and if they said nothing it would be a cover up.
We knew of the original investigation, why is this a different situation? It's a difficult position and by doing as they did, it helps speed things along FAST. Otherwise it would be dragging on and after the fact we would hear how this was a cover up. Why is it ok to know about this any other time of year but suddenly now it matters? It may affect the election? Duh, but shouldn't we know if a candidate is facing charges or not?

tom

Duh, but shouldn't we know if a candidate is facing charges or not?

Sure. But there's no way the investigation ofthe emails would resolve soon enough to a decision on whether or not there is sufficient evidence ....
According to some sources Anthony Weiners computers hold 650,000 emails.
Thats a lot of dick pics to wade thru.

freeman3 wrote:Intervening in a presidential election by announcing a reopening of the investigation into Hillary is many thousands of times more consequential than that

Yes, because Comey told her to use a private email server and then lie repeatedly about it.

Comey is not "intervening." He is upholding what he said under oath.

And the president is not prosecuting Comey, either.

Yeah, actually his spokesman stood up for Comey, more or less. Well, he did call him "a man of integrity," which is more than anyone can say for Clinton. Would anyone call her "a woman of integrity?"

No one with a modicum of self-respect.

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

Already did--he's avoiding perjury, something your side knows little about.

I always listen to sports radio on the way home but with two Bills losses in a row, I had no heart to listen to sports talk today. I somehow ended up listening to AM conservative talk, I think it was Glen Beck? Anyways, it was freaking funny when he played clips of so many of these same people who are now complaining about Comey and how partisan and wrong this saying how impartial he was and above reproach just a few months ago when his Clinton findings were on their side. VERY funny stuff!

Well, there was no reason for liberals to idolize Comey back in July. When you start anointing a REPUBLiCAN as being this paragon of virtue you got no else to blame when he does something like this. Oh my gosh he's a Republican so that means his decision not to charge Clinton is valid. That was unnecessary. Hillary was not charged because there was insufficient evidence. That's it.

But the fact that some liberals used that silly argument does not mean that Comey cannot be criticized now. Well, it makes those who made that argument look silly now that they are going to criticize Comey. But it is a meaningless defense when applied to most liberals who did not rely on Comey as being a Republican to defend the decision not to charge Hillary.

By the way, it is impossible to charge someone with committing perjury by breaking a promise in the future. Why? It is impossible to defeat the defense that at the time he said he was going to inform Congress of the investigation he was telling the truth but later he changed his mind. Complete defense.

The man of integrity...doesn't look like it. Comey refused to join statement about Russian hacking because it was too close to election.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-com ... ource.html

This stuff can make one very cynical.

freeman3 wrote:The man of integrity...doesn't look like it. Comey refused to join statement about Russian hacking because it was too close to election.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-com ... ource.html

This stuff can make one very cynical.

Blah, blah, blah.

You don't even have your facts straight. He's not a Republican. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/ ... s-to-know/

Hint: the article says he USED to be a registered Republican, but no longer is.

There si nothing partisan in his past.

Oh, and while you're complaining about fairness, please explain:

1. The Attorney General holding an unscheduled meeting with the husband of the subject of an investigation. How is that "good judgment?" How does that indicate "fairness?" Is it "unprecedented?"

2. The President of the United States, before the investigation was completed, pronounced Hillary innocent of any wrongdoing. Is that "fair?" Is that "just?" Is that "unprecedented?"

All the levers of the Federal government have been pulled for Secretary Clinton and you are outraged because Comey upheld his oath before Congress?

Here's the thing, we do not know all the details of either situation. Comey certainly can be playing a dirty partisan game here, no question! But we don't know the details and everyone that is jumping to conclusions (either way) is being foolish. As far as Hillary goes, the new evidence may be damning, it may be huge, so much so that he could not keep a lid on it or risk a cover up. As far as Trump goes, this Russian stuff looks to be minor at best and for those who want to bitch and moan about the hatch act in relation to Clinton simply can't complain that he is following that for Trump. Again, we just don't know. Yes it is possible the Trump stuff is huge and the Clinton stuff is minor, yes it's possible both are minor, both are huge, and he may be unfair, etc. But this may also be exactly as he SHOULD be doing in a very difficult situation.

