Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
Oct 31, 2016 - 7:58pm
Lazy8 wrote:
ScottN wrote:
The information itself is not available to critique, opine, judge, one way or another.
Comey, however, has put himself at the center of the election. Against long held policy, some direction, and much advice.
Why did he do that?, I mean really, really, why?
If it was gonna leak, his "softball" statement did Clinton a favor, of sorts, because his statement is much easier for Clinton to deal, and gives her more rebuttal/response time than the slow leak that may have been planned by others would have allowed. In that sense, he may have saved 2016 for Clinton.
He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Keep it under wraps and it's a coverup, reveal it and he's trying to throw the election.
Think back to July: he had the perfect opportunity to tilt the playing field by indicting Hillary for everything from obstruction of justice to violating the Freedom of Information Act. He didn't. She (and all the subordinates who haven't already been given immunity from prosecution for answering questions about their role in her anti-transparency campaign) got a pass. Back then he was a heroic public figure just doing his job, now he's an Enemy and must be destroyed by any means necessary.
Ironic that the majority leader of the Senate accuses him of violating the law for telling the truth. Well, it would be if we were still capable of irony. Looking forward to four years of seeing how low our expectations can go.
I don't share your pessimism. Since the emails were, with little doubt, going to be leaked, Comey did Clinton a favor, imo. A slow drip reveal would have been more, perhaps much more harmful, than Comey's, mushy, non-muscular, statement. Of course, ugly that the emails are there at all, bringing a legitimate need for investigation.
It seems former AG Michael Mukasey disagrees with your assertion that Comey "had the perfect opportunity to tilt the playing field by indicting Hillary for everything from obstruction of justice to violating the Freedom of Information Act." Mukasey writes that it isn't Comey's job to indict.
Mukasey attacked Comey’s decision to recommend against charges for Clinton, poking an array of holes in his argument that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” but pointing to misdemeanor and felony charges that could have been leveled at the former secretary of state. Beyond that, Mukasey wrote, Comey’s “authority extends only to supervising the gathering of facts to be presented to Justice Department lawyers” and not to any decision of whether or not charges should be brought.
Instead of allowing her to accept his recommendation as it relates to charges for Clinton, Mukasey wrote that Comey should have urged Attorney General Loretta Lynch to present whatever evidence the FBI uncovered to a grand jury. If she refused, Mukasey said, Comey should have gone public with his request and, if need be, resigned.
. However, this NYT analysis agrees with you that Comey has become a political football. But Comey let that happen to himself. Apparently his comments about Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of classified email was a departure from standards of public speech for FBI Directors concerning investigations. In contrast, IIRC Comey and the FBI have refused to comment on whether the FBI is investigating ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. And while you criticize Harry Reid for suggesting that Comey violated the Hatch Act when as you see it Comey was "telling the truth", Comey has unleashed a torrent of criticism from former state and federal AGs and former federal prosecutors over his recent letter. He's also taking criticism from Republican Congressmen and pundits:
I'm not sure who is defending Comey's action besides Trump and Trey Gowdy. The Hatch Act does not concern itself with whether public officials are telling the truth, lying or sending letters that contain very little information about a candidate's actions or new evidence. The White House released a statement defending Comey's integrity but did not pass judgment on Comey's decision to send the letter.
The point of the article isn't the propriety of Comey's actions (I'll leave that to partisans to argue about—they sure got organized quickly, didn't they?) but the campaign to alternately praise and demonize him depending on the news he delivers.
And Comey made a recommendation not to prosecute, so he very much participated in that decision.
Again, Comey helped both parties and campaigns weaponize the FBI's investigation by his departure from standards of policy at the Bureau an DOJ. He has shown poor judgment in the way he's handled the public dissemination of information about the investigation into Clinton's emails, both in July and October.
Personally, I don't think Comey is trying to throw the election or responding to pressure from either party. However, I believe that he deserves the criticism he's getting for making inappropriate statements, statements that both campaigns have tried to use to their political advantage.
