Rosenstein Blasts Comey Again For Being Unfair to Clinton

[paralleluniverse]

Comey's handling of Clinton emails wasn't why he was fired. The decision was made before the memo as Trump and Rosenstein has confirmed, and it was based on the Trump-Russia investigation as Trump has admitted to NBC.

However, for the second time in public, Rosenstein has totally eviscerated Comey for his partisan hackery, for violating DoJ protocol in his "unfair" and "derogatory" Clinton email press conference, and his letter to Congress which rigged the election for Trump.

For the second time in public, he vindicates all Clinton's criticisms of Comey, and obliterates the phony defense of Comey's press conference and letter that have been offered by Trump, Sessions, Comey, the GOP, and The Deplorables.

Rosenstein's opening statement to Congress on 19 May:

Good afternoon. I welcome the opportunity to discuss my role in the removal of FBI Director James Comey, although I know you understand that I will not discuss the special counsel’s ongoing investigation. Most importantly, I want to emphasize my unshakeable commitment to protecting the integrity of every federal criminal investigation. There never has been, and never will be, any political interference in any matter under my supervision in the United States Department of Justice.

Before I discuss the events of the past two weeks, I want to provide some background about my previous relationship with former Director Comey. I have known Jim Comey since approximately 2002. In 2005, when Mr. Comey was Deputy Attorney General, he participated in selecting me to serve as a U.S. Attorney. As a federal prosecutor, he was a role model. His speeches about leadership and public service inspired me.

On July 5, 2016, Director Comey held his press conference concerning the federal grand jury investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails. At the start of the press conference, the Director stated that he had “not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice…. They do not know what I am about to say.”

Director Comey went on to declare that he would publicly disclose “what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.” He proceeded to disclose details about the evidence; assert that the American people “deserve” to know details; declare that no “reasonable” prosecutor would file charges; and criticize Secretary Clinton.

I thought the July 5 press conference was profoundly wrong and unfair both to the Department of Justice and Secretary Clinton. It explicitly usurped the role of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the entire Department of Justice; it violated deeply engrained rules and traditions; and it guaranteed that some people would accuse the FBI of interfering in the election.

There are lawful and appropriate mechanisms to deal with unusual circumstances in which public confidence in the rule of law may be jeopardized. Such mechanisms preserve the traditional balance of power between investigators and prosecutors, and protect the rights of citizens.

Director Comey attended the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office training seminar on October 27, 2016, and gave a detailed explanation of his reasons for making public statements about the conclusion of the Secretary Clinton email investigation. I strongly disagreed with his analysis, but I believe that he made his decisions in good faith.

The next day, October 28, Mr. Comey sent his letter to the Congress announcing that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation. He subsequently has said that he believed he was obligated to send the letter. I completely disagree. He again usurped the authority of the Department of Justice, by sending the letter over the objection of the Department of Justice; flouted rules and deeply engrained traditions; and guaranteed that some people would accuse the FBI of interfering in the election.

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3, 2017, Director Comey testified under oath about his public statements concerning the Secretary Clinton email investigation. I strongly disagreed with his explanations, particularly his assertion that maintaining confidentiality about criminal investigations constitutes concealment. Nonetheless, I respected him personally.

Former Department of Justice officials from both political parties have criticized Director Comey’s decisions. It was not just an isolated mistake; the series of public statements about the email investigation, in my opinion, departed from the proper role of the FBI Director and damaged public confidence in the Bureau and the Department.

In one of my first meetings with then-Senator Jeff Sessions last winter, we discussed the need for new leadership at the FBI. Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks.

On May 8, I learned that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey and sought my advice and input. Notwithstanding my personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader.

I wrote a brief memorandum to the Attorney General summarizing my longstanding concerns about Director Comey’s public statements concerning the Secretary Clinton email investigation.

I chose the issues to include in my memorandum.

Before finalizing the memorandum on May 9, I asked a senior career attorney on my staff to review it. That attorney is an ethics expert who has worked in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General during multiple administrations. He was familiar with the issues. I informed the senior attorney that the President was going to remove Director Comey, that I was writing a memorandum to the Attorney General summarizing my own concerns, and that I wanted to confirm that everything in my memorandum was accurate. He concurred with the points raised in my memorandum. I also asked several other career Department attorneys to review the memorandum and provide edits.

My memorandum is not a legal brief; these are not issues of law.

My memorandum is not a finding of official misconduct; the Inspector General will render his judgment about that issue in due course.

My memorandum is not a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination.

My memorandum is not a survey of FBI morale or performance.