My opinion (as I, like everyone else have no solid evidence), I think the Clinton stuff must be big for him to do this. He is following through on what he promised and if this is something that could result in an indictment, then yes, it probably should be made public immediately. I used a silly example earlier, what if Trump were to kill someone tonight, should that be hidden until after the election? This Clinton mess is no way as "fantastic" as a murder of course but it may be in that "fantastic" category and if so, should be reported. Trumps Russian ties seem incredibly minor (what I have heard anyway) His EX campaign manager had financial ties. Trump has none, he had nothing to do with his ex managers financials and there is no real link between the two. Yes, the emails are Clinton's aids but the messages in question originated with Clinton and have to do with Clinton. What the aid did or was involved with would of course be of minor significance at best. (and if Russians want to try to sway the election, that's bad but unless they can tie this to Trump knowing and working with them, then yeah, it also falls into that whole Hatch nonsense)

It's all guessing at this stage, so why do we have so many people so upset?

Tom, you are being too kind to the Democrats. I despise Trump. However, today, the NYT has "bad stories" about him on page 1. On page 21, they have a headline about there being no clear ties between Trump and Russia.

Meanwhile, Huma Abedin has a major spotlight on her. Clinton is now describing her as "a staffer." A staffer? Are you kidding? She is a virtual appendage of Hillary's!

Back to Huma: she either did not secure her emails (and Weiner stole them) or she lied to the FBI. Either way, she is in trouble.

Clinton? We don't know yet. What we do know is that she narrowly escaped being accused before--Comey walked right up to the line. If there is anything more, it's not unreasonable to think she could be indicted IF the partisan hack AG would permit it.

Freeman wrote:

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

Freeman, what choice does he have? Bill null and voided the DOJ's chance to do their job back in July when he null and voided Lynch's roll. That threw the ball into the FBIs court. As I see it, all of the so called "unprecedented" claims trace their roots back to Bill boarding that plane. And now that action has come back to roost. I reckon Comey is refusing to be played by this family. Further, I'll be surprised if someone within this pageantry doesn't mysteriously commit "suicide" soon.

As for the 605,000 emails RickyP, on the Dianne Ream show this morning one of her guests mentioned that the FBI has software that will allow them to go through the emails to look for classified info. How? I have no idea. The same guest said that we will know whether any of the emails were classified in time for the election.

I find this curious given how long it took the FBI to go through the criminal's emails, but that's another story waiting to happen.

Another take away from the Diane Ream show this morning is this....apparently members of the DNC had a "hair fire" last night on a conference call with the FBI. They were livid that the FBI wouldn't release a statement about Trump's connections to the Russians. The argument went something like this...(and I'm paraphrasing here)

"this isn't fair FBI, you don't know all the particulars about Trumps involvement with Russia, so why not release a statement that says something along those lines so that it might cast suspicion on Trump. After all, this is what you have done to our candidate."

But in fact, the FBI does not see a credible link between Trump and the Russian hacks.

The best line this morning on Diane Ream came from the guest who referred to last night's conference call as a "hair fire" for the DNC. I laughed out loud.

I find that phrase so enjoyable since it reiterates and solidifies what I've written here already, namely, that the DEM lie machine is on pause for the moment and they can't stand the pause button. They are truly reeling. It's brilliant.

Yeah....about those facts being straight. Hint: you might want to dig a little deeper. Comey only indicated that he was no longer a registered Republican in July, 2016 when he testified before Congress. He donated money to McCain and Romney. He basically stopped registering as a Republican when he became part of a Democratic Administration. Probably thought it gave him more options.http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-com ... -as-225223

Tom, Comey decided to write the letter to Congress before he knew what was in the emails so I am not sure how he could know there was something important there. But the idea that you think it is important without any real evidence is the reason that people are so upset.

