Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comey admits he was wrong

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Comey admits he was wrong

    In his own words:

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/com...hing-ig-report
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

  • #2
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/15/polit...age/index.html

    Former FBI Director James Comey conceded that there was "real sloppiness" involved with the bureau's effort to obtain warrants to secretly surveil a Trump campaign adviser in 2016, saying in a Sunday interview that he was "overconfident" with his trust in the bureau's procedures.

    "(The Justice Department's inspector general) also found things that we were never accused of, which is real sloppiness, and that's concerning. As I've said all along (it) has to be focused on. If I were director, I'd be very concerned about it and diving into it," Comey told "Fox News Sunday" host Chis Wallace.

    Asked by Wallace about comments Comey made last year that he was sure officials at the FBI were "responsible" when they prepared surveillance warrants applications for Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the former FBI chief said he "was wrong."

    "I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and (Department of) Justice have built over 20 year years. I thought they were robust enough," he said.
    The comments from Comey come nearly a week after the department's inspector general released a report on the origins of the Russia investigation. The report found that the FBI properly opened its investigation into Russian election interference but said there were major errors in how the agency conducted the probe, including the critical finding that exculpatory evidence about Page was omitted from the applications for surveillance warrants.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #3
      This comes days after Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report and testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee detailed concerns that included 17 “significant errors and omissions” by the FBI’s investigative team when applying for a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Horowitz referred “the entire chain of command” to the FBI and DOJ for “how to assess and address their performance failures” during the probe, which was conducted while Comey was in charge.




      IG HOROWITZ RIPS FBI 'FAILURE IN RUSSIA PROBE, SAYS NOBODY VINDICATED BY REPORT

      "He's right, I was wrong," Comey said about how the FBI used the FISA process




      I seem to recall being mocked here for questioning the FBI's actions.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
        I seem to recall being mocked here for questioning the FBI's actions.
        Mocked? That is being easy on the TDS people. They were questioning loyalty to the US.......being partisan.......a Trumper........

        Comey is trying to cover his rear end now. The abuse of power from the Obama DOJ & the FBI is now coming into light. I have no doubt that more of the agency's unconstitutional activities will be exposed in the next few months.

        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post

          Mocked? That is being easy on the TDS people. They were questioning loyalty to the US.......being partisan.......a Trumper........

          Comey is trying to cover his rear end now. The abuse of power from the Obama DOJ & the FBI is now coming into light. I have no doubt that more of the agency's unconstitutional activities will be exposed in the next few months.
          Not just unconstitutional. They allegedly engaged in perjury and fraud in an effort to frame someone. If it wasn't for political reasons I would sure like to know why the people in the FBI felt the need to do this. Unless they are just corrupt.

          Yes, "mocked" is a mild word to describe the derision I received when I questioned the FBI.
          Seems we were right to do so.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nichols View Post

            Mocked? That is being easy on the TDS people. They were questioning loyalty to the US.......being partisan.......a Trumper........

            Comey is trying to cover his rear end now. The abuse of power from the Obama DOJ & the FBI is now coming into light. I have no doubt that more of the agency's unconstitutional activities will be exposed in the next few months.
            Chris Wallace's interview of Comey did not go well for the FBI. How dare we question Comey or the FBI.
            Wallace's question neatly frames what I was talking about.

            WALLACE: All right. And then there is – best for last – the worst misconduct. In August of 2016, just two weeks into the investigation, the CIA tells the FBI that it actually has a relationship with Carter Page – that when he has these meetings with the Russians, he actually goes back and he tells the CIA about it. But you never tell the FISA court that. And in fact, in 2017, an FBI lawyer doctors a document. The CIA said, “Oh, Carter Page, he’s a source.” And he puts in the application he’s not a source.



            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #7
              It is also true that the DOJ IG found that the FBI's investigation was founded on solid principles and was legally correct. You who continually criticize and denigrate the FBI have left that part out.

              The seventeen problems with the FISA warrant are being corrected according to Director Wray.

              Criticism is one thing; denigration is another, and that is what Trump and his followers, including those here, continually do. And that is wrong.

