Former FBI Director James Comey 'can't quite understand' why Mueller passed obstruction decision to Attorney General Bill Barr
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former FBI Director James Comey 'can't quite understand' why Mueller passed obstruction decision to Attorney General Bill Barr
MARK OSBORNE, Good Morning America 2 hours 53 minutes ago Ad: 6 seconds
Former FBI Director James Comey 'can't quite understand' why Mueller passed obstruction decision to Attorney General Bill Barr originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Former FBI Director James Comey said he had "great faith" in Robert Mueller, but he's still confused by the special counsel's decision to pass the buck on deciding whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation.
Comey, who was fired by Trump in May 2017, continued his ongoing feud with the president in his first comments since the release of Attorney General William Barr's summary of the Mueller report at an event hosted by the Learning Society of Queens University in Charlotte Tuesday night.
(MORE: 1 year since dismissal, Comey continues to spar with Trump)
"I think it's very very important that the American people get transparency," Comey told the audience, calling for a full release of the report, according to The Charlotte Observer .
No video or audio recordings of the event were allowed, but a number of reporters were in attendance.
Comey said he wasn't hoping for "a particular result" -- despite the president's penchant for calling him "Lyin' James Comey" on Twitter -- but did have a problem with Mueller not taking a position on obstruction and allowing Barr, a Trump appointee, to decide on filing an indictment.
"I can’t quite understand what’s going on with the obstruction stuff," Comey said at the event. "I have great faith in Bob Mueller, but I just can’t tell from the letter why didn’t he decide these questions when the entire rationale for a special counsel is to make sure the politicals aren’t making the key charging decisions."
(MORE: Read Barr's letter to Congress on the Mueller report)
Mueller wrote in his report that he could not conclude that Trump committed obstruction, but also that the report does not exonerate him.
Barr's letter instead said the decision on the crime of obstruction was passed to himself, and deputy Rod Rosenstein: "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime."
Barr decided the conduct detailed in the special counsel's report did not constitute a crime.
Comey's reference to "politicals" apparently alludes to Barr's relationship with Trump.
On Tuesday night, Comey emphasized the first part of the Mueller report, which details Russian interference in the 2016 election through a sustained campaign of hacking and spreading disinformation on social media.
"The Russians really did massively interfere in the 2016 election, with the goal of helping one candidate and damaging another," Comey told audience members at the Belk Theater. “That was not a hoax.”
(MORE: Russian lobbyist at Trump Tower meeting 'happy and relieved' Mueller probe over)
And while he said he wasn't hoping for Trump to come under indictment, he did get in a few shots at Trump, at one point saying the president "doesn't know anything about leadership."
Trump has had a number of explanations for why he fired Comey four months into his presidency, but said simply, "He wasn't doing a good job," in his initial comments a day after the dismissal.
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
Former FBI Director James Comey said he had "great faith" in Robert Mueller, but he's still confused by the special counsel's decision to pass the buck on deciding whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation.
Comey, who was fired by Trump in May 2017, continued his ongoing feud with the president in his first comments since the release of Attorney General William Barr's summary of the Mueller report at an event hosted by the Learning Society of Queens University in Charlotte Tuesday night.
(MORE: 1 year since dismissal, Comey continues to spar with Trump)
"I think it's very very important that the American people get transparency," Comey told the audience, calling for a full release of the report, according to The Charlotte Observer.
Comey's butt hurt continues.
My only problem with Trump firing Comey is that he didn't do it the second he took office. Comey's "investigation" of Clinton's private email server was incompetent at best, and corrupt at worst. He deserved to be fired.
Just take a look at Comey's investigation as compared to Mueller's.
Comey's team granted immunity to every key Clinton witness to get them to testify (how truthfully is anyone's best guess as they had no compelling reason left to tell the truth). Comey wasn't even present for the Hillary interview, that he allowed Strzok (a Hillary sycophant) to conduct- and that wasn't even recorded. He then allowed Strzok to edit his stated findings; because Strzok didn't like that the wording was too close to the very law (negligence is sending or receiving classified documentation) that Clinton broke.
