Started By
Message
locked post

I don’t think people are quite understanding the Comey news

Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:05 pm
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69307 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:05 pm
quote:

LINK

Repeat: This is NOT the Inspector General Michael Horowitz report on DOJ and FBI FISA abuse.

This is a carve-out.

John Solomon is conflating two distinct issues…. and there is no effort to explain, because the sourcing is compartmentalized. Now the comment earlier in the week by Matthew Whitaker makes sense. Bear with me….

From the outset it was reported and confirmed that U.S. Attorney John Huber was assigned to assist Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Huber’s job was to stand-by in case the IG carved out a particular concern, discovered during his investigation, that might involve criminal conduct.

Earlier this week Matt Whitaker said: “John Huber is reviewing anything related to Comey’s memos and the like.”

Put the two data points together and what you realize is that during the OIG review of potential DOJ and FBI FISA abuse… IG Horowitz investigated the Comey Memo’s and then passed that specific issue along to John Huber for DOJ review.

The IG criminal referral for the James Comey memo leaking was a carve-out sent to U.S. Attorney John Huber.

Back to the Solomon article, only this time I will insert modified clarifying language to highlight what happened:

[…] Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey [to John Huber] for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but [John Huber, working for AG Bill Barr] reportedly has decided to decline prosecution — a decision that’s likely to upset Comey’s conservative critics.

John Huber found the IG’s findings compelling but decided not to bring charges because he did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.

This is a carve-out IG report and referral; with a specific target of James Comey; based on evidence discovered during the larger OIG review of possible FISA abuse.

Now the ‘Principal Review Phase‘ makes sense, because the only principal is James Comey. Therefore the IG has written a final draft report specific to James Comey and his memos. James Comey and his lawyers are now reviewing that final draft report and will provide feedback.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, together with the OIG referencer, may put the response from Comey in the report along with additional rebuttal from the Inspector General’s office.

That process will generate a final IG report; but the report is only specific to the Comey memo aspect and James Comey’s conduct in handling that memo content. That IG report on James Comey will be released pretty soon, likely within the next week.

This is not the inspector general report on DOJ and FBI FISA abuse. This is an IG report carved out of the larger investigation.

Bottom Line: We are soon going to see an IG report exclusively on James Comey.

Does that make sense now?
Posted by theunknownknight
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2005
57359 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:08 pm to
cliffs?
Posted by Choctaw
Pumpin' Sunshine
Member since Jul 2007
77774 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:08 pm to
quote:

I don’t think people are quite understanding the Comey news



about 99% of this board
Posted by SidewalkDawg
Chair
Member since Nov 2012
9820 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:09 pm to
quote:

John Huber found the IG’s findings compelling but decided not to bring charges because he did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.


This is where this whole fricking thing loses me and why I have little faith anything is going to be done.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146906 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:10 pm to
It is far better news than originally thought; but DeGenova said Comey was being charged with espionage and Comey will be the first one out the gate. Maybe he will be charged later but it is still disappointing and quite depressing.
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
37655 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:10 pm to
Yeah, makes a ton of sense.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69307 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:11 pm to
The doj decided to not pursue charges for comet specifically on the memo stuff, which is small potatoes


It is NOT about the fisa stuff and other misconduct
Posted by deathvalleytiger10
Member since Sep 2009
7598 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:12 pm to
quote:

decided not to bring charges because he did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law



Can I use that defense the next time I am caught speeding?
Posted by geauxnavybeatbama
Member since Jul 2013
25134 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:13 pm to
Id like to just have both sides move along
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112495 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:13 pm to
Rush Limbaugh agrees with you. That was his take last hour.
Posted by SidewalkDawg
Chair
Member since Nov 2012
9820 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:15 pm to
quote:

The doj decided to not pursue charges for comet specifically on the memo stuff, which is small potatoes

It is NOT about the fisa stuff and other misconduct


If they can't nail him on small potatoes, when he's admitted to purposefully leaking classified documents. What gives you any hope that they will nail him on FISA?

When the DOJ declines to prosecute based on this bullshite "Intent" precedent ONCE AGAIN. Why would it be any different with the FISA investigation?

Here, let me simplify this for everyone:

Comey: "Oh, my bad, I didn't intend to violate any laws when I signed that FISA warrant on Trump and Co."

DOJ: "Well, this changes everything. We'll drop the charges."
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146906 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:16 pm to
Good. I saw you posted and was going to ask you what Rush was saying.
Posted by SoulGlo
Shinin' Through
Member since Dec 2011
17248 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:17 pm to
"I didn't mean to break the law when I robbed that bank."
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123945 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:19 pm to
quote:

but DeGenova said
FWIW, so far diGenova has been off nearly as often as Hannity's "tick-tocks". The guy may mean well, but his sources stink.
Posted by BeefDawg
Atlanta
Member since Sep 2012
4747 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:20 pm to
quote:

John Huber found the IG’s findings compelling but decided not to bring charges because he did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.

This is frickin bullshite.

The dude stole classified work product, gave it to a friend who had no security clearance, then admitted he did this for the purpose of these memos being leaked to the media so they would hopefully trigger a Special Counsel, and then he claimed he “lost” some of the memos so couldn’t turn them over to investigators.

How the frick is that not “intent” to break the law???

Not to mention “no intent” isn’t even a defense under the law.

frick our DOJ. This is such bullshite.
This post was edited on 8/1/19 at 1:21 pm
Posted by Dale51
Member since Oct 2016
32378 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:22 pm to
quote:

This is where this whole fricking thing loses me and why I have little faith anything is going to be done.



Exactly.
When did "intent" become the be all end all standard to bring charges?? That said, "intent" can be shown in the context of knowledge. Joe Blow may not have knowledge of a minor crime so he had no "intent" do break the law.
In Comey's case, he was quite knowledgeable of the law and it's procedures. It could only have acted that way with intent. That could be bolstered by the fact that it was Comey who established that standard for Clinton, knowing that he could benefit from it if needed.

This is total bullshiit.
Posted by MeatCleaverWeaver
Member since Oct 2013
22175 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:23 pm to
quote:

didn't mean to break the law when I robbed that bank."



Yep. I’m the nation’s top cop and an attorney. I know federal law as well as anybody. The agency had training and policies endorsed by me noting that leaking confidential info is a crime, but I didn’t have any intent when I leaked confidential info, so there’s no crime.
This post was edited on 8/1/19 at 1:24 pm
Posted by Possumslayer
Pascagoula
Member since Jan 2018
6207 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:23 pm to
There’s that word again.......intent
Posted by blackinthesaddle
Alabama
Member since Jan 2013
1732 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:28 pm to
quote:

I didn’t have any intent when I leaked confidential info


Is it leaking if they're your memos and were only marked confidential after they'd been disseminated?
Posted by SidewalkDawg
Chair
Member since Nov 2012
9820 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 1:30 pm to
quote:

Yep. I’m the nation’s top cop and an attorney. I know federal law as well as anybody. The agency had training and policies endorsed by me noting that leaking confidential info is a crime, but I didn’t have any intent when I leaked confidential info, so there’s no crime.


Meanwhile, it took a presidential pardon to get a US military man out of jail for accidentally taking a photo with a classified sub engine in the background.

Intent is a bullshite precedent set to protect the politically connected. It is unacceptable.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram