tom

I do get it but to focus on the FBI side and claim this "unprecedented" card is to ignore Clintons side of this being "unprecedented". She went and did something never done before, maybe too far over the line so much so the FBI felt they had to say something

Unprecedented.?
Well, email use by her predecessors was much more limited. Powell had an AOL account for crying out loud.
The GSA only moved email to the cloud in 2010, and Obama was the first President to have a Blackberry.... Much has been painfully learned about cyber security since 2008. And I'm guessing Hillary wasn't as proficient around technology as a millenial.

Comey could have chosen to say nothing other than that he didn't think there were grounds to charge anyone. Period. And that the investigation was closed.
Everything he did beyond that was political, or at least could be seen to be political. And he's continued to step in it...
If he had simply been an apolitical police man, he could have then begun the reopened investigation into Humas emails without any announcement, respecting the Hatch Act and precedence. (Which he seemed to recognize in refusing to sign on to the Russian Hacking investigation memo.)

To change gears for a moment....

has anyone noticed Trumps work ethic in getting out to stump from city to city? It seems like every other minute he's in 3 cities in one day.

Contrast that effort to the criminal who hasn't done much to get out at all. I believe she had 3 stops today in Florida but that's an anomaly. And then when she does make it to a rally the crowds are fairly small by comparison to Trump rallies.

If Trump's work ethic in the last 3 months is any indication of what his work ethic will be in the White House, he is beating the criminal by a mile.

Simply put, she's appears to be lazy. Either that or she is seriously banking on her money to do her talking for her via television and print ads.

It just seems as though the candidate who works the ground game wins.

rickyp wrote:tom

I do get it but to focus on the FBI side and claim this "unprecedented" card is to ignore Clintons side of this being "unprecedented". She went and did something never done before, maybe too far over the line so much so the FBI felt they had to say something

Unprecedented.?
Well, email use by her predecessors was much more limited. Powell had an AOL account for crying out loud.
The GSA only moved email to the cloud in 2010, and Obama was the first President to have a Blackberry.... Much has been painfully learned about cyber security since 2008. And I'm guessing Hillary wasn't as proficient around technology as a millenial.

Comey could have chosen to say nothing other than that he didn't think there were grounds to charge anyone. Period. And that the investigation was closed.
Everything he did beyond that was political, or at least could be seen to be political. And he's continued to step in it...
If he had simply been an apolitical police man, he could have then begun the reopened investigation into Humas emails without any announcement, respecting the Hatch Act and precedence. (Which he seemed to recognize in refusing to sign on to the Russian Hacking investigation memo.)

Prove Comey violated the Hatch Act.

Hint: citing Harry Reid is not "proof."

dag hammarsjkold wrote:To change gears for a moment....

has anyone noticed Trumps work ethic in getting out to stump from city to city? It seems like every other minute he's in 3 cities in one day.

Contrast that effort to the criminal who hasn't done much to get out at all. I believe she had 3 stops today in Florida but that's an anomaly. And then when she does make it to a rally the crowds are fairly small by comparison to Trump rallies.

If Trump's work ethic in the last 3 months is any indication of what his work ethic will be in the White House, he is beating the criminal by a mile.

Simply put, she's appears to be lazy. Either that or she is seriously banking on her money to do her talking for her via television and print ads.

It just seems as though the candidate who works the ground game wins.

Or, she's not healthy.

Ricky, first, because others did this (to a lesser degree) does not make it right for Clinton.

But let's give you that for the moment
Others did not delete over 30,000 emails AFTER being told to turn them over, others did not lie about them either. As far as Hillary not being technologically savvy should be dropped and not part of any argument. She had a team of experts do all this for her and she knew enough to WANT to circumvent normal (legal) procedures. An ignorant old woman would simply accept what she was given, not here, she went out of her way to do this work around, her argument was it was easier for her???? No, it took more work to work around and set this up for no reason other than she wanted privacy, a level of privacy that was not acceptable and very illegal.

Let's give her a break on this as well for the moment. Let's ignore the security aspects, if she turned everything over and did not wash over 33,000 messages, after being told to turn them over, maybe that could be acceptable. But no, this technologically challenged woman went and washed her server of all those messages and you want us to believe it was done by her on accident???

can you accept she lied? Can you accept she is obviously hiding something?
Maybe it nothing more than her sending her perverted husband Bill 33,000 nudie pictures of herself? but she's hiding SOMETHING.

Comey could have chosen to say nothing other than that he didn't think there were grounds to charge anyone. Period. And that the investigation was closed.
Everything he did beyond that was political, or at least could be seen to be political.

uhhh, just him saying he didn't think their were grounds to charge her was also political why do you ignore that part?
And opening a closed case is not always political, new evidence came to light and the new evidence may very well have demanded it be reopened and not doing so would be the "political" reason. Comey is doing exactly as he promised to do, a few months ago you had no problem with him being "political" now you have trouble with him following procedure in reopening a case based on new evidence.