Mueller, on the other hand, went after everyone even remotely associated with Trump for any reason. He didn't grant immunity to anyone, he indicted them and force them to plea bargain their sentences down by providing information. Very good way of compelling them to tell the truth. Mueller's hand pick team had several Hillary FBI sycophants on it- that also worked under the Comey investigation. The rest of his team was an Obama and Clinton booster club from the private sector. But somehow we are suppose to believe that all of these people that despised Trump, and desperately wanted him removed from office, suddenly flipped sides and helped Mueller cover up for Trump.
No back to butt hurt Comey crying over Trump no being charged with obstruction. Maybe he should ask Rod Rosenstein why he sent a letter recommending Comey be fired? I have a link to his letter below. He laid out very detailed reasons for Comey to be fired.
Is that all you got - butthurt?
Can't read? I detailed my reasons he should have been fired.
I then linked Rosenstein's recommendation as to why Comey needed to be fired. Trump followed his recommendation and fired Comey.
That, and a lot more. Comey's going to go down hard for his treacherous malfeasance
What treacherous malfeasance?
Right wing speech for, "he should have just made something up to charge Hillary with".
The people are still confused why Comey, after going to great length to explain how and why Hillary broke Federal law by sending and receiving classified material on her unsecured private server, declined to recommend she be prosecuted, citing some vague reference about "intent".
It was never Mueller's job to determine if Trump obstructed justice, his only duty being to investigate and gather information. He and AG together concluded that was no credible evidence of obstruction.
No, Rump's flunky Barr said that, we won't know until the full report is released.
No, dear, the summary included all the relevant points that were covered in the full report. Otherwise they would have been mentioned in the summary. Nothing new will be revealed in the release of the "full" report.
Then...the libbers will start bitching and moaning about the "redactions", which are legally and procedurally required. You would help your case if you had any idea how all this stuff works and fits together.
And once again, Barr and Mueller, together and jointly, issued their opinion that there was no credible evidence of obstruction. No collusion, no obstruction. End of story. Case closed.
Prove it.
Have you read Mueller's summary? Didn't think so.
Mueller's report is 300+ pages.
Barr's summary is 4 pages.
Guaranteed there will be at least 296 pages of "new" information in the full report.
Once again, prove that they will all be required.
Strangely enough I was about to say the exact same thing to you.
And once again, that is an outright LIE!
You have no evidence that Barr's summary is supported by Mueller's report. For all we know, Barr crafted his "summary" months ago before actually seeing Mueller's report.
Mueller had nothing whatsoever to do with Barr's summary, they issued nothing jointly.
How the hell could 4 pages cover anything from around 700 pages?
Release The Whole Mueller Report OR Nobody Is Buying Barr's Lousy Whitewash...
No way that's going to happen, not by current law, so why keep pushing it? Is it so you can piss and moan about the results if even one item is redacted? Yeah, i bet thats it. You didn't get the results you hoped for so now the TDS temper tantrum continues ad infinium.
How utterly sad!
Obstruction of justice would need to show what sort of investigative activity was being conducted and how Trump obstructed that effort. That opens the door for scrutiny of the investigators. In the case of the FBI, was their investigative activity justified and conducted properly? An unjustified investigation conducted improperly is supposed to be obstructed, isn't it? That's also part of the President's job.
Mueller avoided delivering conclusions about the underlying investigations themselves. Mueller would need to show that the investigative effort instigated by James Comey was justified and conducted properly before charging Trump with trying to obstruct that effort. Mueller punted that ball back to DOJ because DOJ is responsible for internal oversight of the FBI.
Mueller did not exonerate Trump but Mueller also did not exonerate the FBI or James Comey. James Comey is a political animal; he understands that Mueller did not give him a pass.
