Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Nov 2016, 10:47 am

Well, we have to evaluate Comey on what he knows now. He made the decision without knowing what is in the emails. And it is not likely that the FBI will determine anything before the election. I guess if they find something significantly incriminating BEFORE the election his actions would be more defensible. Or if he completes the investigations and says there is nothing new then his actions are more defensible. But you can't defend his decision based on the idea that he might find something after the election. That means voters now are left to speculate without any information. And that's unfair and not respectful of the democratic process.

If I were Comey I would have agents reading this stuff 24/7 to get this review done before the election. Again if he comes up with something big or closes the investigation before the election he will be able to justify his actions, I think. Otherwise, no
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 02 Nov 2016, 11:34 am

again you are ASSUMING he knows nothing. Someone found links to Hillary on that computer, just because an email from Hillary was on there is no reason to pen an investigation, something substantial had to be there not just any email. Someone knows more than you seem to want to accept otherwise any and every person Clinton sent an email to during her time in the State Dept would be under investigation wouldn't it?

Saying he made the decision without knowing anything is (must be ...I too am guessing but my assumption is one of reason) unfair and almost certainly very inaccurate.

Let's say I somehow managed to get Hillary to share with me her Mac and Cheese recipe, would I now be able to go to the FBI, show them this email and expect the case to be opened again simply because I had a recipe from her? Of course not. But let';s say she accidentally sent me an email that contained secret info, THEN the FBI would look into it of course. Assuming they have nothing and did this with "no idea" is a reach and very unlikely to say the least. No doubt they have something of substance, but I agree these "somethings" (there were at least several we are told) could be on the minor side, but they are well above the shared recipe example as well and are substantial enough to at least believe more is there and worthy of investigation.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 02 Nov 2016, 1:24 pm

This is from an article about Comey written in 2013.
Some former Bush administration officials look at the same actions and see a streak of self-righteousness and a flair for melodrama that has at times clouded his judgment. Critics contend that Comey had no business interfering with the presidential “national security command authority,” as one former Bush administration official saw it.
“If past is prologue,” says one former Justice Department official who worked with Comey and knows him well, “something will happen in the context of a legal, policy, or operational disagreement where Jim may get on the high horse and threaten to resign or take some other action unless things go the way he believes they should.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/

So his nature stood him in good stead when he stood up to troture in the Bush administration.
But now?
He's being criticized for acting on innuendo. If nothing is found in Humas emails he'll forever wear that label.
I personnally think that if Hillary wins, Obama will sack him to spare Hillary having to work with him or personnally sack him.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Nov 2016, 2:12 pm

freeman3 wrote:Comey is responsible for what he did now. It's either right or wrong. Your trying to blame Clinton does not change the fact he made an egregious mistake.


He is responsible for it.

While under oath, he was asked if he would update Congress if the investigation was reopened. Comey told Congress he would report back to them if that happened.

You would have him commit perjury.

That's something only Democrats get away with.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Nov 2016, 2:16 pm

rickyp wrote:This is from an article about Comey written in 2013.
Some former Bush administration officials look at the same actions and see a streak of self-righteousness and a flair for melodrama that has at times clouded his judgment. Critics contend that Comey had no business interfering with the presidential “national security command authority,” as one former Bush administration official saw it.
“If past is prologue,” says one former Justice Department official who worked with Comey and knows him well, “something will happen in the context of a legal, policy, or operational disagreement where Jim may get on the high horse and threaten to resign or take some other action unless things go the way he believes they should.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/

So his nature stood him in good stead when he stood up to troture in the Bush administration.
But now?
He's being criticized for acting on innuendo. If nothing is found in Humas emails he'll forever wear that label.
I personnally think that if Hillary wins, Obama will sack him to spare Hillary having to work with him or personnally sack him.


This is so funny. Let's posit an alternate world, one in which Hillary uses a statedepartment.gov email address.

Oops. All her problems vanish.

Now, what if she hadn't lied? Repeatedly?

What if Huma had not left her emails susceptible to her perv husband?

There are so many ways Clinton could have avoided this.

O, but it's Comey who has thrown the election into chaos?

Nah.

Grow up liberals.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 12:45 pm

GMTom wrote:again you are ASSUMING he knows nothing. Someone found links to Hillary on that computer, just because an email from Hillary was on there is no reason to pen an investigation, something substantial had to be there not just any email. Someone knows more than you seem to want to accept otherwise any and every person Clinton sent an email to during her time in the State Dept would be under investigation wouldn't it?
It was stated that the FBI had not at the time obtained a warrant to look at the emails. So if they had, then it would be a warrantless search, and so potentially inadmissible in a court.

So, either he does "know" but illegally, or he does not and you are indeed supposing.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Nov 2016, 3:21 pm

Interesting story on the turmoil in the FBI.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... spartanntp
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 4:29 pm

freeman3 wrote:Interesting story on the turmoil in the FBI.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... spartanntp


Good insights!

I wonder if Comey planted the email server.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Nov 2016, 12:38 pm

fate
Good insights


Including this one?

The Daily Beast reported on Thursday on ties between Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and the FBI’s New York field office, which reportedly pressed the FBI to revisit the Clinton server investigation after beginning an inquiry into Weiner’s alleged sexual texting with a minor. The website reported that a former New York field office chief, highly critical of the non-indictment, runs a military charity that has received significant financial donations from Trump


This represents a level of quid quo pro not proven in any of the supposed revelations regarding State and the Clinton Foundation. Don't you think?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Nov 2016, 2:17 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Good insights


Including this one?

The Daily Beast reported on Thursday on ties between Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and the FBI’s New York field office, which reportedly pressed the FBI to revisit the Clinton server investigation after beginning an inquiry into Weiner’s alleged sexual texting with a minor. The website reported that a former New York field office chief, highly critical of the non-indictment, runs a military charity that has received significant financial donations from Trump


This represents a level of quid quo pro not proven in any of the supposed revelations regarding State and the Clinton Foundation. Don't you think?


Don't care. If he's done it, he should get the same treatment she does.

How many times do I have to say it? They are both loathsome.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Nov 2016, 9:34 am

Fate
Don't care. If he's done it, he should get the same treatment she does


Well I'd agree. Which is why I'd wait until authorities brought charges against the field chief after a proper investigation. And I'd probably reserve a concrete opinion even until he was convicted.
You have the same standard for Hillary?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Nov 2016, 10:26 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Don't care. If he's done it, he should get the same treatment she does


Well I'd agree. Which is why I'd wait until authorities brought charges against the field chief after a proper investigation. And I'd probably reserve a concrete opinion even until he was convicted.
You have the same standard for Hillary?


Sure, except for the lying. We KNOW she has lied more than you've posted idiotic stuff--and that's remarkable.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Nov 2016, 2:02 pm

fate
Sure, except for the lying. We KNOW she has lied more than you've posted idiotic stuff--and that's remarkable


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... g-news-bar

So Comey releases another letter, reiterating that there's nothing criminal going on...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Nov 2016, 2:13 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Sure, except for the lying. We KNOW she has lied more than you've posted idiotic stuff--and that's remarkable


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... g-news-bar

So Comey releases another letter, reiterating that there's nothing criminal going on...


Entirely unrelated to my post.

And, the fact that the FBI doesn't want to press charges doesn't mean "nothing criminal" is going on.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 07 Nov 2016, 6:38 am

The FBI saying they are not pressing any charges is a shock?
My guess is they found more of the same as they have seen, more and more examples of carelessness, they decided to look the other way before, how can more of the same now make you change your position? She was guilty of gross negligence, absolutely zero question about that. I expected exactly as they came out with, same old same old...