GMTom wrote:

Comey could have chosen to say nothing other than that he didn't think there were grounds to charge anyone. Period. And that the investigation was closed.
Everything he did beyond that was political, or at least could be seen to be political.

uhhh, just him saying he didn't think their were grounds to charge her was also political why do you ignore that part?
And opening a closed case is not always political, new evidence came to light and the new evidence may very well have demanded it be reopened and not doing so would be the "political" reason. Comey is doing exactly as he promised to do, a few months ago you had no problem with him being "political" now you have trouble with him following procedure in reopening a case based on new evidence.

The Democratic position is that Comey had a responsibility (because of the Pirate Code, or something) to sit on the evidence because it's too close to the election. In failing to cover for Hillary, he is (allegedly) trying to undermine her.

It's the Left's version of "If you're not with us, you're against us."

What they said in June:/b]
what they say now

Obama:
[b]"He's that rarity in Washington... he doesn’t care about politics, he only cares about getting the job done."
he's now mum

Donna Brazile:
"Republicans are damaging rule of law by attacking FBI director Comey
(she deleted this after he changed his position)
“Pathetic. Simply pathetic to watch members of Congress grill Director Comey because he’s not playing their game of gotcha.
after being fired by CNN for providing Hillary the questions that would be asked of her in one of the debates she is now a bit more quiet
"Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy."


Nancy Peolsi:
called him a ":Great Man" and the FBI was Lucky to have him.
“The public interest would be served by the FBI providing the facts, rather than allowing Republicans to stoke innuendo and falsehoods 11 days away from a presidential election,”

Harry Reid:
"no one can question Comey’s integrity and competence.”
He was the one to bring up Comey breaking the hatch Act, then he follows that by himself

"In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.

Yeah, he probably violated the hatch Act himself while complaining about Comey's doing so

Elijah Cummings:
"I don’t know whether your family’s watching this, but I hope that they are as proud of you as I am, because you are the epitome of what a public servant is all about. . . Sacrificing over and over and over again, trying to do the right thing, sometimes coming under ridicule, but again still doing the right thing."
Director Comey only sent the letter out of “concern about being attacked for not keeping Republicans informed of any possible development….”

Tim Kaine:
"wonderful” and “tough.”
“The FBI, under he direction of a wonderful and tough career public servant, Jim Comey . . . somebody with the highest standards of integrity,”
“You violated these two protocols . . . You owe the public full information,”

Joe Conason (editor of the National Memo):
"It is sick that anyone would believe tax-dodger Trump's slander of Jim Comey, who has spent 30 years serving USA"
"It remains to be seen whether and how he can ameliorate this reckless and ethically dubious act before Election Day — or if he will even try."

David Axelrod:
“widely respected as a guy of integrity.”
FBI director Comey covering institutional butt /today's announcement, but it's really irresponsible not to clarify what it means.

What they said in June:/b]
what they say now

Obama:
[b]"He's that rarity in Washington... he doesn’t care about politics, he only cares about getting the job done."
he's now mum

Donna Brazile:
"Republicans are damaging rule of law by attacking FBI director Comey
(she deleted this after he changed his position)
“Pathetic. Simply pathetic to watch members of Congress grill Director Comey because he’s not playing their game of gotcha.
after being fired by CNN for providing Hillary the questions that would be asked of her in one of the debates she is now a bit more quiet
"Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy."


Nancy Peolsi:
called him a ":Great Man" and the FBI was Lucky to have him.
“The public interest would be served by the FBI providing the facts, rather than allowing Republicans to stoke innuendo and falsehoods 11 days away from a presidential election,”

Harry Reid:
"no one can question Comey’s integrity and competence.”
He was the one to bring up Comey breaking the hatch Act, then he follows that by himself

"In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.

Yeah, he probably violated the hatch Act himself while complaining about Comey's doing so

Elijah Cummings:
"I don’t know whether your family’s watching this, but I hope that they are as proud of you as I am, because you are the epitome of what a public servant is all about. . . Sacrificing over and over and over again, trying to do the right thing, sometimes coming under ridicule, but again still doing the right thing."
Director Comey only sent the letter out of “concern about being attacked for not keeping Republicans informed of any possible development….”

Tim Kaine:
"wonderful” and “tough.”
“The FBI, under he direction of a wonderful and tough career public servant, Jim Comey . . . somebody with the highest standards of integrity,”
“You violated these two protocols . . . You owe the public full information,”

Joe Conason (editor of the National Memo):
"It is sick that anyone would believe tax-dodger Trump's slander of Jim Comey, who has spent 30 years serving USA"
"It remains to be seen whether and how he can ameliorate this reckless and ethically dubious act before Election Day — or if he will even try."

David Axelrod:
“widely respected as a guy of integrity.”
FBI director Comey covering institutional butt /today's announcement, but it's really irresponsible not to clarify what it means.

