A Loyalty Oath? C'mon...

[OldLady]

Also, for perspective, the GOP is known for loyalty oaths. Bush loved them. The RNC itself loves them.
The DNC also loves them. Hek, people have sued the democrat party because of it.

I can see those organizations asking for one. I can see the President asking for one among his WH staff or team or whatever the hell you want to call the assemblage of advisers etc. at the WH. Trump probably asked for a loyalty oath among his employees for the Trump organization.

Bush asked for loyalty oaths at some of his campaign rallies, which is also a private org. But not outside organizations, especially the FBI in the middle of an investigation into the President's campaign. Aye caramba!

 

[yiostheoy]

Also, for perspective, the GOP is known for loyalty oaths. Bush loved them. The RNC itself loves them.
The DNC also loves them. Hek, people have sued the democrat party because of it.

Adolf I believe is the most famous for them too.

 

[OldLady]

Comey has returned the ball in the "who said what to whom" discussion that Trump started with "Comey told me three times I am not under investigation." Comey's friends say, "Yeah, well the President asked him twice to take a loyalty oath."

Three times Comey said something, but with the President's batting average on accuracy, I'll wait to see if Comey wishes to clear that up. And that three times thing--like before the rooster crows, Peter, you will deny me three times....Kind of puts a stamp of authenticity on it, doesn't it?

Asking Comey to take a loyalty pledge is about the creepiest thing I've heard yet, and I thought I'd been creeped out by this guy before. Kneel and kiss my ring, swear you are my man, and maybe I'll let you keep your job. ???? Glad Comey said no. Convenient Trump didn't mention that part in his story about the dinner.

Right there on its website, the FBI says the bureau and its officials must only swear an oath to the Constitution — not even a president. The reason? Because the latter “too easily leads to tyranny”:

It is significant that we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. This is true for the simple reason that the Constitution is based on lasting principles of sound government that provide balance, stability, and consistency through time. A government based on individuals — who are inconsistent, fallible, and often prone to error — too easily leads to tyranny on the one extreme or anarchy on the other. The founding fathers sought to avoid these extremes and create a balanced government based on constitutional principles.
Analysis | Trump reportedly sought a loyalty pledge from Comey. The FBI says this ‘leads to tyranny.’

Don't forget, just because NYT and WaPo don't disclose their sources doesn't mean their sources aren't credible--WaPo broke Watergate, remember. Trump has planned all along to fire Comey? I'll bet he has, ever since Comey told him he wouldn't take a loyalty oath. Who else has been asked? Jeff Sessions? Pompeo? Did they say yes? Who else? Would be interesting to know.

Well here's problem. Comey got himself in a jam --- NOT because the problem of loyalty to the American people lies at the FBI level.. He got into trouble trying to protect the integrity of FBI from the blatant political hacks in charge of the DOJ and his bosses. So however dedicated to the Republic the folks at the FBI are --- That's not the issue.

OBVIOUSLY -- they DO become "loyal" to the party in power. BECAUSE -- they are not independent of the AG and the DOJ and partisan protection of their own.. And that's how this problem started...

These 2 tired, corrupt and aimless parties have to go. You gotta quit REWARDING them by making elections a contest about winning.. Because we're ALL LOSING right now..

FBI, DOJ and AG perhaps shouldn't be appointed, then. In Maine, the AG is elected by secret ballot of the legislature, which is pissing off our governor no end because she has pulled Yates-type refusals to represent his bullshit lawsuits on several occassions and he can't fire her. LOL
I'm not saying the FBI and DOJ directors should be elected by the Congress--good god what a mess that would be--but maybe there is another way? DOJ and FBI are two of the organizations that can stand between us and tyranny. They should have a bit of neutrality in some way.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Comey has returned the ball in the "who said what to whom" discussion that Trump started with "Comey told me three times I am not under investigation." Comey's friends say, "Yeah, well the President asked him twice to take a loyalty oath."