              And you don't criticize Trump at all which is at the very least hypocritical.
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • #8

                Just how are they "correcting" the framing of Carter Page?
                Promising to never engage in fraud again is hardly comforting. Have they fired the people who committed the fraud?
                Or ignored simple law enforcement procedures in order to get what they wanted? Presumably the FBI agents followed standard protocol for obtaining a warrant and swore, under oath, that the facts were true and correct and the sources reliable.
                Given what the IG said, there is probably quite a bit of perjury behind the FISA warrants. Are the people who committed perjury being prosecuted? Fired?

                Why would there be a need to criticize trump in a thread about comey admitting he was wrong?
                Perhaps I should have mentioned that maybe comey owes trump an apology?
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Massena View Post
                  It is also true that the DOJ IG found that the FBI's investigation was founded on solid principles and was legally correct. You who continually criticize and denigrate the FBI have left that part out.
                  Waking up in the morning is founded on solid principals also. Trampling on the Constitution after you wake up does not make it okay because you woke up that morning.
                  "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                    Just how are they "correcting" the framing of Carter Page?
                    Promising to never engage in fraud again is hardly comforting. Have they fired the people who committed the fraud?
                    Or ignored simple law enforcement procedures in order to get what they wanted? Presumably the FBI agents followed standard protocol for obtaining a warrant and swore, under oath, that the facts were true and correct and the sources reliable.
                    Given what the IG said, there is probably quite a bit of perjury behind the FISA warrants. Are the people who committed perjury being prosecuted? Fired?

                    Why would there be a need to criticize trump in a thread about comey admitting he was wrong?
                    Perhaps I should have mentioned that maybe comey owes trump an apology?
                    If FBI agents . . . . misstated facts in applying for FISA warrants against Dona;d Trump's presidential campaign, then the question that begs asking is, how many small fish who aren't major presidential candidates receive that kind of clear unprofessional and probably illegal treatment from the FBI and/or other Federal agencies? After all, Trump has pretty deep pockets, as well as a partisan press corps dissecting every statement made about him. Joe Schmo hasn't got anything like those kinds of resources. How many thousands of nobodies have been ramrodded by the Feds over the years, employing questionable practices similar to the ones described here? My gut tells me that that number is pretty large.
                    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                      Waking up in the morning is founded on solid principals also. Trampling on the Constitution after you wake up does not make it okay because you woke up that morning.
                      Excellent!
                      SPORTS FREAK/ PANZERBLITZ COMMANDER/ CC2 COMMANDER

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                        If FBI agents . . . . misstated facts in applying for FISA warrants against Dona;d Trump's presidential campaign, then the question that begs asking is, how many small fish who aren't major presidential candidates receive that kind of clear unprofessional and probably illegal treatment from the FBI and/or other Federal agencies? After all, Trump has pretty deep pockets, as well as a partisan press corps dissecting every statement made about him. Joe Schmo hasn't got anything like those kinds of resources. How many thousands of nobodies have been ramrodded by the Feds over the years, employing questionable practices similar to the ones described here? My gut tells me that that number is pretty large.
                        Good question and none of us can answer.
                        However, I would submit that they would only take that kind of risk (perjury) if it was really important to them.
                        Lying about joe schmo might not be worth it when the risks are considered.

                        Granted, it could just be laziness, but here, one of them changed the information from the CIA. That isn't just being lazy, it is being active and taking a huge risk.
                        A huge risk is only justified when the reward is bigger.
                        There doesn't seem to be a financial interest in the perjury so I am left with the belief that the goal was to bring down a president they didn't approve of. Clearly I'm having to speculate, but can't come up with anything else.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nichols View Post

                          Waking up in the morning is founded on solid principals also. Trampling on the Constitution after you wake up does not make it okay because you woke up that morning.
                          You are completely ignoring the entire IG report. Typical.
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                              Good question and none of us can answer.
                              However, I would submit that they would only take that kind of risk (perjury) if it was really important to them.
                              Lying about joe schmo might not be worth it when the risks are considered.

