Comey friend: Nothing scarier to Trump than someone who tells the truth

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
" One of James Comey's friends is praising the former FBI director and warning that nothing is scarier to President Trump than someone who tells the truth and is always willing to do the right thing.

In an op-ed published in The New York Times, Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, called Comey a "highly honorable and decent person."

He also said the former FBI director is without "subtext" and will always explain his thinking if it's appropriate to discuss.

"In the world of President Trump, we really want people who aren’t going to lie," he wrote. "We want people who can sit in front of a congressional committee for hours and, however mad they may make us, never give us reason to doubt that they are telling the truth as they see it."

Wittes said Comey has an "unfailing instinct to fall on every grenade," calling it a "highly unusual trait in Washington, a town where lots of people dodge responsibility for everything."

"When one person has an instinct to fall on grenades and everyone else has an instinct to flee from them, it’s not surprising when that one person ends up dealing with all the explosives," he wrote.

Wittes added that Comey is "genuinely fixated on independence and doing the right thing."

"Whatever you think of Mr. Comey’s judgment, he will do what he believes to be right, whomever, it might help or hurt politically and whatever damage it might do to him and his reputation," he wrote.

"Who else can you say that about?"

Wittes wrote that he expects people will miss "those very features of Mr. Comey that so many Americans have come to hate over the past year."
"And it is, I believe, those very features that led Mr. Trump to fire the F.B.I. director," he added. "

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333337-comey-friend-nothing-scarier-to-trump-than-someone-who-tells-the
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The Dems weren't the only one who flipped flopped about Comey. Trump was right there too.
That's certainly true - as a candidate, he liked someone who told "the truth" (even if it wasn't) and helped him get elected. As a president, he's come out and said he had confidence in the guy (before making the decision to fire him). Certainly you can't compare candidate Trump to President Trump in the same way you'd compare Minority Leader (select) to Minority Leader Schumer? I mean, Schumer is in essentially the same job doing the same thing he's done for decades, compared to a guy who was running for vs now is fullfilling the role of president.


However, to me, the flip flop is not the worst part of what Vrai quoted. The worst part is that Comey is CLEARLY not independent, and he CLEARLY was not concerned with "doing the right thing".
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
It wasn't what Trump himself was saying just a few short months ago either...or did you forget that?

So what's your point. Everyone knows what you think of Trump - what about the Dems showing their hypocritical streak?
Where do THEY get off - or is it only bad when Trump does it?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So what's your point. Everyone knows what you think of Trump - what about the Dems showing their hypocritical streak?
Where do THEY get off - or is it only bad when Trump does it?
TJ doesn't seem to care who it is that says it....TJ seems to want to just make sure that you remember the other guy said it, too. I'm sure if someone said - first - that Trump was flip-flopping, TJ would come in here and say, "yeah, but so did the Dems, or did you forget that you moron?" Yeah, I'm sure TJ would, uh huh...
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
TJ doesn't seem to care who it is that says it....TJ seems to want to just make sure that you remember the other guy said it, too. I'm sure if someone said - first - that Trump was flip-flopping, TJ would come in here and say, "yeah, but so did the Dems, or did you forget that you moron?" Yeah, I'm sure TJ would, uh huh...

Looks to me that TJ is *ignoring* that entirely.

I don't defend Trump on this, but I'm not in Washington. I don't know why you might defend someone you strongly think you will eventually have to fire.
I know that Comey called Trump "crazy" when he brought up the wiretap issue. He's been much less than respectful to his boss, and most places I've worked, just THAT can and should get you fired in short order.

I just remember how completely befuddled I was last July, when we all sat and waited for him to deliver on the email investigation - RIGHT after the tarmac incident - and said basically, yeah she's guilty as sin but since no lawyer will touch it, I'm letting her off. A decision which was not for the FBI to make. Can you imagine a CSI lab saying, yeah, fingerprints and DNA on the gun but - nah, we're not turning it over since they won't be found guilty.

And the Dems were positively GLEEFUL. They praised the guy. I can find multiple quotes. They LOVED the guy.
Until the end of October. Then he was partisan, evil and a pawn of the GOP. They wanted him thrown out.
Until he was thrown out. THEN they defended him. Or gave a similarly bizarre argument that they'd have no problem with *HILLARY* firing him, but not Trump.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Lets see here.....Comey is fired - nhboy returns immediately after. Have they ever been seen together? Woe is us.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Looks to me that TJ is *ignoring* that entirely.