Three times Comey said something, but with the President's batting average on accuracy, I'll wait to see if Comey wishes to clear that up. And that three times thing--like before the rooster crows, Peter, you will deny me three times....Kind of puts a stamp of authenticity on it, doesn't it?

Asking Comey to take a loyalty pledge is about the creepiest thing I've heard yet, and I thought I'd been creeped out by this guy before. Kneel and kiss my ring, swear you are my man, and maybe I'll let you keep your job. ???? Glad Comey said no. Convenient Trump didn't mention that part in his story about the dinner.

Right there on its website, the FBI says the bureau and its officials must only swear an oath to the Constitution — not even a president. The reason? Because the latter “too easily leads to tyranny”:

It is significant that we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. This is true for the simple reason that the Constitution is based on lasting principles of sound government that provide balance, stability, and consistency through time. A government based on individuals — who are inconsistent, fallible, and often prone to error — too easily leads to tyranny on the one extreme or anarchy on the other. The founding fathers sought to avoid these extremes and create a balanced government based on constitutional principles.
Analysis | Trump reportedly sought a loyalty pledge from Comey. The FBI says this ‘leads to tyranny.’

Don't forget, just because NYT and WaPo don't disclose their sources doesn't mean their sources aren't credible--WaPo broke Watergate, remember. Trump has planned all along to fire Comey? I'll bet he has, ever since Comey told him he wouldn't take a loyalty oath. Who else has been asked? Jeff Sessions? Pompeo? Did they say yes? Who else? Would be interesting to know.

A loyalty oath? Hey Trump go fuck yourself. This orange turd so admires Kim Jong Un and Saddam Hussein he is now mimicking their desire to force other men to swear loyalty to him. Trump is an unAmerican piece of dog pile.

 

[OldLady]

Lol, I am sorry, anyone that believes their unnamed sources, is fooling themselves. How many fake stories in the last year have shown up, all with unnamed sources? Too many to count.

Depotoo, you're holding on to a life preserver that just lost all it's air, I'm afraid. Keep treading water, though. Injustice may win in the end.

 

[OldLady]

Also, for perspective, the GOP is known for loyalty oaths. Bush loved them. The RNC itself loves them.
The DNC also loves them. Hek, people have sued the democrat party because of it.

I can see those organizations asking for one. I can see the President asking for one among his WH staff or team or whatever the hell you want to call the assemblage of advisers etc. at the WH. Trump probably asked for a loyalty oath among his employees for the Trump organization.

Bush asked for loyalty oaths at some of his campaign rallies, which is also a private org. But not outside organizations, especially the FBI in the middle of an investigation into the President's campaign. Aye caramba!

What is so funny about this post, TNHarley? You got nothing else but to mock me?

 

[OldLady]

Comey is fired, old news, move on

your orange overlord is going down..... get use to it sweetcakes.

Yeah yeah yeah since the day he announced he was running you loons have been saying that. Not going to happen, dumb fuck

Trump is sure working on it (going down to impeachment) whether he realizes it or not.

This was probably not illegal. The impeachment dreamers are just that--dreamers, imo. We'll have to deal with this guy for a whole term unless he gets sick of being criticized and quits.

 

[flacaltenn]

Comey has returned the ball in the "who said what to whom" discussion that Trump started with "Comey told me three times I am not under investigation." Comey's friends say, "Yeah, well the President asked him twice to take a loyalty oath."

Three times Comey said something, but with the President's batting average on accuracy, I'll wait to see if Comey wishes to clear that up. And that three times thing--like before the rooster crows, Peter, you will deny me three times....Kind of puts a stamp of authenticity on it, doesn't it?

Asking Comey to take a loyalty pledge is about the creepiest thing I've heard yet, and I thought I'd been creeped out by this guy before. Kneel and kiss my ring, swear you are my man, and maybe I'll let you keep your job. ???? Glad Comey said no. Convenient Trump didn't mention that part in his story about the dinner.