Other people's opinions of Comey as a person are red herrings. Either what he did was correct or it wasn't. I imagine it's amusing to make fun of people who now have to walk back their opinions of him, but it should not affect the assessment of what he is doing now. In other words, it is not a defense--at all--with regard to what he did now to say that some liberals praised him back in July. The supposed defense goes like this: liberals praised him back in July when he did something that helped Hillary, now they are criticizing for doing something that hurt her, so given that they will just say whatever is helpful to them we can ignore any criticism of Comey. But the last part does not follow. What Comey did now has to stand up to scrutiny, regardless of what certain liberals said in July. Maybe you can ignore people who criticize Comey now that praised Comey did in July but that does not clear him.

Just imagine if Trump wins and it is tied to Comey's letter and nothing turns up in the emails. Our democracy will take a hit if that happens. It's already taking a hit with Republicans saying they will not confirm Supreme Court justices for four years or threats by Trump to contest the election. When people stop respecting the institutions that comprise democracy you don't know where it will lead. The FBI should not take sides in an election. Comey made a horrendous mistake, even if (giving him the benefit of the doubt) it was well-intentioned.

freeman3 wrote:Other people's opinions of Comey as a person are red herrings. Either what he did was correct or it wasn't. I imagine it's amusing to make fun of people who now have to walk back their opinions of him, but it should not affect the assessment of what he is doing now. In other words, it is not a defense--at all--with regard to what he did now to say that some liberals praised him back in July. The supposed defense goes like this: liberals praised him back in July when he did something that helped Hillary, now they are criticizing for doing something that hurt her, so given that they will just say whatever is helpful to them we can ignore any criticism of Comey. But the last part does not follow. What Comey did now has to stand up to scrutiny, regardless of what certain liberals said in July. Maybe you can ignore people who criticize Comey now that praised Comey did in July but that does not clear him.

Just imagine if Trump wins and it is tied to Comey's letter and nothing turns up in the emails. Our democracy will take a hit if that happens. It's already taking a hit with Republicans saying they will not confirm Supreme Court justices for four years or threats by Trump to contest the election. When people stop respecting the institutions that comprise democracy you don't know where it will lead. The FBI should not take sides in an election. Comey made a horrendous mistake, even if (giving him the benefit of the doubt) it was well-intentioned.

Stop blaming Comey.

If Hillary and her crew were ethical, none of this would be going on.

It's pretty ridiculous to focus on his announcement when the problems were many years in the making--and Comey had nothing to do with any of it.

And by the way the idea that Comey was bound to have report that he reopened the investigation is just not a good argument. First, I don't think waiting a few weeks to report reopening the investigation violates that promise. Secondly, reacting to changed circumstances--that reporting it to Congress conflicted with the FBI's obligation not to interfere with elections--means that there should be no concern about perjury or just having to abide by his promise because he felt obligated to abide by his vow.

I'm sorry I really cannot believe this argument is being made. Comey is a public servant--he is supposed to do what is right for the country. Clearly, he realizes the importance of not affecting elections with incomplete investigations close to the election because he opposed joining the statement that Russia was intervening in American politics by hacking into the DNC and Clinton aides' emails. And the stakes are too high for him to worry about personal exposure if someone decides at some point he did something wrong for not reporting to Congress. We send soldiers who risk their life for democracy; Comey should be willing to risk something to ensure that we have fair democratic elections. His promise to Congress means zero, nada, nil compared to his obligation to make sure he does not intervene in an election.

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.

and there you go again. Please try to remove the partisan glasses that color your thinking.
He MIGHT have made an egregious mistake, but we just don't know about that yet do we?
Do you know what was in those emails?
since you have no idea, you can not make such statements of fact that he did indeed make a mistake, if things are real bad, then he may very well have done correctly. It certainly is a matter of degree. I used the example if Trump committed murder tonight, are the police to say nothing until after the election? Of course they would report this. Now, the email stuff is nowhere near that degree but there has to be a line somewhere and if this is minor, you would be correct, if this were major ...maybe not.

And why is it Harry Reid did not violate the Hatch act himself in reporting Trumps supposed connections to Russia? Hillary is also guilty since she too is saying the same thing. It's funny how you seem to see things only the way you want to see them. Me, I am neutral in that I despise both candidates so I would LOVE to see dirt come out on both. All the dirt on Trump has been well documented and discussed but the minute Clinton's dirt is brought up, it is simply dismissed and here we have liberals who want to not only dismiss the allegations but they want us in the dark as if we should not be allowed to know anything on her (while keeping up on any and all dirt they can dig up on trump) can you not see how one-sided you and the liberals are here?

Comey should be willing to risk something to ensure that we have fair democratic elections

funny how you fail to see what you have written yourself.
Comey is risking his career to report what is right to ensure we do in fact have a fair election. If the people have been mislead then does he not have an obligation to set the record straight in order to ensure a FAIR election?

You wrote it yourself, these are your words and maybe, just maybe he did exactly as you want him to do? Again, maybe you are right but maybe you are wrong, maybe you should stop writing as if your assumptions are factual until you in fact know better?