FBI reopens investigation into Clinton email use

[glenn1]

The bolded is the key point in all of this. Assuming Comey did this to cover his own ass rather than to intentionally harm the Clinton campaign, the question is, why is ass covering a legitimate objective? He is a public servant. It's his job to take criticism. And he has an obligation to do his job in such a way as to not meddle in politics. What's he's done is put his own interests ahead of the nation's.

So is it also his job to not promptly keep Congress informed under the presumption that they'll leak whatever information he provides? Remember it's not Comey who put this out in the wild, it was some (presumably Republican) member of Congress who did.

 

[bshole]

The bolded is the key point in all of this. Assuming Comey did this to cover his own ass rather than to intentionally harm the Clinton campaign, the question is, why is ass covering a legitimate objective? He is a public servant. It's his job to take criticism. And he has an obligation to do his job in such a way as to not meddle in politics. What's he's done is put his own interests ahead of the nation's.

Cover his ass? I think this little lark has put a nail in his coffin for his career at the FBI. If he lasts long enough for Clinton to take office, he will be gone in the first month.

 

[Pens1566]

So is it also his job to not promptly keep Congress informed under the presumption that they'll leak whatever information he provides? Remember it's not Comey who put this out in the wild, it was some (presumably Republican) member of Congress who did.

No, it's not his job to inform congress in order to head off potential leaks of information. It's an ongoing investigation, "No comment". Except, he fucked that up with his statements in July.

 

[1prophet]

You may have missed that movie last time it played under Bush, but rich self righteous people aren't going to be the ones F-ed if Trump wins. They may not like the outcome of the election, but they'll get a tax cut and buy up property on the cheap when the people who vote for people like W and Trump get F-ed.

Bush was establishment regardless of his other faults,

A common misconception here is that all rich people are alike and therefore Trump will look out for their best interests which is false,

most rich people want the stability a Clinton will bring even though they might have to give a little more compared to a Jeb Bush, not the uncertainty a Trump could bring.

A lot of rich people have their money tied up in investments, they are scared shitless of what a Trump administration could do to those investments, that is why many are hoping if not outright endorsing a Hillary Clinton presidency regardless of party affiliation,

whatever you may think of Hillary she is a safe bet for the establishment status quo,


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/business/rich-vote-republican-not-this-election-maybe.html?_r=0

The Rich Vote Republican? Maybe Not This Election

For the first time in decades, the wealthy are set to deliver a landslide victory for a Democratic presidential candidate.

While polling data on the rich is imprecise given their small population, polls of the top-earning households favor Hillary Clinton over Donald J. Trump two to one. The July Affluent Barometer survey by Ipsos found that among voters earning more than $100,000 a year — roughly the top 25 percent of households — 45 percent said they planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton, while 28 percent planned to vote for Mr. Trump. The rest were undecided or planned to vote for another candidate.

The spread was even wider among the highest earners. For those earning $250,000 or more — roughly the top 5 percent of households — 53 percent planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton while 25 percent favored Mr. Trump. The survey’s margin of error was plus or minus four points.

It is unclear whether those patterns have changed since July. But if the numbers hold, historians and wealth experts say that next month’s elections may prove to be the largest vote by the wealthy for a Democratic candidate in recent history.

 

[Maverick177]

nm

 

[Starbuck1975]

Independent or not, there has been years and years of protocol regarding not talking about investigations esp. during the last 60 days of a presidential campaign. We see the reason why. It is unfair to the target as the target can't defend themselves. This is one of those moments that Comey should have realized he is not bigger than the time tested protocol. "The FBI does not comment on ongoing investigations". Nothing that happened before Comey's choice changes the bad decision he made. He can be a decent man who put his own self over established rules and against the advice of his bosses and in turn made a bad decision. That's why we have the system of Justice we have, It should be greater than one man's whim or unilateral decision.

Fair enough.

Protocol exists to ensure consistency under predictable conditions. Protocol rarely functions under extenuating circumstances, and this year is very much an outlier.

Political parties tend not to elevate and support candidates under federal investigation. Political parties tend not to nominate sexual predators and fraudulent thieves.

When faced with a moral dilemma, our society needs leaders who have the bravery to dismiss protocol for integrity.

If you field an athlete under investigation for doping, don't blame the Olympic committee for going against protocol and barring the athlete from competing if new evidence arises on the day of the competition.

 

[piasabird]

From what I have heard in different articles is the many people at the FBI are in disagreement with the director of the FBI and they are probably finding ways to leak the infromation from the FBI. Some people at the FBI want justice and some people at the FBI want a cover up.