                              Granted, it could just be laziness, but here, one of them changed the information from the CIA. That isn't just being lazy, it is being active and taking a huge risk.
                              A huge risk is only justified when the reward is bigger.
                              There doesn't seem to be a financial interest in the perjury so I am left with the belief that the goal was to bring down a president they didn't approve of. Clearly I'm having to speculate, but can't come up with anything else.
                              Are you sure about that? I mean, we know that investigators and prosecutors cut corners all the time, in cases far less prestigious than a presidential impeachment. Three major cases against Marines in Iraq accused of illegal killings, trial judges cited NCIS for withholding exculpatory evidence. Even down on street level, the things cops and DAs do to secure cases can be pretty eye-popping.

                              Not many people took defense attorney Alan M. Dershowitz seriously when he charged that Los Angeles cops are taught to lie at the birth of their careers at the Police Academy. But as someone who spent 35 years wearing a police uniform, I've come to believe that hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests.

                              These are not cops who take bribes or commit other crimes. Other than routinely lying, they are law-abiding and dedicated. They don't feel lying under oath is wrong because politicians tell them they are engaged in a "holy war" fighting evil. Then, too, the "enemy" these mostly white cops are testifying against are poor blacks and Latinos.

                              The federal government reports that more than 1.3 million drug arrests were made in 1994, 480,000 of which involved marijuana. About 1 million of the total drug arrests were for possession, not selling. Despite government drug-war propaganda that big-time dealers are its targets, only 24% of the total drug arrests were for selling. Almost all those arrested for selling are small-timers, in large part, supporting their own drug use. Often they are inveigled by undercover police to up the ante. Many of the arrests for selling are made without search warrants and almost all the possession arrests are without warrants.

                              In other words, hundreds of thousands of police officers swear under oath that the drugs were in plain view or that the defendant gave consent to a search. This may happen occasionally but it defies belief that so many drug users are careless enough to leave illegal drugs where the police can see them or so dumb as to give cops consent to search them when they possess drugs. But without this kind of police testimony. the evidence would be excluded under a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Mapp vs. Ohio.

                              I became a New York City policeman five years before the Mapp decision. We were trained to search people who appeared suspicious. I questioned the apparent contradiction posed by the 4th Amendment, which guaranteed that people would be secure in their person and house from a search without a warrant. The instructor said not to worry. A suspect could sue in a civil action but no jury would find against a cop trying to stop dope from being sold. He went on to say that if the courts really meant it, they wouldn't allow such evidence into a criminal trial. In its Mapp decision, the Supreme Court cited this police attitude and the routine violations of the 4th Amendment as reasons enough to establish a national rule to exclude illegally obtained evidence.

                              Gradually, as police professionalization increased, police testimony became more honest. But the trend reversed in 1972, when President Richard M. Nixon declared a war against drugs and promised the nation that drug abuse would soon vanish. Succeeding presidents and Congresses repeated this false pledge despite evidence that drug use, drug profits, and drug violence increased regardless of expanded enforcement and harsher penalties. Because the political rhetoric described a holy war in which evil had to be defeated, questioning police tactics was equivalent to supporting drug abuse. . . . .

                              "Has the Drug War Created an Officers' Liars Club," by Joseph D McNamara, Los Angeles Times 11 Feb 1996
                              Remember the OJ Simpson murder trial? Remember how the LAPD detective mishandled blood evidence? Remember how amateurish the LA Co DAs looked?

                              I would submit that slap-dash, corner-cutting, unprofessional procedures were employed in the Trump case because the FBI agents have been using such tactics for years, and against weaker defendants -- defendants lacking Donald Trump's or OJ Simpson's fiscal and/or media wherewithal -- those tactics worked, almost without exception. They went with what they knew, only against this opponent, the outcome was turned on its head. Had you been the subject of their investigation, however, they would have likely buried you. You would have cried "uncle" and took a plea, if no other reason than they would have exhausted the whole of your economic resources. And don't think for a minute that they won't resort to exactly those same kinds of cheap, constitution-cutting procedures against the next Joe Schmo they set their sights on. The Feds know going in that no matter how sloppy they are, they enjoy a better than 90% conviction rate. With odds like that, why not slice-n-dice the Constitution a little, eh.
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X