I don't defend Trump on this, but I'm not in Washington. I don't know why you might defend someone you strongly think you will eventually have to fire.
I know that Comey called Trump "crazy" when he brought up the wiretap issue. He's been much less than respectful to his boss, and most places I've worked, just THAT can and should get you fired in short order.
I think (I obviously don't know) that Trump says things like, "I have confidence in him" as a way to maintain confidence in the system as a whole. I think he knows that if the president says something like "I don't have confidence in the FBI director", that would shatter morale at the Bureau, and with courts, and prosecutors, and cases..... So, you maintain "confidence" right up to the day you fire the guy.

I just remember how completely befuddled I was last July, when we all sat and waited for him to deliver on the email investigation - RIGHT after the tarmac incident - and said basically, yeah she's guilty as sin but since no lawyer will touch it, I'm letting her off. A decision which was not for the FBI to make. Can you imagine a CSI lab saying, yeah, fingerprints and DNA on the gun but - nah, we're not turning it over since they won't be found guilty.

And the Dems were positively GLEEFUL. They praised the guy. I can find multiple quotes. They LOVED the guy.
Until the end of October. Then he was partisan, evil and a pawn of the GOP. They wanted him thrown out.
Until he was thrown out. THEN they defended him. Or gave a similarly bizarre argument that they'd have no problem with *HILLARY* firing him, but not Trump.
I can't justify any of that. Don't have a clue beyond putting party ahead of country.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I can't justify any of that. Don't have a clue beyond putting party ahead of country.
Except that even people who KNOW the man declare clearly that he's no partisan hack.
The idea is that a law enforcement professional is supposed to be as non-partisan as a rocket scientist.
You investigate and give your answer.

Was he TOLD to say that last July? If he's the Boy Scout everyone says he is - why did he do that?
Later, in October - why was it necessary to proclaim everything to the world?

(I have to admit, his recent reveal that Abedin had - what, thousands - of emails forwarded to Weiner's laptop -
and it turned out to be TWO - and not classified - strikes me as incompetent enough to warrant firing).
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Except that even people who KNOW the man declare clearly that he's no partisan hack.
The idea is that a law enforcement professional is supposed to be as non-partisan as a rocket scientist.
You investigate and give your answer.

Was he TOLD to say that last July? If he's the Boy Scout everyone says he is - why did he do that?
Later, in October - why was it necessary to proclaim everything to the world?

(I have to admit, his recent reveal that Abedin had - what, thousands - of emails forwarded to Weiner's laptop -
and it turned out to be TWO - and not classified - strikes me as incompetent enough to warrant firing).
I suspect you'd have to look at his family (brother does the Clinton Foundation taxes), his history with the Clintons himself (part of Whitewater investigation that led nowhere, part of the Marc Rich investigation that led nowhere - even though Comey is the one that prosecuted Rich).

I suspect a good possibility that he feared for his life. No :sarcasm:
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I suspect a good possibility that he feared for his life. No :sarcasm:
I always thought the Clintons were the type that would sell out their own mom.
But I never believed the stuff suggesting they had a hand in anyone being offed.
And I especially figured once Bill and Hillary were out of the White House, their ability to do anything really dangerous was gone.

For all the "suspicious" nature that the Dems are figuring about Trump - none of them have the slightest thought regarding what was CLEARLY - at minimum - a conflict of interest.
When they mentioned the whole grandkid thing, I thought - geez, you couldn't come up with a better lie than THAT?
What DID they talk about that Comey played that tune what, a week later?
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Looks to me that TJ is *ignoring* that entirely.

I don't defend Trump on this, but I'm not in Washington. I don't know why you might defend someone you strongly think you will eventually have to fire.
I know that Comey called Trump "crazy" when he brought up the wiretap issue. He's been much less than respectful to his boss, and most places I've worked, just THAT can and should get you fired in short order.

I just remember how completely befuddled I was last July, when we all sat and waited for him to deliver on the email investigation - RIGHT after the tarmac incident - and said basically, yeah she's guilty as sin but since no lawyer will touch it, I'm letting her off. A decision which was not for the FBI to make. Can you imagine a CSI lab saying, yeah, fingerprints and DNA on the gun but - nah, we're not turning it over since they won't be found guilty.