The other problem is this is in a folder on the computer that is also full of child pornography. So someone has to sort through all of it. Total Yuck.

 

[IGBT]

Comey is being widely and roundly criticized.

“I really worry that the FBI director has made an error in judgment in terms of releasing a letter that really says nothing,” said Gonzales, who served as attorney general under President George W. Bush.
...
“In my judgment, it’s a very wise policy because at the end of the day, if you delay the announcement, hopefully it’s not going to jeopardize an investigation” or the pursuit of justice, Gonzales said.

“It appears that this was an error…,” he added. “It was a mistake. As a general matter, you would not comment on an investigation.”

More evidence the Liberals are in a cold sweat over their "Weiner" problem.

 

[nageov3t]

More evidence the Liberals are in a cold sweat over their "Weiner" problem.

Alberto Gonzales = "Liberals"?

 

[IGBT]

^Don't try changing the subject. Clinton was caught red handed. Again.

She is and always will be the subject of a "criminal" investigation.

 

[KillerBee]

More evidence the Liberals are in a cold sweat over their "Weiner" problem.

I think it's suddenly grown into a serious rash problem.

New email shows DNC boss giving Clinton camp debate question in advance

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-clinton-camp-debate-question-in-advance.html

 

[Pens1566]

Alberto Gonzales = "Liberals"?

Forget it, he's rolling.

 

[woolfe9998]

So is it also his job to not promptly keep Congress informed under the presumption that they'll leak whatever information he provides? Remember it's not Comey who put this out in the wild, it was some (presumably Republican) member of Congress who did.

By releasing it to Congress, he was in effect releasing it to the general public. Your reasoning is just an abdication of his responsibility for the inevitable consequences of his decision. There was zero chance this would not become a huge issue in the final week of this election cycle and he knew it. He did it either to intentionally interfere with the election or, more likely, to avoid being criticized for "sitting on the information" until after the election. As I said, his ass covering is not a part of his job as a public servant. Comey is charged with the responsibility of protecting the public interest, not his own.

 

[woolfe9998]

Cover his ass? I think this little lark has put a nail in his coffin for his career at the FBI. If he lasts long enough for Clinton to take office, he will be gone in the first month.

Perhaps, though canning him after taking office would look totally corrupt. Also, he might have been assuming that Clinton would lose as a result of his disclosure, and in which he'd be well protected in a Trump administration. After all, Trump would owe him the election.

 

[IGBT]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-crime-family-claims-foundation-cesspool.html

Ex-FBI assistant director calls the Clintons a 'crime family' and claims their 'foundation is a cesspool'
The Clintons, that's a crime family. It's like organized crime, basically. The Clinton Foundation is a cesspool,' Kallstrom said.

'It's just outrageous how Hillary Clinton sold her office for money.

And she's a pathological liar, and she's always been a liar. And God forbid if we put someone like that in the White House.'

Kallstrom, who is best known for leading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late 1990s, also went after the FBI in the interview and said the initial investigation into the email server was 'never a real investigation.'

 

[bshole]

By releasing it to Congress, he was in effect releasing it to the general public. Your reasoning is just an abdication of his responsibility for the inevitable consequences of his decision. There was zero chance this would not become a huge issue in the final week of this election cycle and he knew it. He did it either to intentionally interfere with the election or, more likely, to avoid being criticized for "sitting on the information" until after the election. As I said, his ass covering is not a part of job as a public servant. Comey is charged with the responsibility of protecting the public interest, not his own.

I am unsure of the relevance anyways. So Weiner has emails from Clinton on his computer. I am sure thousands of people do. Why is this important? More importantly on whose authority do they get to peruse those emails?

 

[realibrad]

What you describe is spite, not risk assessment.

"Do anything to win" has been SOP for Repubs for a very long time. Voter suppression is one part of it, as is their gerrymandering in the wake of the census. Gumming up the works to deny Obama any victories is yet another. Denying Merrick Garland fair hearing & a vote is just the latest in a long history of shameless ultra partisan spite.

"Gumming up the works" is something done by both sides. Voter ID laws are owned by the Right for sure. Gerrymandering is another that is a dual issue.

I would caution that the Left is not far behind the right. I can see a future where the Left sinks to the same level. The base of the Right hit bottom, but I see far too many on the left wanting to play in the same mud. You look at Trump rallies and how those on the left act around them, and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. The Right created a monster, and the left is working on theirs.

 

[woolfe9998]

I am unsure of the relevance anyways. So Weiner has emails from Clinton on his computer. I am sure thousands of people do. Why is this important? More importantly on whose authority do they get to peruse those emails?