Right there on its website, the FBI says the bureau and its officials must only swear an oath to the Constitution — not even a president. The reason? Because the latter “too easily leads to tyranny”:

It is significant that we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. This is true for the simple reason that the Constitution is based on lasting principles of sound government that provide balance, stability, and consistency through time. A government based on individuals — who are inconsistent, fallible, and often prone to error — too easily leads to tyranny on the one extreme or anarchy on the other. The founding fathers sought to avoid these extremes and create a balanced government based on constitutional principles.
Analysis | Trump reportedly sought a loyalty pledge from Comey. The FBI says this ‘leads to tyranny.’

Don't forget, just because NYT and WaPo don't disclose their sources doesn't mean their sources aren't credible--WaPo broke Watergate, remember. Trump has planned all along to fire Comey? I'll bet he has, ever since Comey told him he wouldn't take a loyalty oath. Who else has been asked? Jeff Sessions? Pompeo? Did they say yes? Who else? Would be interesting to know.

Well here's problem. Comey got himself in a jam --- NOT because the problem of loyalty to the American people lies at the FBI level.. He got into trouble trying to protect the integrity of FBI from the blatant political hacks in charge of the DOJ and his bosses. So however dedicated to the Republic the folks at the FBI are --- That's not the issue.

OBVIOUSLY -- they DO become "loyal" to the party in power. BECAUSE -- they are not independent of the AG and the DOJ and partisan protection of their own.. And that's how this problem started...

These 2 tired, corrupt and aimless parties have to go. You gotta quit REWARDING them by making elections a contest about winning.. Because we're ALL LOSING right now..

FBI, DOJ and AG perhaps shouldn't be appointed, then. In Maine, the AG is elected by secret ballot of the legislature, which is pissing off our governor no end because she has pulled Yates-type refusals to represent his bullshit lawsuits on several occassions and he can't fire her. LOL
I'm not saying the FBI and DOJ directors should be elected by the Congress--good god what a mess that would be--but maybe there is another way? DOJ and FBI are two of the organizations that can stand between us and tyranny. They should have a bit of neutrality in some way.

My solution is for folks to stop voting for "the winners" and send both Brand Name parties to hell. Because this misuse of govt power is a unique phenomenon of our 2 party stand-off. If folks had voted for Johnson/Weld for example -- ALL those high positions would be filled with folks who are "INDEPENDENT" of the current partisan food fight. Now I realize the weaknesses of my own party candidates and it's not a permanent fix -- but the American people were offered 2 experienced 2 term Governors and decided to vote for Tweedle Dee and Dumb --- because THEY COULD WIN .. That's the worst excuse to fix any of this.

The parties need to blown up. Kept on watch. Out with ankle bracelets. And folks with PRINCIPLES and not beholding to a political DYNASTY -- need to be elected..

 

[TNHarley]

Also, for perspective, the GOP is known for loyalty oaths. Bush loved them. The RNC itself loves them.
The DNC also loves them. Hek, people have sued the democrat party because of it.

I can see those organizations asking for one. I can see the President asking for one among his WH staff or team or whatever the hell you want to call the assemblage of advisers etc. at the WH. Trump probably asked for a loyalty oath among his employees for the Trump organization.

Bush asked for loyalty oaths at some of his campaign rallies, which is also a private org. But not outside organizations, especially the FBI in the middle of an investigation into the President's campaign. Aye caramba!

What is so funny about this post, TNHarley? You got nothing else but to mock me?

Hek, I was just playing along with your joke of an OP

 

[OldLady]

Also, for perspective, the GOP is known for loyalty oaths. Bush loved them. The RNC itself loves them.
The DNC also loves them. Hek, people have sued the democrat party because of it.

I can see those organizations asking for one. I can see the President asking for one among his WH staff or team or whatever the hell you want to call the assemblage of advisers etc. at the WH. Trump probably asked for a loyalty oath among his employees for the Trump organization.