As for the article you pointed to, the attacks Clinton and Co. unleash pale in comparison to GOP's constant calls for pointless investigation and demonization of Democrats. Bill Clinton's two terms were a non-stop soap opera starring Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor for Everything. Trey Gowdy's Committee on Benghazi lasted longer than the investigations into the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Watergate break-ins—loved their Wine Wednesdays and glasses engraved with "Glacial Pace." Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has already promised two years of investigation into Clinton's tenure as Sec. of State. The Republicans in Congress are not interested in running the country. They're interested in obstructionism and election cycles. Clinton and Co.'s use and even manipulation of the media is just one side of a tango that both parties are dancing with each other. Trump and even your Gary Johnson would be doing the same things if they were in power come January. Trump certainly was sliming Comey for his statements this summer, but you don't seem to have much concern about how a Trump administration would handle opposition or investigation.
There would be nothing happening to begin with if Hillary did not have her own server. She started all this and caused it to drag on as long as it has by stonewalling every thing possible. She is responsible for all of this. She is not a victim here.
650 flipping thousand emails allegedly in a file folder titled "Insurance". Who gets that many emails other than those who play with Publisher's Clearing House sweepstakes ? Sounds like someone with permission to access Hillary's server did and copied everything on it. And no doubt there are more copies hidden away for "Insurance" purposes.
Poor Hillary. Poor Huma. Looks like Carlos Danger was more than just horny ...
It seems former AG Michael Mukasey disagrees with your assertion that Comey "had the perfect opportunity to tilt the playing field by indicting Hillary for everything from obstruction of justice to violating the Freedom of Information Act." Mukasey writes that it isn't Comey's job to indict.
Mukasey attacked Comey’s decision to recommend against charges for Clinton, poking an array of holes in his argument that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” but pointing to misdemeanor and felony charges that could have been leveled at the former secretary of state. Beyond that, Mukasey wrote, Comey’s “authority extends only to supervising the gathering of facts to be presented to Justice Department lawyers” and not to any decision of whether or not charges should be brought.
Instead of allowing her to accept his recommendation as it relates to charges for Clinton, Mukasey wrote that Comey should have urged Attorney General Loretta Lynch to present whatever evidence the FBI uncovered to a grand jury. If she refused, Mukasey said, Comey should have gone public with his request and, if need be, resigned.
. However, this NYT analysis agrees with you that Comey has become a political football. But Comey let that happen to himself. Apparently his comments about Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of classified email was a departure from standards of public speech for FBI Directors concerning investigations. In contrast, IIRC Comey and the FBI have refused to comment on whether the FBI is investigating ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. And while you criticize Harry Reid for suggesting that Comey violated the Hatch Act when as you see it Comey was "telling the truth", Comey has unleashed a torrent of criticism from former state and federal AGs and former federal prosecutors over his recent letter. He's also taking criticism from Republican Congressmen and pundits:
I'm not sure who is defending Comey's action besides Trump and Trey Gowdy. The Hatch Act does not concern itself with whether public officials are telling the truth, lying or sending letters that contain very little information about a candidate's actions or new evidence. The White House released a statement defending Comey's integrity but did not pass judgment on Comey's decision to send the letter.
The point of the article isn't the propriety of Comey's actions (I'll leave that to partisans to argue about—they sure got organized quickly, didn't they?) but the campaign to alternately praise and demonize him depending on the news he delivers.
And Comey made a recommendation not to prosecute, so he very much participated in that decision.
Last week he was a dedicated public servant and how dare you impeach his motives. This week he's an obvious partisan hack.
To be fair, last week he was both a dedicated public servant *and* an obvious partisan hack. Just the people placing the labels on him have swapped seats this week.
The information itself is not available to critique, opine, judge, one way or another.
Comey, however, has put himself at the center of the election. Against long held policy, some direction, and much advice.
Why did he do that?, I mean really, really, why?
If it was gonna leak, his "softball" statement did Clinton a favor, of sorts, because his statement is much easier for Clinton to deal, and gives her more rebuttal/response time than the slow leak that may have been planned by others would have allowed. In that sense, he may have saved 2016 for Clinton.
He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Keep it under wraps and it's a coverup, reveal it and he's trying to throw the election.
Think back to July: he had the perfect opportunity to tilt the playing field by indicting Hillary for everything from obstruction of justice to violating the Freedom of Information Act. He didn't. She (and all the subordinates who haven't already been given immunity from prosecution for answering questions about their role in her anti-transparency campaign) got a pass. Back then he was a heroic public figure just doing his job, now he's an Enemy and must be destroyed by any means necessary.
Ironic that the majority leader of the Senate accuses him of violating the law for telling the truth. Well, it would be if we were still capable of irony. Looking forward to four years of seeing how low our expectations can go.