More accurately, Weiner has e-mails of his estranged wife, Clinton aid Huma Abedin, on his computer. Those e-mails probably contain some which are to or from Clinton. In theory, these could contain classified information. In practice, if they are work related, then the e-mails have probably already been reviewed by the FBI. The bottom line is, no one knows if there is anything pertinent in those e-mails. The FBI didn't even have a warrant to review them at the time Comey's letter was issued.

 

[FelixDeCat]

• Illegal handling and distribution of classified material.
• Destruction of evidence.
• Violation of FOIA.
  
• Perjury.
• Conspiracy for these crimes.

The whole "intent" cover does not hold up for anyone else who commits these crimes. Moreover, no one instructs staff to setup and use a private server without the planning and premeditated intent to do so. Intent is inherit in setting up the private server. Conspiracy from having others involved. A slam dunk against anyone but the rich and powerful.

Exactly, but that's just the beginning.

 

[theeedude]

Bush was establishment regardless of his other faults,

A common misconception here is that all rich people are alike and therefore Trump will look out for their best interests which is false,

most rich people want the stability a Clinton will bring even though they might have to give a little more compared to a Jeb Bush, not the uncertainty a Trump could bring.

A lot of rich people have their money tied up in investments, they are scared shitless of what a Trump administration could do to those investments, that is why many are hoping if not outright endorsing a Hillary Clinton presidency regardless of party affiliation,

whatever you may think of Hillary she is a safe bet for the establishment status quo,


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/business/rich-vote-republican-not-this-election-maybe.html?_r=0

The Rich Vote Republican? Maybe Not This Election

The new political realignment is not about rich vs poor, it's about smart vs stupid. Smart sees a future for themselves, stupid doesn't, so all they have left is to throw grenades and hope something changes.

Also remember, if the economy crashes, it's Trump supporters who are going to get laid off first, and get their houses foreclosed, while at the same time, the elites they hate so much will get access to more cheap money from the Fed eager to offset the damage of Trump uncertainty, on top of the tax cuts Trump will give them. So the elites will buy these assets on the cheap, and will rent them back to previous owners dear. If the useful idiots ever manage to save up to buy another house and rebuild their credit, they will have to pay a high price to compete with easily available cheap money, meaning living paycheck to paycheck and barely making it, angry at the "establishment" for their predicament, ready for the next Trump, wash, rinse, and repeat. Like taking candy from a baby, except the baby doesn't do it to itself.

 

[Jaskalas]

Trump: Thank You Anthony Weiner! Good Job Huma!

You know, in New York we knew Weiner. And I made statements that were rough. Like -- how can she be allowed to live with this guy? How can she have access to this important information? And I was badly criticized, right? Now they are saying -- wow, Trump has good judgment. Wow. Got good instincts. Got good instincts.​

The best words.

 

[nageov3t]

more liberal shills at work...

Freedom Caucus Chair: Comey Letter “Probably Not Right Thing To Do” Close To Election

 

[Double Trouble]

I don't know how anyone can possibly stomach voting for either of these candidates. I was leaning towards Clinton even though I don't like her one bit, but all this stuff is just too much. No way am I voting for either of these pieces of shit. I'm going to vote for the other positions, but not for either of the presidential candidates.

 

[glenn1]

I don't know how anyone can possibly stomach voting for either of these candidates. I was leaning towards Clinton even though I don't like her one bit, but all this stuff is just too much. No way am I voting for either of these pieces of shit. I'm going to vote for the other positions, but not for either of the presidential candidates.

If there is a 3rd party candidate whose positions match yours reasonably closely you should vote for them. Even though they won't win, the winning candidate will notice if they gain a significant fraction of the vote and may change their own positions accordingly. That's the primary reason I'm voting Johnson, I'm hoping he gains enough vote share to shame the winner into turning away from the dark side on civil liberties. If Johnson gained say 10% of the vote and got Clinton (presuming she won) to change sides on NSA evesdropping it would be the best success for a 3rd party candidate you could hope for, PLUS your vote wouldn't be demonstrating approval for either Clinton or Trump and validating their other terrible positions and appalling character faults. Would be the same thing if you felt strongly about some position that Jill Stein agreed with. Either Stein or Johnson is a better vote than Trump/Clinton.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't know how anyone can possibly stomach voting for either of these candidates. I was leaning towards Clinton even though I don't like her one bit, but all this stuff is just too much. No way am I voting for either of these pieces of shit. I'm going to vote for the other positions, but not for either of the presidential candidates.

Republican propaganda masters thank you!