Bush asked for loyalty oaths at some of his campaign rallies, which is also a private org. But not outside organizations, especially the FBI in the middle of an investigation into the President's campaign. Aye caramba!

What is so funny about this post, TNHarley? You got nothing else but to mock me?

Hek, I was just playing along with your joke of an OP

Okay, folks, so TN can't come up with anything intelligent to counter the OP.

 

[flacaltenn]

Comey "appointed himself" to fill the credibility/ethics void at the top of DOJ. Said himself that his "non-indictment, indictment" publicly of Hillary was a tool to keep the FBI credibility knowing that Lynch had just met with Billy Jeff to talk about grandkids. Grandkids that Lynch never had !!!

Every past high ranking FBI official has criticized that judgement -- but I can SEE why he felt he had to do it.

The problem was always at the top of the DOJ. The fix was always in. So does the FBI SPEAK or keep silent?

 

[OldLady]

Comey "appointed himself" to fill the credibility/ethics void at the top of DOJ. Said himself that his "non-indictment, indictment" publicly of Hillary was a tool to keep the FBI credibility knowing that Lynch had just met with Billy Jeff to talk about grandkids. Grandkids that Lynch never had !!!

Every past high ranking FBI official has criticized that judgement -- but I can SEE why he felt he had to do it.

The problem was always at the top of the DOJ. The fix was always in. So does the FBI SPEAK or keep silent?

I agree Comey got stuck in a fix, but am I the only person alive who remembers Loretta Lynch on national tv saying that she was not going to actually recuse herself from the Clinton case but that she would rely on the recommendations of the FBI in the case to assuage any fears about the meeting on the tarmac? If Comey had given his recommendations to Lynch privately and then Lynch stood before the American people and said "No prosecution, folks" do you think ANYONE would have believed it was the FBI's recommendation? That is why Comey made a point of saying that he had NOT spoken to Lynch prior to his news conference. Any communication with her would have completely sullied the findings. Lots of people may have disagreed with Comey's ultimate recommendation not to prosecute, but they didn't for a minute doubt that it was Comey's decision.

I didn't even think it was so out of bounds to decide not to prosecute her. He said without intent, cases don't get won. The reason the FBI has a 98% success rate is because they don't prosecute cases they aren't sure they can win. Our D.A. here makes the same decision on a daily basis. It's a routine decision.

 

[TNHarley]

Also, for perspective, the GOP is known for loyalty oaths. Bush loved them. The RNC itself loves them.
The DNC also loves them. Hek, people have sued the democrat party because of it.

I can see those organizations asking for one. I can see the President asking for one among his WH staff or team or whatever the hell you want to call the assemblage of advisers etc. at the WH. Trump probably asked for a loyalty oath among his employees for the Trump organization.

Bush asked for loyalty oaths at some of his campaign rallies, which is also a private org. But not outside organizations, especially the FBI in the middle of an investigation into the President's campaign. Aye caramba!

What is so funny about this post, TNHarley? You got nothing else but to mock me?

Hek, I was just playing along with your joke of an OP

Okay, folks, so TN can't come up with anything intelligent to counter the OP.

anonymous sources don't do anything for me. This belongs in the conspiracy forum

 

[OldLady]

Also, for perspective, the GOP is known for loyalty oaths. Bush loved them. The RNC itself loves them.
The DNC also loves them. Hek, people have sued the democrat party because of it.

I can see those organizations asking for one. I can see the President asking for one among his WH staff or team or whatever the hell you want to call the assemblage of advisers etc. at the WH. Trump probably asked for a loyalty oath among his employees for the Trump organization.

Bush asked for loyalty oaths at some of his campaign rallies, which is also a private org. But not outside organizations, especially the FBI in the middle of an investigation into the President's campaign. Aye caramba!

What is so funny about this post, TNHarley? You got nothing else but to mock me?

