Comey acted inappropriately when he characterized Hillary Clinton's handling of classified material as being extremely careless. His only job was to discuss whether Hillary had committed a crime. He probably violated the Hatch Act in using his position as FBI director to publicize an investigation against a candidate less than two weeks before an election. He violated long-standing Justice Department policy in making public a pending investigation. The only reasonable intent that can be inferred with regard to his actions is that he thinks that something MIGHT turn up in those emails and he wanted to make sure that the American public knew about this possibility before the election. That would be a Hatch violation as he using his position to attempt to influence an election. His stated reason that he felt he was obligated to inform Congress that the investigation was reopened since he had previously said it was closed is ridiculous. After the newly reopened investigation was finished then an announcement --not before then. At the time he testified before Congress his testimony was truthful and he is not required to go back and tell Congress the circumstances had changed.

He should be fired immediately but he can't be because that would cause a bigger ruckus. Hopefully, Obama will send him packing the day after the election.

Here is scathing criticism--from a Republican.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytim ... ent=safari

c'mon guys, this information could be damaging to an election so the FBI should ignore their responsibilities and look the other way. Hillary should be allowed to break laws because she's running for president and we should be in the dark as to any possible wrong doings.

Thanks for the past post from Ricky,
funny how the FBI is above reproach when they are on Hillary's side yet that same agency is now vengeful when things don't go their way. Typical liberal stuff here, they can't have it both ways yet that never stops them from talking out of both sides of their ass now does it?

cross posted with Freeman.

So let me understand this
Because it was 11 days until the election, you want the FBI to ignore new facts that came to light. If Donald Trump murders someone tonight, should the police ignore that as well?

The only reasonable intent that can be inferred with regard to his actions is that he thinks that something MIGHT turn up in those emails

The ONLY possibility?
Gee, maybe the evidence is incredibly damning, so much so it was impossible to ignore or face covering up evidence? Yes you COULD be right, but there certainly are many many more possibilities and most are more likely than your "only" intent.

Listening to the Democratic machinery attack Comey is hilarious. And more is on the way....

bbauska

If the FBI is so respected, why the difficulty with Comey's decision to re-open the investigation?

Tom

Because it was 11 days until the election, you want the FBI to ignore new facts that came to light

.
first. What facts?
At the point Comey released this letter, no one had seen the emails. No one knew the content of the emails. There wasn't even a warrant achieved.
So there is no evidence...

Second

: Congress passed the Hatch Act in response to concerns that federal employees had been used to support candidates during the 1938 congressional elections. Its general intent is to greatly restrict the ability of most federal employees to engage in political campaign activities (such as soliciting campaign donations or actively working on behalf of individual candidates), especially while on the job -- or to otherwise "use [their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."
And as its text suggests, the law does not require that the employee's wrongful conduct actually interfere with or affect the result of an election.

So, yeah. I think the FBI Director should have listened to people who told him not to release the letter to Congress.
If there is something in the emails, and its incredibly unlikely since they didn't find anything so far that Comey thought was worthy of persuing, then it could be dealt with after the election.
If there is nothing in the emails, then what purpose has his notification served? He's inserted himself into the election, despite haing nothing of substance to consider....
He hasn't covered himself in glory.
(And yes Clinton's original sin of using a private email @#$! and server is the genus of all this. But so what. Comey says in his letter "There is considerable risk of being misunderstood"...and yet ....)

dag

Listening to the Democratic machinery attack Comey is hilarious. And more is on the way....

Why?
Whats wrong with their criticisms of his actions?

freeman3 wrote:Comey acted inappropriately when he characterized Hillary Clinton's handling of classified material as being extremely careless. His only job was to discuss whether Hillary had committed a crime. He probably violated the Hatch Act in using his position as FBI director to publicize an investigation against a candidate less than two weeks before an election.

Oh, come on! If Harry Reid makes an accusation like this, which he did, the odds of it having any weight approach zero.

Please explain how President Obama has not violated the Hatch Act in campaigning for Clinton.

He violated long-standing Justice Department policy in making public a pending investigation.

Hillary had no problem with his violation of "policy" (can you cite a code?) when he said she would not be prosecuted. Suddenly, policy violations are almost as bad as her legal violations. By virtue of this Code, how is Clinton even eligible for office? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

The only reasonable intent that can be inferred with regard to his actions is that he thinks that something MIGHT turn up in those emails and he wanted to make sure that the American public knew about this possibility before the election. That would be a Hatch violation as he using his position to attempt to influence an election. His stated reason that he felt he was obligated to inform Congress that the investigation was reopened since he had previously said it was closed is ridiculous. After the newly reopened investigation was finished then an announcement --not before then. At the time he testified before Congress his testimony was truthful and he is not required to go back and tell Congress the circumstances had changed.

1. If he violated the Hatch Act, should he be prosecuted, like Julian Castro? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... hatch-act/

2. If he violated the Hatch Act, the AG (a paragon of virtue herself) should impanel a grand jury and indict him today.

3. You've misrepresented Comey's testimony. He told Congess under oath he would tell them if the investigation was reopened. I know obeying his oath is crazy to Democrats, but some people believe in telling the truth and NOT committing perjury.

