Wait a second - look at Session's letter and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein's memo.

[yallerdawg]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/fbi-director-james-b-comeys-termination-letters-from-the-white-house-attorney-general/2430/

Rosenstein is citing exactly OUR criticisms of Comey - and Session's is signing off on it!

Would Trump just sign off on Session's recommendation? It's possible!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. That wasn't Trump signing off on Sessions' recommendation.

That was Trump telling Sessions what to recommend. And it's as lame as hell. If they thought what Trump did last year was wrong, why wouldn't they have done something at the time? Fact is, Trump liked what Comey did re: the emails. Such bullshit.

[yallerdawg]

4. Rosenstein was just confirmed a couple weeks ago.

As far as we know, this is his first official act!

And this weeks farcical testimony and rationalizations by the FBI director may have been the straw that broke the Comey's back!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. The timing is very, very suspect.

Schumer is saying that very thing right now on my teevee.

[Hortensis]

14. Will there be another firing, or is this the best excuse

they can present for getting rid of Comey? --Rosenstein accepted a position under an intensely corrupt AG serving an intensely corrupt president yet the reasons given are rational legally and ethically. Just 180 degrees from what Rump's always claimed.

From The Atlantic just now:

Link to tweet

Yet Rosenstein’s rational for firing Comey was precisely the opposite: He concluded that the FBI director had badly overstepped his bounds in his handling of the Clinton case.

“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,” Rosenstein wrote in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Rosenstein identified several errors. First, he said Comey “usurp[ed]” the authority of Attorney General Loretta Lynch by announcing that he did not recommend charges against Clinton. Comey made that choice in part because he believed Lynch was compromised by a meeting with Bill Clinton shortly before the decision.

“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 prosecution,” Rosenstein wrote. In that press conference, Comey accused Clinton and her aides of being “extremely careless” with classified information.

Finally, Rosenstein said that Comey’s October 28, 2016, letter to Congress in which he announced the discovery of new emails related to the Clinton case was an error, and that his defense that not to write Congress would have been “concealing” something was wrong. On November 6, two days before the election, Comey followed up and informed Congress that the FBI had found no new evidence to change its recommendation.

[exboyfil]

2. The question is why not on Jan. 20th

Nothing has changed in regards to the stated reasons since before the election.

[yallerdawg]

7. Today, the FBI had to correct misstatements by Comey.

The testimony this week by Comey has created even more credibility issues!

Deputy AG Rosenstein, who was just confirmed, lays out the ongoing failings of Comey - exactly the way I see them!

Yeah - a lot has changed.

[marybourg]

3. It seems to me they are opening the door

to re-examining the "evidence" against HRC and taking another stab at a conclusion.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. No, they used the email matter as an excuse to fire Comey

because you can't just fire an FBI director without cause (they have 10-year terms). The real reason, of course, is to impede the Russia investigation, but they can't say that straight up. I hope Comey spills as many beans as he can legally spill.

[marybourg]

9. I hope you're right, and I'm reading too much

into the first sentence of the third paragraph of the deputy AG's memo, (the first cause given)where he says that Comey was wrong to usurp the AG's role in deciding whether the (HRC)case should be closed without prosecution.

[yallerdawg]

10. Rosenstein argues:

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.

It seems quite possible to me that if Comey had done this, none of what followed - including the letter 11 days before the election - would have ever happened.

Quite possibly - we'd have a Madame President right now!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Yes, but the timing is extremely suspect.

And Trump actually praised Comey in October for his letter regarding the emails. If they'd really thought Comey's actions in July and October were worthy of firing, why didn't they do it in January instead of waiting until it became apparent that the FBI was serious about investigating the Russia connections?

[marybourg]

13. Yes, of course, from our point of view.

But from tRump's point of view a re-do might be called for, which would put the decision in the hands of AG Sessions.

Am I too cynical? Is there anything forbidding re-opening a FBI investigation without new material having come to light? If the DOJ thinks the FBI went beyond its authority?

[KingCharlemagne]

11. I hope he goes full Ellsberg on those bastards. - nt

[yallerdawg]

8. Not at all.

Rosenstein is pointing out it was not Comey's place to make conclusions and "defend" them - it was AG Lynch's job and the prosecutors!

Rosenstein is not arguing we need a do-over.

He's just saying Comey was wrong in how he assumed the power, jumped into the political arena, and lost all credibility.

[bhf930]

15. question about GRAMMAR in the Rosenstein memo

Several times in the memo, Rosenstein refers to a single person as Attorneys General:

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.

Is this grammatically correct? Or just sloppy.

Also, how is this a sentence:

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."

Instead of "to opine", it should be "opined". Again, seems pretty sloppy for a DOJ professional.

What do you think?

[Justice]

16. Hard to think about grammar with a virtual gun to your head.

[yallerdawg]

17. "question about GRAMMAR"

You're going to fit in nicely here!

Welcome to DU!

[rzemanfl]

18. Welcome to DU.

This strikes me as something he was ordered to sign.

[gopiscrap]

19. welcome to DU