Hek, I was just playing along with your joke of an OP

Okay, folks, so TN can't come up with anything intelligent to counter the OP.

anonymous sources don't do anything for me. This belongs in the conspiracy forum

You'd really have a different opinion if you knew the names of Comey's friends? Are you sure you wouldn't then be saying they are partisan shills? Maybe not, just wondering.
I won't bother you again today. I keep thinking it's Thursday. You have important business in the 4F. My apologies.

 

[flacaltenn]

I agree Comey got stuck in a fix, but am I the only person alive who remembers Loretta Lynch on national tv saying that she was not going to actually recuse herself from the Clinton case but that she would rely on the recommendations of the FBI in the case to assuage any fears about the meeting on the tarmac? If Comey had given his recommendations to Lynch privately and then Lynch stood before the American people and said "No prosecution, folks" do you think ANYONE would have believed it was the FBI's recommendation?

Tough shit for Lynch. The FBI does not make that decision to go to trial. And if it does make a recommendation to NOT prosecute -- it should never be a public spectacle in an election year. SHE and the other partisans at DOJ never HAD credibility on that matter. And HER poor judgement with Mr WhoreHopper put Comey in a pickle.

As for the public believing her -- She and Comey would be in a Congressional hearing the NEXT DAY -- to confirm the situation.. The public would KNOW that it was DOJ that decided not to prosecute and Comey would have to lay out the rationale for his recommendation. Which STILL contradicts the decision not to prosecute. The excuse that Ms Clinton was TOO STUPID TO REALIZE they were seriously violating security law and protocol would STILL remain public. There would have been calls for BOTH of them to be fired.

I didn't even think it was so out of bounds to decide not to prosecute her. He said without intent, cases don't get won. The reason the FBI has a 98% success rate is because they don't prosecute cases they aren't sure they can win. Our D.A. here makes the same decision on a daily basis. It's a routine decision.

Just FTRecord, Comey was correct in asserting that cases like this were normally handled thru sanctions WITHIN the agency where they occur. Because a criminal trial at classified levels is difficult and expensive and does no more good --- than FIRING someones' ass, YANKING their clearances and making sure they never handle classified info in the future. That's how it's NORMALLY done. (I know a bit about this world). But in this case, the defendant was the Sec of State in CHARGE of that dept AND its security compliance. And for that unprecedented reason -- there SHOULD have been an indictment. Mrs WhoreHopper was FULLY aware of what she set up to circumvent normal security protocols.

 

[2aguy]

Comey has returned the ball in the "who said what to whom" discussion that Trump started with "Comey told me three times I am not under investigation." Comey's friends say, "Yeah, well the President asked him twice to take a loyalty oath."

Three times Comey said something, but with the President's batting average on accuracy, I'll wait to see if Comey wishes to clear that up. And that three times thing--like before the rooster crows, Peter, you will deny me three times....Kind of puts a stamp of authenticity on it, doesn't it?

Asking Comey to take a loyalty pledge is about the creepiest thing I've heard yet, and I thought I'd been creeped out by this guy before. Kneel and kiss my ring, swear you are my man, and maybe I'll let you keep your job. ???? Glad Comey said no. Convenient Trump didn't mention that part in his story about the dinner.

Right there on its website, the FBI says the bureau and its officials must only swear an oath to the Constitution — not even a president. The reason? Because the latter “too easily leads to tyranny”:

It is significant that we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. This is true for the simple reason that the Constitution is based on lasting principles of sound government that provide balance, stability, and consistency through time. A government based on individuals — who are inconsistent, fallible, and often prone to error — too easily leads to tyranny on the one extreme or anarchy on the other. The founding fathers sought to avoid these extremes and create a balanced government based on constitutional principles.
Analysis | Trump reportedly sought a loyalty pledge from Comey. The FBI says this ‘leads to tyranny.’

Don't forget, just because NYT and WaPo don't disclose their sources doesn't mean their sources aren't credible--WaPo broke Watergate, remember. Trump has planned all along to fire Comey? I'll bet he has, ever since Comey told him he wouldn't take a loyalty oath. Who else has been asked? Jeff Sessions? Pompeo? Did they say yes? Who else? Would be interesting to know.

