someone was elected.

The attempt to undo this is as disgusting and unacceptable as the "choice" between a pig and a reptile that the people were offered in 2016.

Were Clinton being hunted as Trump is being hunted now, I'd say EXACTLY the same thing.

A farcical witch hunt is a farcical witch hunt.

But Clinton DOES make a much more believable witch...

 

I've told you repeatedly.

You don't like the answer so you keep asking the question.

It was HER time.

Orange Man BAD.

Bad Orange Man elected.



So despite weeks of pounding on the nothing burger that Trump must honor the results of a national election, Reptile Goddess Clinton and her slithering minions hypocritically created a fantasy of collusion rather than doing the REAL necessary work of cleaning up the massive criminal sty they'd made of the DNC.

The entire Mueller farce is a witch hunt based on a nothing berder.

Now ask me again.

 

Now I understand where you are coming from.

 

Obama / Killery Clinton, Democrat Party


using the old Nixon handbook of dirty tricks to win the election / obstruct the Pres.:
..........................................................................................................................

influence peddling, kickbacks (to arms hucksters thru the Clinton Foundation)

illegal wiretapping, spying on Trump before, during and after the election

using Deep State, CIA spies to compile fake dossier

enemies lists on Trump allies , campaign workers,

blackmail, entrapment, secret tapes

..........................................................................................................................
who is Hillary Clintons and the Democrats campaign advisor ...

G. Gordon Liddy ?

the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover ?

 

The obstruct asstroturf movement might even be irritating, if they weren't so functionallly illiterate.

 

If he is confident that there are no ties to Russia, then what does he have to worry about? Much better to get someone competent in the job so that the investigation can be wrapped up as soon as possible, so that the US's diplomatic relationship with Russia can be as easy as possible.

 

Well for a start, you have failed miserably at explaining how Trump staffers meeting with Russians to get dirt on Hillary is any different to Hillary's staffers meeting with a British operative to obtain dirt on Trump. Are you not capable of explaining?

How the hell do any of my questions have predetermined answers? My questions give people the opportunity to explain themselves. Plain and simple!