Do you think FBI Chief Jim Comey is a straight shooter?

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 08:02:21 -0400

Comey didn't indict Sec Clinton but he did have the courage to say the words I needed to hear

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jul 8 at 2016 8:07 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 08:07:16 -0400

I respect and admire Jim Comey. He has the strength to call it like he saw it and knew he would be lambasted by both parties. But at least he showed me some strength and courage while his critics don't have any they all just worry about getting re elected.

Response by SPC James Harsh made Jul 8 at 2016 8:10 AM

SPC James Harsh — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 08:10:45 -0400

The E-mail investigation may be over. There is still hope, the rumored alternate investigation linking any public corruption which would have an even more severe implication. This has never surfaced of actually existing though.

"It’s our top priority among criminal investigations—and for good reason."
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/corruption

Public Corruption

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 8 at 2016 8:13 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 08:13:35 -0400

I disagree with Director Comey on A LOT of policy issues (specifically his stance on cyber) but I have never questioned his integrity or his functional expertise.

If he (as a person) says there wasn't enough evidence to support a CONVICTION, I'm willing to accept that.

I'm in no way condoning the actions, or don't believe they didn't occur, merely think HE doesn't think they can be PROVEN in a court of law. He was acting AG during President Bush, and is Director of the FBI currently. He was a registered Republican up until recently (contributed to both Romney and McCain campaigns). He was confirmed by the Senate 93-1 for his current role. When Senators were questioned regarding Dir Comey's integrity, not one was willing to publicly state he was the issue. They avoided calling him out, and went with vagueries instead.

Director Comey is the SME on this. He is absolutely a straight shooter. I have no doubt on it.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jul 8 at 2016 8:16 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 08:16:01 -0400

The issues we have here is the gap between the letter of the law (or interpretation of the letter) and the concept of justice. I am sure Comey is a stand up guy and has conducted thousands of investigations in his career and done them incredibly well. This was unlike any other he has likely ever done.

The problem we have is that many will view the lack of a formal charge against Clinton as an exoneration of her. That isn't what happened but that is how it will be viewed.

The feeling that any of us having done anything remotely similar would have had the book thrown at us is very real. Most of us that served handled confidential, secret or top secret information or equipment etc. We would have been brought up on charges had we exposed this information to possible compromise in any way. The legal gymnastics to get us to where we are demonstrates the special consideration the ruling elite get when trouble comes knocking.

Comey, in this case, allowed far to much nuance and interpretation into the calculus and has now set a precedent that will be used by others to avoid charges for compromising national security or mishandling classified information.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jul 8 at 2016 9:51 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 09:51:00 -0400

Not anymore.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jul 8 at 2016 10:00 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 10:00:42 -0400

Jim Comey is a straight shooter, if you can see past the politics. Remember when he was acting AG, he wouldn't sign off on Bush's wiretapping overreaches. People are reacting either way based on the outcome but I've seen little from the pundits as to what drove the conclusion other than "politics". My take is there's a gap between the law, the implementation of the law, and the determination of where the line is crossed so there's a violation of the law. The politicals were pretty clueless yesterday about it. I'm a systems type with a bunch of litigation involvement over the years.
So what we have is a law that hasn't been enforced much, hence there isn't much case law. DoJ always wants pretty much a slam dunk, but you don't want your test cases to be on high profile stuff. The FBI result had much to do with "we didn't see any evidence of". That is codespeak for when most everyone takes The Fifth, there's no incriminating evidence from that. If the bad guys are so sophisticated that hacking leaves no traces, there's no incriminating evidence. If Hillary's lawyers essentially do a DISA wipe of hard drives, there's no incriminating evidence. So there's a lot of circumstantial and conspiracy theory stuff. When matched up against the truth continuum in which "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard, there wasn't enough hard evidence to put it into the slam dunk territory.
Jim Comey probably believes Hillary and her goons are crooks but he sees it would never go through the system. That is actually a good thing. It prevents law enforcement from getting creative. We've seen a lot of that in planting evidence, etc. to tilt the side of justice they don't run. I'm glad he isn't that kind of creative. We'll see if the thinking was supported based on the result of the "Exit Poll" where we would see a bump up on key player retirements. The liberal press surely won't run any stories on that if it comes to pass.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jul 8 at 2016 10:15 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 10:15:14 -0400

Yes. But we don't see it like he does.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jul 8 at 2016 10:18 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 10:18:17 -0400

I respect Jim Comey, first just for being the head of the FBI and second for conducting a thorough investigation into the email controversy. What I don't fully understand are his explanitations surrounding some of the facts. A lot of this could be because of the fact that he was a Republican, appointed by a Republican president who was delivering findings that he knew would not sit well with the GOP establishment. Unfortunately this is a hazard too often associated with working inside the beltway. Most of us in the military have handled classified material and safeguarding it is ingrained into our behavior. However, when I was in joint assignments dealing with other government agencies I found that their concept for dealing with classified information was vastly different from that of the military. State in particular seemed extremely reluctant to label anything classified; it was not at all uncommon to upgrade any inputs from them to classified following review by the military. This is where I feel Comey failed in his explanations. Rather than flatly stating differences as an explanation for making the FBI decision, he tip toed around the issue leaving the door wide open for the subsequent claims of cover up. Yes he alluded do differences, but never flat out explained them. I think most Americans probably have in mind the military concept of dealing with classified information, had they been told that this isn't necessarily so across the board within the government much of the theater that has followed his findings may have been avoided.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2016 10:21 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 10:21:36 -0400

Well, both the democrats and the republicans are upset. He might just have done something right.

I strongly disagree with his decision because I know where I would be if I had done what she did.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2016 10:47 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 10:47:16 -0400

I thought that LTC West's comments on the situation reflected an interesting and sound viewpoint on the matter.