Yeah.....you should believe this story when you believe that comey asked for more resources......false...and that the Deputy Director said he would quit over the way Trump fired Comey....also false.....

There are lies about Trump going around and you are silly to believe them...

 

[OldLady]

I agree Comey got stuck in a fix, but am I the only person alive who remembers Loretta Lynch on national tv saying that she was not going to actually recuse herself from the Clinton case but that she would rely on the recommendations of the FBI in the case to assuage any fears about the meeting on the tarmac? If Comey had given his recommendations to Lynch privately and then Lynch stood before the American people and said "No prosecution, folks" do you think ANYONE would have believed it was the FBI's recommendation?

Tough shit for Lynch. The FBI does not make that decision to go to trial. And if it does make a recommendation to NOT prosecute -- it should never be a public spectacle in an election year. SHE and the other partisans at DOJ never HAD credibility on that matter. And HER poor judgement with Mr WhoreHopper put Comey in a pickle.

As for the public believing her -- She and Comey would be in a Congressional hearing the NEXT DAY -- to confirm the situation.. The public would KNOW that it was DOJ that decided not to prosecute and Comey would have to lay out the rationale for his recommendation. Which STILL contradicts the decision not to prosecute. The excuse that Ms Clinton was TOO STUPID TO REALIZE they were seriously violating security law and protocol would STILL remain public. There would have been calls for BOTH of them to be fired.

I didn't even think it was so out of bounds to decide not to prosecute her. He said without intent, cases don't get won. The reason the FBI has a 98% success rate is because they don't prosecute cases they aren't sure they can win. Our D.A. here makes the same decision on a daily basis. It's a routine decision.

Just FTRecord, Comey was correct in asserting that cases like this were normally handled thru sanctions WITHIN the agency where they occur. Because a criminal trial at classified levels is difficult and expensive and does no more good --- than FIRING someones' ass, YANKING their clearances and making sure they never handle classified info in the future. That's how it's NORMALLY done. (I know a bit about this world). But in this case, the defendant was the Sec of State in CHARGE of that dept AND its security compliance. And for that unprecedented reason -- there SHOULD have been an indictment. Mrs WhoreHopper was FULLY aware of what she set up to circumvent normal security protocols.

Okay, that's your perspective, but if possible I'd prefer not to readjudicate that whole thing. It's my fault for bringing it up, but it was to explain why Comey did what he did in that case.
This is about the fact that Trump is calling for loyalty oaths. He would NEVER release that "tape" he has; it would also prove that Comey didn't tell him he wasn't being investigated.

 

[OldLady]

Comey has returned the ball in the "who said what to whom" discussion that Trump started with "Comey told me three times I am not under investigation." Comey's friends say, "Yeah, well the President asked him twice to take a loyalty oath."

Three times Comey said something, but with the President's batting average on accuracy, I'll wait to see if Comey wishes to clear that up. And that three times thing--like before the rooster crows, Peter, you will deny me three times....Kind of puts a stamp of authenticity on it, doesn't it?

Asking Comey to take a loyalty pledge is about the creepiest thing I've heard yet, and I thought I'd been creeped out by this guy before. Kneel and kiss my ring, swear you are my man, and maybe I'll let you keep your job. ???? Glad Comey said no. Convenient Trump didn't mention that part in his story about the dinner.

Right there on its website, the FBI says the bureau and its officials must only swear an oath to the Constitution — not even a president. The reason? Because the latter “too easily leads to tyranny”:

It is significant that we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. This is true for the simple reason that the Constitution is based on lasting principles of sound government that provide balance, stability, and consistency through time. A government based on individuals — who are inconsistent, fallible, and often prone to error — too easily leads to tyranny on the one extreme or anarchy on the other. The founding fathers sought to avoid these extremes and create a balanced government based on constitutional principles.
Analysis | Trump reportedly sought a loyalty pledge from Comey. The FBI says this ‘leads to tyranny.’