My memorandum is not a press release.

It is a candid internal memorandum about the FBI Director’s public statements concerning a high-profile criminal investigation.

I sent my signed memorandum to the Attorney General after noon on Tuesday, May 9.

I wrote it. I believe it. I stand by it.

Finally, I want to address the media claims that the FBI asked for additional resources for the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. I am not aware of any such request. Moreover, I consulted my staff and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and none of them recalls such a request.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...omey-congress/

For reference, here's the original and legendary Rosenstein memo:

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical questions at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his "goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it." But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then if prosecution is warranted — let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would "speak" about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or "conceal" it. "Conceal" is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that "it is not the bureau's responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted." Silberman believes that the Director's "performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover." Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had "chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department's traditions." They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed that the Director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI director "doesn't make that decision." Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision "an error in judgment." Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said that the Director's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season." Holder concluded that the Director "broke with these fundamental principles" and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI."

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as "real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation," that is "antithetical to the interests of justice."

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush, along with other former Justice Department officials, was "astonished and perplexed" by the decision to "break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections." Ayer's letter noted, "Perhaps most troubling ... is the precedent set by this departure from the Department's widely-respected, non-partisan traditions."

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

[Hooked]

Doesn't matter, Mueller was comeys mentor and comey was muellers protégé. They are like 2 balls in 1 cup.

[the game]

we have a political subforum for this shit.

[Breccia]

Does he have a choice? Trump threw him under the bus by calling his memo as the reason Comey was fired, no it wasn't, yes it was. Since he cannot deny he wrote it, nor can he successfully deny he wrote it to get Comey fired (honestly, he can't possibly be that stupid), his only remaining option is to back it full force.

[Mormolyce]

Hahaha, the cat is well and truly out of the bag and currently riding around on the horse that bolted.

But I guess this is his lame attempt at covering his ass by trying to act as if this wasn't all a farce and he actually believed in it. I predict buyers for this shit: zero.

[paralleluniverse]

Does he have a choice? Trump threw him under the bus by calling his memo as the reason Comey was fired, no it wasn't, yes it was. Since he cannot deny he wrote it, nor can he successfully deny he wrote it to get Comey fired (honestly, he can't possibly be that stupid), his only remaining option is to back it full force.

What makes you think Rosenstein doesn't believe what he wrote? In fact, he has debunked that in his testimony. Trump decided to fire Comey because of the Trump-Russia investigation, then he got Rosenstein to come up with a reason, Rosenstein chose the only legitimate reason even though it was not Trump's reason: Comey was unfair to Clinton.

[Breccia]

What makes you think Rosenstein doesn't believe what he wrote?

It doesn't matter if he does, or doesn't. He's backed into a corner.

Incidentally, regardless of what respect Rosenstein has or hasn't got, if he didn't think that memo he was asked to write would be used as an excuse to fire Comey, he's an idiot.

And finally -- everyone sing along, you all know the words -- whether or not Comey was unfair to Clinton is irrelevant when talking about over one hundred days after the inauguration while Trump and his team are under investigation.

[Deja Thoris]

What Comey did was shady or in bad judgement, which is odd considering how thoughtful and methodical hes meant to be. I can see him being fired for it but Trump firing him for it after praising him for it? I don't believe that for a second.

[Celista]

I think Comey's behavior was a little suspect given the timing, and his reasons for doing so at that particular point in time (days before the election) seem flimsy. Also his dad was interviewed by CNN and was talking all sorts of shit about Trump.

Maybe the guy is craving the spotlight, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Even if the FBI's reasons for investigation are valid, these have been highly public affairs.

[Deleted]

Im confused. Are we still mad at Trump for firing Comey, or are we happy since Comey was mean to Hillary?

[Lenonis]

Im confused. Are we still mad at Trump for firing Comey, or are we happy since Comey was mean to Hillary?

I know it's hard to grasp, but people can believe Comey should have been fired, but find the timing and behavior around it very questionable.

People really want to make everything a black and white scenario and in politics it rarely is that way.

There are a lot of folks, even some on the right, that Comey's handling of the Clinton situation violated the spirit if not the letter of the Hatch Act. They didn't find his reasoning when questioned particularly compelling.

However these people also acknowledge that the correct time would have been to take action right away....and not wait until over 3 months after being inaugurated...right after he gave damaging testimony....right after requesting more resources to investigate you...and not right after a slew of pressure coming about revelations about Russia.

And...guess what? These people are right to be suspicious since Trump verified his bad faith in the firing out of his own mouth.