It seems former AG Michael Mukasey disagrees with your assertion that Comey "had the perfect opportunity to tilt the playing field by indicting Hillary for everything from obstruction of justice to violating the Freedom of Information Act." Mukasey writes that it isn't Comey's job to indict.
Mukasey attacked Comey’s decision to recommend against charges for Clinton, poking an array of holes in his argument that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” but pointing to misdemeanor and felony charges that could have been leveled at the former secretary of state. Beyond that, Mukasey wrote, Comey’s “authority extends only to supervising the gathering of facts to be presented to Justice Department lawyers” and not to any decision of whether or not charges should be brought.
Instead of allowing her to accept his recommendation as it relates to charges for Clinton, Mukasey wrote that Comey should have urged Attorney General Loretta Lynch to present whatever evidence the FBI uncovered to a grand jury. If she refused, Mukasey said, Comey should have gone public with his request and, if need be, resigned.
. However, this NYT analysis agrees with you that Comey has become a political football. But Comey let that happen to himself. Apparently his comments about Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of classified email was a departure from standards of public speech for FBI Directors concerning investigations. In contrast, IIRC Comey and the FBI have refused to comment on whether the FBI is investigating ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. And while you criticize Harry Reid for suggesting that Comey violated the Hatch Act when as you see it Comey was "telling the truth", Comey has unleashed a torrent of criticism from former state and federal AGs and former federal prosecutors over his recent letter. He's also taking criticism from Republican Congressmen and pundits:
I'm not sure who is defending Comey's action besides Trump and Trey Gowdy. The Hatch Act does not concern itself with whether public officials are telling the truth, lying or sending letters that contain very little information about a candidate's actions or new evidence. The White House released a statement defending Comey's integrity but did not pass judgment on Comey's decision to send the letter.
The information itself is not available to critique, opine, judge, one way or another.
Comey, however, has put himself at the center of the election. Against long held policy, some direction, and much advice.
Why did he do that?, I mean really, really, why?
If it was gonna leak, his "softball" statement did Clinton a favor, of sorts, because his statement is much easier for Clinton to deal, and gives her more rebuttal/response time than the slow leak that may have been planned by others would have allowed. In that sense, he may have saved 2016 for Clinton.
He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Keep it under wraps and it's a coverup, reveal it and he's trying to throw the election.
Think back to July: he had the perfect opportunity to tilt the playing field by indicting Hillary for everything from obstruction of justice to violating the Freedom of Information Act. He didn't. She (and all the subordinates who haven't already been given immunity from prosecution for answering questions about their role in her anti-transparency campaign) got a pass. Back then he was a heroic public figure just doing his job, now he's an Enemy and must be destroyed by any means necessary.
Ironic that the majority leader of the Senate accuses him of violating the law for telling the truth. Well, it would be if we were still capable of irony. Looking forward to four years of seeing how low our expectations can go.
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
Oct 31, 2016 - 1:56pm
Lazy8 wrote:
Last week he was a dedicated public servant and how dare you impeach his motives. This week he's an obvious partisan hack.....
Indeed, a good part of the discussion is now about Comey's motives, not about the information itself. This, folks, is a very good preview of the kind of administration Clinton will have. Under President Barack Obama we endured condescending lectures to justify the administration's massive expansion of executive and regulatory authority. Under President Hillary Clinton, we may endure condescending lectures telling us why we shouldn't care about whatever stonewalling and her staff may do to keep Americans out of the loop about her behavior.
The information itself is not available to critique, opine, judge, one way or another.
Comey, however, has put himself at the center of the election. Against long held policy, some direction, and much advice.
Why did he do that?, I mean really, really, why?
If it was gonna leak, his "softball" statement did Clinton a favor, of sorts, because his statement is much easier for Clinton to deal, and gives her more rebuttal/response time than the slow leak that may have been planned by others would have allowed. In that sense, he may have saved 2016 for Clinton.
To recap, for the benefit of those who spent the weekend preparing their racially and culturally tasteful and sensitive Halloween costumes instead of following the news: During the course of investigating scandal-tainted Democratic former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner and an accusation he was sexting with a minor, the FBI found hundreds of thousands of emails on a laptop he and/or his likely-soon-to-be-ex-wife Huma Abedin had been using. The metadata suggested that many of these emails might have been sent to or from Clinton's private server.