The only people criticizing him are Clinton hacks.

rickyp wrote:dag

Listening to the Democratic machinery attack Comey is hilarious. And more is on the way....

Why?
Whats wrong with their criticisms of his actions?

Comey was a saint to Democrats not long ago. Now, he is the Devil incarnate.

And, of course, all of this is the fault of Clinton and Abedin, not Comey--that's what makes it all so funny.

Why RickyP?

Because for the first time in a long time, Hilary's team composed of the DNC and the mainstream media can not control the messaging. And because of that they are losing their minds.

The best narrative for a spin they've come up with so far is that Comey's actions are unprecedented. That's all you've got? The greatest spin show on earth and that's all you've got? And the answer is that yes, that is all they've got. Because they have no material to work because the details haven't been released yet. So you have this massive spin machine ready to pounce with every kind of lie conceivable but they can't because there's no info to spin yet. To date, this pause in the stream of bullshite has been most enjoyable. It's like a bomb has gone off but no one knows the extent of the damages yet. Even the pro Clinton comedians don't know what to do or say. It's great really. Even that lot has been silenced. Grant it, this momentary pause won't last, but while it does it sure is a nice reprieve.

But let's leave the best for last....this pausing of the great criminal spin machine boils down to this..... a man obsessed with his wiener whose name is Wiener has handed the Clintons one hell of a wiener.

This is freaking funny stuff, seeing our resident liberals trying to argue this. Just hilarious and not a single one of them is interested in justice, only in trying to get their person elected.

and equally funny, none of our resident Conservatives really cares about Trump, we pretty much hate him to a person but we are interested in justice. It sure does suck how it might affect the election but I suggest liberals stop blaming Comey and instead blame Hillary. This is like blaming the rape victim for being raped. The person who did the crime is the guilty party not the one who made us aware of it. It certainly IS "unprecidented" but that's because nobody ran roughshod over the law as Hillary has done either.

Let's recap
*It's Comey's fault that Hillary did as she did?

*A cover up should have been made because the election is upon us and we need not know about things that affect our vote?

*This is unprecidented so we should ignore it?

Yep, it's making me laugh guys, it really is!

dag

Because for the first time in a long time, Hilary's team composed of the DNC and the mainstream media can not control the messaging. And because of that they are losing their minds.
The best narrative for a spin they've come up with so far is that Comey's actions are unprecedented

Could we assume that the Libertarian candidates are somewhat neutral in all this?
Here's what Weld says...

Libertarian vice presidential nominee William Weld lit into James Comey, saying Monday that his decision to announce a review of new emails was "disgraceful" and that the FBI director and the agency were "off the reservation."
"They're totally off the reservation," Weld told CNN's Alisyn Camerota Monday on "New Day," adding that the US Attorney General may need to get involved to rein in Comey.
Weld was the head of the Justice Department's criminal justice division during the final years of Ronald Reagan's tenure and said throughout the interview that his criticism of Comey's conduct was a professional critique, not political.
Pressed by Camerota on what he meant by "off the reservation," Weld said, "It means there's no way for Mrs. Clinton to know the evidentiary basis for which they made this update to their investigation, and they've said themselves they don't know. It makes it all the more unreasonable to have waded into these waters in the first place."
Weld, who is running with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, said that if more information is leaked from the FBI before the newest emails are reviewed that Attorney General Loretta Lynch should step in and "order him to stand down.

"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/ ... index.html

he could be off the reservation, he could be in violation of the Hatch act, he could also be doing the right thing, nobody really knows the details yet but everyone is jumping into this with all sorts of claims of guilt before knowing what the facts are!

Only Clinton hacks are criticizing him? that's hilariously wrong. 100 former prosecutors signed an open letter criticizing him. Karl Rove is critical; a Republican congressman from Ohio is critical.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday ... ent=safari
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/31/ ... e-election


The comparison to the official who mistakenly praised Clinton on federal property is silly. Intervening in a presidential election by announcing a reopening of the investigation into Hillary is many thousands of times more consequential than that. And the president is not prosecuting Comey, either.

It was inappropriate for Comey to promise to let Congress know if he reopened the investigation--the FBI is not under the direction of Congress. And even when he promised to let Congress know he reopened the investigation, he still has to weigh the consequences of honoring that promise of affecting a presidential election. It's not perjury to change one's mind based on circumstances. Someone with any kind of judgment would have waited until after the election to announce that the investigation was reopened if he wanted to comply with his promise.

If you come with a good argument justifying what Comey did...let me know.

it doesn't matter if something eventually turns up in those emails. It's a pending investigation. The only announcement that should be made is when the investigation is over and a decision whether to prosecute is made. Frankly, I don't know why the FBI announces anything with regard to an investigation. US attorneys decide whether to prosecute; once the FBI finishes their investigation then the US attorney decides to prosecute or not. Now we have them announcing publicly they are doing an investigation. It's so ridiculously inappropriate and backward. Comey has a tremendous sense of his own self-importance.