Why would the FBI and Mr. Comey need to be exonerated?
Take your usual nonsense somewhere else.
What did Trump obstruct?
Isn't it funny that you ignore every answer you have been given on that question?
How did he break the law? What investigations?
You know, those future double secret investigations.
Don't matter. "I love WikiLeaks," DJT. That don't matter either.
"No Collusion! No Collusion." Really?
No Collusion. Really? Not a very intelligent response.
Yeah, really. Got any facts that say otherwise.
That move would be yours.
Prove that there was collusion-----something Mueller was unable to do in 2+ years of looking specifically for it.
Otherwise, it is just a lot of hot air.
[DELETE]
[DELETED]
Prove that he didn't have evidence for collusion. Of course you have to ignore those 101 secret Russian meetings that Trump's people kept denying.
Because Muller himself said there was no collusion.
PROVE that there were 101 secret Russian meetings.
No Mueller himself didn't say that. Barr did.
Yes, but Mueller is part of trump's conspiracy. Or he and his team are being held in the remote Andes mountains, unable to communicate, as Barr lies about Mueller's conclusions.
I'm not sure which the truthers conspiracy of the day, but it's along those lines.
If you can't reply, without an obvious LIE, why bother?
"It ain't over until its over." Yogi Berra.
Yawn. Prove collusion--something Mueller could not, or stop whining about it.
And Lenny Kravitz .....
How do you know he didn't? For all you know he proved it, but was unable to pursue it due to a technicality.
[DELETE]
Prove otherwise...
You prove otherwise. Prove collusion. I have been waiting patiently for over 2 years for Mueller to do so, but he has not. I don't think you'll be able to either.
So, by Mueller being silent after Barr released his summary, to liberals, that makes Mueller part of the coverup.
My God, why are so many liberals so delusional?
Now, now Tex....we all know the loons on the left have far more evidence of collusion than Mueller ever had. The only difference is they are so much more secretive on the proof, not even they know what it is.
That is akin to asking why water is wet.
LOL!
Trump tower meeting. Manafort giving polling data to Russians.
You're turn.
Not collusion.
Ask Mueller about it.
If one pays for polling, is it not yours to do as you wish with it? Can you make it public? Can you keep it private? Can you give it to anyone you wish? Please cite any law broken, if you can, of course.
Mueller says it is collusion.
No.
U.S. Code, 18 USC §371
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
11 CFR § 110.20
Don't they have Google where you live? You could have found out for yourself.
Why do you say things that aren't true?
Sure do, which is why I looked your laws up.
Not one applies here. If you think it does, cite the specific passage and how anyone violated it.
To quote Texan, prove it isn't true.
In your opinion, not so much in the experts' opinions.
Well, then get your freaking "expert" to tell you what specific code applies here, according to your vast legal knowledge.
Come on, you cited statutes and then failed to state which ones were broken by whom and how they were broken.
Now, feel free to keep dodging and saying "I provided the statutes" because that don't mean SQUAT.
Nope, following your own posted procedure, it is now up to you to prove it. At least that's what you do with everyone else. So PROVE IT!
Can't prove what doesn't exist in US Code.
Surely you know that, right?
Next time, perhaps you shouldn't apply codes which have no bearing on the discussion.
Hell, you might as well have posted the codes for armed robbery--it would have made just as much sense.
So you can't prove it? So you're wrong again.
Your posts are getting pretty boring.
I knew you couldn't back up your outlandish claims.
I should have learned my lesson better.
Don't worry, I won't embarrass you any further by asking you to prove what you claim.
For someone who keeps claiming that no one backs up their claims, I have yet to see you provide any back up for your own. But by your logic, since you cannot prove it, you fail.
Ah yes .... the old Peewee Herman "i know you are but what i am?" gambit.
Well played sir, well played! Very compelling!
Still looking for his 16th minute.
Sad, so sad!