And the Dems were positively GLEEFUL. They praised the guy. I can find multiple quotes. They LOVED the guy.
Until the end of October. Then he was partisan, evil and a pawn of the GOP. They wanted him thrown out.
Until he was thrown out. THEN they defended him. Or gave a similarly bizarre argument that they'd have no problem with *HILLARY* firing him, but not Trump.
Except that even people who KNOW the man declare clearly that he's no partisan hack.
The idea is that a law enforcement professional is supposed to be as non-partisan as a rocket scientist.
You investigate and give your answer.

Was he TOLD to say that last July? If he's the Boy Scout everyone says he is - why did he do that?
Later, in October - why was it necessary to proclaim everything to the world?

(I have to admit, his recent reveal that Abedin had - what, thousands - of emails forwarded to Weiner's laptop -
and it turned out to be TWO - and not classified - strikes me as incompetent enough to warrant firing).
seems like you answered your own question. When Comey said noone would prosecute here for those crimes he had obviously been told not to turn it over to the AG because they were not going to move on it. He pretty much says so in his statement.

It makes no sense for trump to fire him now if the reason is Comey's October surprise. If thats what this was about, or even if he just thought Comey was an attention whore, he could of doen it sooner. Hell, Trump might have even replaced him with a guy who would have gone after clinton.... she might even be facing charges right now, IF thats what trump really wanted. but its not.......
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
seems like you answered your own question. When Comey said noone would prosecute here for those crimes he had obviously been told not to turn it over to the AG because they were not going to move on it. He pretty much says so in his statement.

It makes no sense for trump to fire him now if the reason is Comey's October surprise. If thats what this was about, or even if he just thought Comey was an attention whore, he could of doen it sooner. Hell, Trump might have even replaced him with a guy who would have gone after clinton.... she might even be facing charges right now, IF thats what trump really wanted. but its not.......
IMO Trumps biggest mistake is in not prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
seems like you answered your own question. When Comey said noone would prosecute here for those crimes he had obviously been told not to turn it over to the AG because they were not going to move on it. He pretty much says so in his statement.
See, I *want* to believe he's an upright kind of guy. Virtually everyone who's worked with him who has gone on air says something like that.
They seem to be surprised at the suggestion that he'd toss justice out the window because some political maneuvering.

Now it's been revealed that Loretta Lynch wasn't going to let anything touch Hillary. Period. So I have little doubt that even if she DID just talk about grandkids, she was still going to tell Comey not to do anything. I just want to believe he'd come clean. I have no faith in political types, but generally great faith in law enforcement. It takes a special kind of person to put your neck on the line - literally.

I haven't seen the October thing as having anything to do with Trump's decision. Actually, the biggest news has been that he has changed his story a few times, but that one reason WAS the July 5 announcement.

What I suspect is, it's been building up for some time, and something finally pissed him off enough. Maybe it was the reaction to the wiretapping charge. Maybe it's general sneering disrespect. Maybe the Deputy AG pushed for it. Maybe it's just simple distrust in his ability to be influenced.

And maybe it really IS partisanship, something that really can't be tolerated in law enforcement, even if it seems to ALWAYS be there with the AG.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
See, I *want* to believe he's an upright kind of guy. Virtually everyone who's worked with him who has gone on air says something like that.
They seem to be surprised at the suggestion that he'd toss justice out the window because some political maneuvering.

Now it's been revealed that Loretta Lynch wasn't going to let anything touch Hillary. Period. So I have little doubt that even if she DID just talk about grandkids, she was still going to tell Comey not to do anything. I just want to believe he'd come clean. I have no faith in political types, but generally great faith in law enforcement. It takes a special kind of person to put your neck on the line - literally.

I haven't seen the October thing as having anything to do with Trump's decision. Actually, the biggest news has been that he has changed his story a few times, but that one reason WAS the July 5 announcement.

What I suspect is, it's been building up for some time, and something finally pissed him off enough. Maybe it was the reaction to the wiretapping charge. Maybe it's general sneering disrespect. Maybe the Deputy AG pushed for it. Maybe it's just simple distrust in his ability to be influenced.

And maybe it really IS partisanship, something that really can't be tolerated in law enforcement, even if it seems to ALWAYS be there with the AG.
I think if you look at comeys anouncement in july you will see that he did come clean. He went through all the ways he thought hillary broke the law, and then explained that it didn't matter because no one was going to prosecute it. There are only a couple of 'no ones' that could have prosecuted her, so reading between those lines wasn't to hard. Again, he probably had his hands tied with classified information rules.
 
Top