Don't forget, just because NYT and WaPo don't disclose their sources doesn't mean their sources aren't credible--WaPo broke Watergate, remember. Trump has planned all along to fire Comey? I'll bet he has, ever since Comey told him he wouldn't take a loyalty oath. Who else has been asked? Jeff Sessions? Pompeo? Did they say yes? Who else? Would be interesting to know.

Yeah.....you should believe this story when you believe that comey asked for more resources......false...and that the Deputy Director said he would quit over the way Trump fired Comey....also false.....

There are lies about Trump going around and you are silly to believe them...

More has come out on that conversation and will continue to come out. With a POTUS such as we have, I doubt if anyone would want to be made public. I wish Comey himself would tweet or invite CBS or PBS over and have a nice long chat with them about all of this. Letting everything about his side of the story be dismissed as "lies" is as damaging as being fired for wanting to pursue the investigation to its logical end.

 

[flacaltenn]

I agree Comey got stuck in a fix, but am I the only person alive who remembers Loretta Lynch on national tv saying that she was not going to actually recuse herself from the Clinton case but that she would rely on the recommendations of the FBI in the case to assuage any fears about the meeting on the tarmac? If Comey had given his recommendations to Lynch privately and then Lynch stood before the American people and said "No prosecution, folks" do you think ANYONE would have believed it was the FBI's recommendation?

Tough shit for Lynch. The FBI does not make that decision to go to trial. And if it does make a recommendation to NOT prosecute -- it should never be a public spectacle in an election year. SHE and the other partisans at DOJ never HAD credibility on that matter. And HER poor judgement with Mr WhoreHopper put Comey in a pickle.

As for the public believing her -- She and Comey would be in a Congressional hearing the NEXT DAY -- to confirm the situation.. The public would KNOW that it was DOJ that decided not to prosecute and Comey would have to lay out the rationale for his recommendation. Which STILL contradicts the decision not to prosecute. The excuse that Ms Clinton was TOO STUPID TO REALIZE they were seriously violating security law and protocol would STILL remain public. There would have been calls for BOTH of them to be fired.

I didn't even think it was so out of bounds to decide not to prosecute her. He said without intent, cases don't get won. The reason the FBI has a 98% success rate is because they don't prosecute cases they aren't sure they can win. Our D.A. here makes the same decision on a daily basis. It's a routine decision.

Just FTRecord, Comey was correct in asserting that cases like this were normally handled thru sanctions WITHIN the agency where they occur. Because a criminal trial at classified levels is difficult and expensive and does no more good --- than FIRING someones' ass, YANKING their clearances and making sure they never handle classified info in the future. That's how it's NORMALLY done. (I know a bit about this world). But in this case, the defendant was the Sec of State in CHARGE of that dept AND its security compliance. And for that unprecedented reason -- there SHOULD have been an indictment. Mrs WhoreHopper was FULLY aware of what she set up to circumvent normal security protocols.

Okay, that's your perspective, but if possible I'd prefer not to readjudicate that whole thing. It's my fault for bringing it up, but it was to explain why Comey did what he did in that case.
This is about the fact that Trump is calling for loyalty oaths. He would NEVER release that "tape" he has; it would also prove that Comey didn't tell him he wasn't being investigated.

So -- back to what YOU'RE interested in...

What's the difference behind Lynch and Company's unspoken loyalty oath and Trump asking (if he did indeed do that) for loyalty to current elected Admin? Don't think Obama/Clinton machine PURGED all of the opposition out of the top spots?
It's easier to do when there's not this much attention. It's SOProcedure for DC..

My take is -- the "loyalty oath" has been taken out of context at best. Probably more to do with loyalty to take ORDERS. Which certainly is within his right. Even if they are stupid -- Admin killing type orders.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's just too power and too much professional spying and leaking going on. The spying and blackmail has to stop...