As for the idea that this is going to be a quick process...are they kidding? The emails have to be reviewed by the State Department and other agencies to see if they determine they are classified. Why would it change anything, anyway? If something went out from Hillary to Huma Abedin that was deemed to contain classified information, how is that going to prove intent? Anyway, if there is classified information in the emails it will quite a long process before the Justice Department could make a decision that it would change the determination that there was no crime committed. And it seems likely that it would make no difference because even if the computer has information similar to that already discovered in Clinton's emails, why would that change the case against her?

freeman3 wrote:Yeah....about those facts being straight. Hint: you might want to dig a little deeper. Comey only indicated that he was no longer a registered Republican in July, 2016 when he testified before Congress. He donated money to McCain and Romney. He basically stopped registering as a Republican when he became part of a Democratic Administration. Probably thought it gave him more options.http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-com ... -as-225223

That's far less partisan than AG Lynch, isn't it?

Tom, Comey decided to write the letter to Congress before he knew what was in the emails so I am not sure how he could know there was something important there. But the idea that you think it is important without any real evidence is the reason that people are so upset.

You don't know that. You have no idea what agents told him. None.

As for the idea that this is going to be a quick process...are they kidding? The emails have to be reviewed by the State Department and other agencies to see if they determine they are classified. Why would it change anything, anyway? If something went out from Hillary to Huma Abedin that was deemed to contain classified information, how is that going to prove intent?

Intent is not part of the law. Under the US Code, Clinton should be ineligible for President.

Beyond that, maybe they're looking at Abedin (or Clinton) for perjury or lying to the FBI or Congress?

Anyway, if there is classified information in the emails it will quite a long process before the Justice Department could make a decision that it would change the determination that there was no crime committed. And it seems likely that it would make no difference because even if the computer has information similar to that already discovered in Clinton's emails, why would that change the case against her?

I don't know and neither do you.

Here's what we do know: this is all Hillary's fault. If she hadn't gone for skulduggery, we would not be here.

Furthermore, as more time goes on, the parallels to Watergate become clear. There was an obvious conspiracy to cover up the use of the server.

In today's, 25th, Wikileaks release of hacked Podesta emails, one of the notable highlights is a March 2, 2015 exchange between John Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills in which the Clinton Campaign Chair says "On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails."

The email, which may indicate intent, was sent just days before the NYT story revealing the existence of Hillary's email server, and Hillary's press conference addressing what was at the time, the stunning revelation that she had a personal email account, and server, in her home.

Mills' response: "Think you just got your new nick name."

It is unclear which Lanny is referred to: the infamous former DOJ staffer Lanny Breuer who quit in January 2013 after telling Frontline that some banks are too big to fail, or, more likely Lanny Davis, special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and spokesperson for the President and the White House on matters concerning campaign-finance investigations and other legal issues

It is also unclear for now which emails Podesta is referring to in the thread, but Podesta adds: "better to do so sooner than later." We can hope that a subsequent response, yet to be leaked by Wikileaks, will provide more color. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-0 ... ose-emails

That is just the tip of the iceberg, of course. We already know about the orders to erase them, the taking of the fifth, etc.

It's also like Watergate in this sense: neither action was necessary to win the Presidency. Nixon would have won without the burglary--and Hillary was a sure thing as soon as Trump won the nomination (although no one could have known in advance that the GOP would be that stupid).

And now, the heat is on. One wonders what might happen if the press turns on Clinton.

Well, the agents would not know what was in the emails because they had to get a warrant to start looking through them. The decision was made to reopen the investigation before anyone knew what was in the emails. If they have not looked at the emails how do they know what is in them? Am I missing something?

freeman3 wrote:Well, the agents would not know what was in the emails because they had to get a warrant to start looking through them. The decision was made to reopen the investigation before anyone knew what was in the emails. If they have not looked at the emails how do they know what is in them? Am I missing something?

Sure. How did they know there were any emails? How did they know they related to Clinton?

At the very least, they had to scan the computer to see what was on it. Reports are they saw "metadata" before getting a warrant.

Btw, if there is nothing to fear, why didn't Abedin just give permission?

And, if it was because she was claiming it wasn't her laptop, then what are those emails doing there?

Answer: they're either there because she lied or because she was negligent. Both are illegal.

dag hammarsjkold wrote: Further, I'll be surprised if someone within this pageantry doesn't mysteriously commit "suicide" soon.

Dag, I respect what you say most of the time, and then there are moments like the above when you allow your freak flag to fly. You're just undermining yourself.