Sorry man. Not seeing it from from my armchair, at least. Still like Barr and I'm inclined to give him more time to get more rope but this is puzzling to me.VegasAg86 said:
Dang it, Hawg, I was hoping you'd have a good reason for this to be reasonable.
I understand the hit them with the best shot rather than everything, but it seems early to be passing on anything.
Exhibit A to show intent in the government's case to prosecute Comey and others under 923. 18 U.S.C. 371 - Consipiracy to Defraud the United States.VegasAg86 said:
Solomon was just on Hannity discussing this. IG referred for prosecution, AG declined prosecution. He thinks they're passing on this because they have him on bigger things (a fraudulent FISA application).
Legal question...benchmark said:Exhibit A to show intent in the government's case to prosecute Comey and others under 923. 18 U.S.C. 371 - Consipiracy to Defraud the United States.VegasAg86 said:
Solomon was just on Hannity discussing this. IG referred for prosecution, AG declined prosecution. He thinks they're passing on this because they have him on bigger things (a fraudulent FISA application).
Quote:
First, go read the full Solomon article. Notice the entire construct of the article surrounds "The Comey Memos". As you will see, this specific topic is important. Within the Solomon article you will find (emphasis mine):Quote:
[] Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz's team referred Comey for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws, but Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors working for Attorney General William Barr reportedly have decided to decline prosecution a decision that's likely to upset Comey's conservative critics.
Prosecutors found the IG's findings compelling but decided not to bring charges because they did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey's intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.It sounds like the OIG report on FISA abuse is in the end-stages. What is described in the highlighted sentence above would be what is technically called "The Principal Review Phase of the OIG Final Draft". That's where targets are given the opportunity to review an IG report and provide feedback prior to public release.Quote:
[] Patrick Fitzgerald and Daniel Richman, two of Comey's lawyers, and Keith Urbahn, his spokesman, did not return repeated calls and emails seeking comment.
[] While they cautioned that the IG's final report won't be complete until it gets feedback from Comey's lawyers in the next few days, it is expected to conclude that the former FBI director improperly took with him memos that were FBI property when he was fired, transmitted classified information via an insecure email account, and shared some of the memos with his private lawyers. (read more)
However. Note: This reference is not to the IG report on FISA Abuse.
Full Stop.
LINKQuote:
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.
pagerman @ work said:
Does this info regarding Comey being a separate "carve out" specifically about Comey (assuming the author is correct) imply anything about the larger FISA investigation?
Meaning does it imply that there is nothing for Comey to worry about in the larger investigation, or was this being "carved out" likely just because it was distinct and unrelated to the larger investigation?
I'd say it was an unrelated matter to Horowitz's core work on FISA abuse so he referred it to Huber who then consulted with Durham and Barr about it.pagerman @ work said:
Does this info regarding Comey being a separate "carve out" specifically about Comey (assuming the author is correct) imply anything about the larger FISA investigation?
Meaning does it imply that there is nothing for Comey to worry about in the larger investigation, or was this being "carved out" likely just because it was distinct and unrelated to the larger investigation?
No.pagerman @ work said:
Does this info regarding Comey being a separate "carve out" specifically about Comey (assuming the author is correct) imply anything about the larger FISA investigation?
Meaning does it imply that there is nothing for Comey to worry about in the larger investigation, or was this being "carved out" likely just because it was distinct and unrelated to the larger investigation?
Not bringing charges FOR THIS THING. It hasn't been said they're not bringing charges against him at all.Old_Ag_91 said:
I am in disbelief that Barr isn't going to bring charges against Comey. I am dumbfounded.
I am more of a throw everything and the kitchen sink type of gal but when you are dealing with a long time swamp creature like Comey who knows where a lot of skeletons are buried, there is a need for caution and weighing of the cost benefit analysis.Tibbers said:
To all who are saying they are just passing on indictment for this thing as its smaller than all the rest. Well, they are different crimes. Why in the world would we not just charge him with everything? We are holding off on only the big charges? Why?
In part, optics. Indicting him for every little thing invites the "doing it for politics" criticism that can be used against him in the election. Instead, hit him with a big, very provable to everyone thing and be done with all that.Tibbers said:
To all who are saying they are just passing on indictment for this thing as its smaller than all the rest. Well, they are different crimes. Why in the world would we not just charge him with everything? We are holding off on only the big charges? Why?
The documents given to Judicial Watch yesterday contradict what DOJ has said in previous court filings regarding the Comey memos. How many and when the FBI had retrieved them from Comey. Aso, it appears Comey lied under oath during his testimony the day after the FBI searched his home for the memos.whatthehey78 said:
^ Wished I knew what that means!
AggieHawg-- with your legal knowledge and expertise, do you believe Comey gets the same treatment as Papa, Flynn, Manafort or anyone else not associated with Hillary?aggiehawg said:The documents given to Judicial Watch yesterday contradict what DOJ has said in previous court filings regarding the Comey memos. How many and when the FBI had retrieved them from Comey. Aso, it appears Comey lied under oath during his testimony the day after the FBI searched his home for the memos.whatthehey78 said:
^ Wished I knew what that means!
Where is the 302 on that FBI interview of Comey? Sounds like he was lying to the FBI too. And the DOJ then lied to the court.
No, I don't because Barr is an ethical prosecutor and not a scorched earth raining down hell on his targets like the Mueller/Weissmann team.Quote:
AggieHawg-- with your legal knowledge and expertise, do you believe Comey gets the same treatment as Papa, Flynn, Manafort or anyone else not associated with Hillary?