Response by SPC James Harsh made Jul 8 at 2016 10:59 AM

SPC James Harsh — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 10:59:24 -0400

2 things that matter what did they do and when they did that thing what were they thinking (did they know they were doing something that was unlawful)-in terms of mishandling of classified information

-citing in our system of law
Mens Rea
As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.
-1917 a crime,felony
to engage in gross negligence 1917 a statute -prove carelessness(beyond a reasonable doubt) -IMO in terms of intent --a lot of concern that would violate the tradition of proving they knew they were doing something wrong ---he says DOJ has only used it once in a case involving espionage ----his experience says prosecutors having grave concerns of prosecuting someone of gross negligence
-he admits @looking at facts he sees evidence of great carelessness, however doesn't see sufficient evidence to establish that Hillary or her correspondence knew they were doing anything that was against the law
-he doesn't believe a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case

from Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan
-says prosecutors would have looked at the same evidence and taken it a grand jury
-brought up FBI self-quote 'consider the context' of persons action. usually defendant side while mitigating sentencing circumstances noting FBI said on frontend
-questions what does consider the context actually mean?
-brings up Mr Gowdy saying she is former first lady, former senator, former secretary of state, major parties nominee, and husband just met with ag" - none of that influenced the decision?
-Comey responds he considers their background yet not the political context.

-Gowdy -asks Comey to put on old hat
brings up False Exculpatory Statements

Exculpatory statements as evidence of innocence; false exculpatory statements as evidence of guilt
-FBI recognize -substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution
-Gowdy agrees with exactly intention or consciousness of guilt
(at this time Comey nods in agreement and has to be asked a second time for the first time to verbally acknowledge and he says 'right')
-Gowdy says in your old job you would prove intent as you just referenced
by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record
and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve
you would argue all of that under the heading of content
you would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme
when it started when it ended and the number of emails whether they were originally classified or of classify
you would argue all of that under the heading of INTENT
-mind you Comey seemed to be in agreement of this

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 8 at 2016 12:02 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:02:05 -0400

I was truly perplexed by Comey's statement on July 5. He described in great detail various indictable crimes which Hillary had committed and then informed us that the Bureau was not recommending indictment because no prosecutor would take the case. Say what? My confusion was dispelled by two principle events. First, I watched Comey being questioned by Trey Gowdy during which time Gowdy clearly demonstrated that Comey, as having prosecutorial experience, should have known that criminal intent was not a requisite for indictment and, if it were a requirement, it could be easily demonstrated with circumstantial evidence. Second, I learned that Hillary had not been sworn in during her interview with the FBI on July 2. In other words, they had a casual conversation, about what? Thus, I am not longer perplexed. I am convinced that Comey is the one I've been waiting for, the one chosen to fall on his sword to protect Hillary. Straight shooter? Hardly...

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2016 12:02 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:02:17 -0400

As straight a shooter as the gunman poised to fake his suicide in the event he would have slipped up and recommended appropriate charges.

Response by Sgt David Hiersekorn made Jul 8 at 2016 12:50 PM

Sgt David Hiersekorn — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:50:02 -0400

I think Comey is not applying the law correctly. 22 USC § 793(f) does not require an intent to injure the United States. The injury is inferred from the classified nature of the documents. So, he's wrong.

That said, he has a long history of opposing prosecution on the basis of negligence. And, he was acting completely consistent with his past positions. So, yes. I would consider him a straight-shooter.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2016 12:53 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:53:48 -0400

Yes though I disagree with his conclusion.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jul 8 at 2016 2:17 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:17:07 -0400

Do I think FBI Chief Jim Comey is a straight shooter? No...not really. Jim Comey and the FBI do not have the authority to indict anyone. That's the job of the Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the US Justice Department. I've heard numerous lawyers say that what happened was akin to a Sheriff telling the District attorney not to prosecute a case despite having clear evidence that a crime was committed. The way our system is supposed to work is FBI conducts an investigation. They then provide the available evidence to the Attorney Generals office, who decides whether or not to present the evidence to a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury then determines if there is there is enough evidence for a prosecution to occur. What Director Comey did was give the justice department cover when they fail to do their job. That's not the behavior of a "straight shooter".

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2016 2:51 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:51:21 -0400

Thanks. Fell off the treadmill laughing at the question

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2016 2:51 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:51:21 -0400

Thanks. Fell off the treadmill laughing at the question

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Jul 8 at 2016 5:54 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 17:54:44 -0400

Trey Gowdy says he is, so that's good enough for me. But I agree with Gowdy that Comey's recommendation not to prosecute Hillary is wrong.

Response by SSgt M. Har made Jul 8 at 2016 6:52 PM

SSgt M. Har — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 18:52:49 -0400

He used to be have integrity

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2016 9:09 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 09:09:24 -0400

I met and did some work with Jim Comey before he was a political big shot with the FBI. He was a good and talented agent who worked very hard to make sure the right thing was done in every case, including those involving service men and women. I trusted him then, and I'm going to have to trust him now, even though I'm very perplexed by his determination not to charge HRC with any crimes. I'm disappointed there was nothing said about the connection to the Clinton Foundation, where I still believe there were mountains of criminal activities to have occurred. I'm also concerned about how two co-conspirators were allowed to be with her during the aftermath.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2016 6:02 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:02:13 -0400

The only way he's a straight shooter is from shooting us straight in the back.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made May 10 at 2017 6:52 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Wed, 10 May 2017 06:52:02 -0400

I thought he was a little wishy-washy.

Response by SCPO Morris Ramsey made May 10 at 2017 8:27 AM

SCPO Morris Ramsey — Wed, 10 May 2017 08:27:31 -0400

MCPO Roger Collins What a difference a day makes? Now is a good time to ask the question. No Supreme Court for Jim.