The Road to Impeachment

Poor barfo.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/j...ynn-wouldnt-hurt-russia-probe/article/2625357

"Would closing out the Flynn investigation have impeded the overall Russian investigation?" Senator Angus King, I-Maine, asked.

"No, unlikely, except to the extent, there's always a possibility if you have a criminal case against someone and you bring in and you squeeze them, you flip them. But I saw the two as touching each other, but separate."

Flynn has remained one of the lynchpins in the overall "cloud" over the White House, given that his statements about his conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were later found out to be false, which ultimately led to his resignation.

 

Not clear why you think this is good news for your team, Denny.

Seems like better news would have been the opposite statement: "No, without Flynn we'd have no Russia case at all. Flynn is all there was to it."

barfo

 

Oh dear.

http://observer.com/2016/08/this-political-consultant-made-millions-off-of-sanders-campaign/

This Political Consultant Made Millions Off of Sanders’ Campaign
Tad Devine was a top adviser to both Al Gore and John Kerry’s failed presidential runs in 2000 and 2004

Devine, a top adviser to both Al Gore and John Kerry’s failed presidential runs in 2000 and 2004, was the most establishment-friendly political consultant in the Sanders campaign. He was the seasoned Democratic Party insider meant to help Sanders present a viable challenge to Hillary Clinton. Devine has worked on campaigns around the world, including in Bolivia, Honduras, Peru, Israel, Colombia and Ukraine—for ousted President Viktor Yanukovich.

Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, recently resigned due to negative publicity over his pro-Russian ties to Yanukovich. The Podesta Group—a lobbying firm founded by Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and run by his brother, Tony Podesta—received over $1 million from Yanukovich and his political party in Ukraine, which was funneled to the firm from Manafort. According to Reuters, the FBI and Department of Justice are currently investigating ties between the work of firms run by Manafort and Podesta and corruption involving the former Ukrainian president.

 

Flynn is all you got and he's not relevant to any collusion investigation.

Collusion is a figment of your imagination.

 

He's literally saying Flynn is NOT all we've got.

barfo

 

Flynn IS all you got.

Trump actually was a big winner yesterday. He's reportedly asked the Intel community to publicly state Trump himself isn't under investigation. Comey finally said that, and acknowledged he told Trump several times.

 

Said by a man who was fired, his leadership questioned (FBI in disarray, etc.), and characterized as a loose cannon and nut job.

His cowardly leak of his memos to the media kind of prove he's not only disloyal, but was out to get Trump. He admitted this was an act of revenge over a Trump tweet.

So carry on.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/09/james-comey-violate-fbi-employment-agreement/

By his own account, it seems that Comey may not have followed the agency’s employee agreement, which places numerous restrictions on the use of information or documents acquired during an individual’s employment by the FBI. Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the FBI employment agreement appear to cover Comey’s distribution of content he says he created on government property in his capacity as a government official:



Paragraph 2 states that all materials acquired in connection with an employee’s official duties are property of the U.S. government and that such materials must be surrendered to the FBI upon an employee’s separation from the agency. Paragraph 3 states that employees are prohibited from releasing “any information acquired by virtue of my official employment” to “unauthorized individual without prior official written authorization by the FBI.” Paragraph 4 of the agreement requires FBI employees, prior to disclosing or publishing information acquired during their employment, to submit the information to FBI authorities for review to determine whether it is authorized for public release.

So if Comey followed protocol and surrendered all government property, including the memos he produced in his capacity as an FBI employee, it would have been impossible for him to provide the memos to his friend. The fact that he was able to provide hard copies of the memos to both his friend and special counsel Robert Mueller suggests that Comey did not surrender them to authorities as required by the FBI employment agreement.

Page two of the agreement lists the types of information disclosures which are strictly prohibited. Included in the list of information that may not be released without prior written approval by the FBI is “information that relates to any sensitive operational details or the substantive merits of any ongoing or open investigation or case.” While the agreement states that unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a violation of the contract, information does not have to be classified in order to be prohibited from unauthorized disclosure. Comey claims that his memos were unclassified.

Comey’s claim that it would not have been proper to publicly disclose that Trump was not a target of any FBI investigation because the investigation was ongoing and facts could change flies in the face of his decision to provide to his friends records of his meetings about the investigation with the president.

 

So Comey might get fired?

barfo

 

He might be subject to criminal sanction.

 

Well, he's a big boy, he can live the consequences of his actions.

barfo

 

Comey's memos:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 725; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 606(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511; Pub. L. 108–275, § 4, July 15, 2004, 118 Stat. 833.)

 

Famous law professor at GWU Law School:

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/06/08/did-comey-violate-laws-in-leaking-memo/

The admission of leaking the memos is problematic given the overall controversy involving leakers undermining the Administration. Indeed, it creates a curious scene of a former director leaking material against the President after the President repeatedly asked him to crack down on leakers.

Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641 which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

...

By the way, waking up in the middle of the night (as described by Comey) is not generally the best time to decide to leak damaging memos against a sitting president. There are times when coffee and a full night’s sleep (and even conferral with counsel) is recommended. Leaking damaging memos is one of those times. Moreover, if Comey was sure of his right to release the memo, why use a law professor to avoid fingerprints?

I find Comey’s admission to be deeply troubling from a professional and ethical standpoint. Would Director Comey have approved such a rule for FBI agents? Thus, an agent can prepare a memo during office hours on an FBI computer about a meeting related to his service . . . but leak that memo to the media. The Justice Department has long defined what constitutes government documents broadly. It is not clear if Comey had the documents reviewed for classification at the confidential level or confirmed that they would be treated as entirely private property. What is clear is that he did not clear the release of the memos with anyone in the government.

Comey’s statement of a good motivation does not negate the concerns over his chosen means of a leak. Moreover, the timing of the leak most clearly benefited Comey not the cause of a Special Counsel. It was clear at that time that a Special Counsel was likely. More importantly, Comey clearly understood that these memos would be sought. That leads inevitably to the question of both motivation as well as means.

 

It's extremely unlikely to happen, just like your fantasies of sending Hillary to jail, but I don't think anyone would cry for him if it does.

barfo

 

There's a new FBI Director soon to be in town. I wouldn't say "never" about crimes we already know were committed.

And I didn't (and still don't) care if Comey was fired or not.