So now the FBI has to investigate to determine whether any of these emails were classified or were connected in any way to Clinton's previous mess. The letters may turn out to be duplicates or nothing interesting in particular. It seems very unlikely they're going to find any new smoking guns (insert joke about dick pics here). But Comey, after previously declaring that the FBI would not recommend any charges over Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of classified communications, decided to send a brief letter to various leaders in Congress to inform them that the FBI would be reviewing these letters to see if they were at all relevant to their previous investigation. His letter was brief (three whole paragraphs) and did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing whatsoever.
But, boy, has that letter opened possibly a bigger can of worms than the Wikileaks email dump somehow. To this outside observer who is completely over the election at this point, Comey's letter looks like a simple ass-covering move so the FBI doesn't get accused of ignoring evidence. But to Democrats and the Clinton camp and some others, that short letter is a full-on assault on the democratic republic and the sanctity of this election.
(...)
Ah, loudly attacking the character of somebody whose behavior may present a threat to Clinton's power. That sounds familiar. This entire reaction should seem like déjà vu to anybody who lived through President Bill Clinton-era scandals. Back in the April 2000 issue of Reason magazine, as Bill Clinton's presidency approached its end, Charles Paul Freund explained the five-step process by which the Clintons managed out outlast every scandal that came their way during that presidency. Read Freund's piece and elements of it are eerily familiar. (declaring that the latest information is "old news"? It's old news.) Note in Freund's a peek at Comey's possible fate:
This White House has responded to every major problem by introducing the character of its critics or opponents–and even its own victims–at the first opportunity, impugning those characters, and questioning motives. To the degree that it could, using allies in Congress and the press or acting directly, it has turned scandal narratives into character melodramas.
The major example of this reflex was the regular slandering of Kenneth Starr as a sex-obsessed maniac. But Starr had plenty of company; Clinton and his allies have tried to smear everybody whom they perceive as a threat. Gennifer Flowers was characterized as a gold-digging slut. Monica Lewinsky was characterized as a nutty stalker. Billy Dale of the White House Travel Office was falsely characterized as personally dishonest. Linda Tripp, thanks to a New Yorkerstory, was falsely characterized as a felon. Kathleen Willey was characterized as a delusional liar. Paula Jones was infamously characterized as trailer-park trash. UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who questioned the administration's resolve to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was characterized as a petty man jealous of his superiors' limousine perks. House Republicans were characterized as sexual McCarthyites attempting a political coup. Of course, the entire community of Clinton critics was notoriously characterized by Hillary Rodham Clinton herself as "a vast right-wing conspiracy."
This is actually the centerpiece of the Clinton strategy of clogging Washington's scandal machinery: Blunt every threatening story by infusing it with self-serving elements that subsequent press coverage will necessarily include. Hillary's accusation of conspiracy, made in the course of an NBC "interview" conducted by a supine Matt Lauer, was both desperate and ludicrous, and it is likely that almost everyone in the press (and in the White House, too) saw it in just those terms. Yet in the wake of Hillary's NBC appearance, most news-related talk shows devoted at least some time to absurd exchanges around the topic, "Is there a vast right-wing conspiracy?" At a minimum, Hillary's statement bought time; at best, it introduced an explanation for her husband's problems, one consistent with the rest of the Clinton scandal narrative: That he is the innocent victim, year in and year out, of dreadful people with evil motives and low characters.
Indeed, a good part of the discussion is now about Comey's motives, not about the information itself. This, folks, is a very good preview of the kind of administration Clinton will have. Under President Barack Obama we endured condescending lectures to justify the administration's massive expansion of executive and regulatory authority. Under President Hillary Clinton, we may endure condescending lectures telling us why we shouldn't care about whatever stonewalling and her staff may do to keep Americans out of the loop about her behavior.
It appears that in presidential candidates being corrupt is preferred over being politically incorrect.
I prefer the candidate who can drink the most blood of innocents during a Black Mass, but maybe that's just me.
haresfur wrote:
In an Op-Ed in the New York Times, Richard Painter, George W. Bush’s White House ethics lawyer from 2005 – 2007, wrote about his problems with the FBI’s latest investigation of Hillary Clinton and, most surprisingly, he’s taking legal action to stop it. According to Painter, it’s an abuse of power.
I admire Comey's desire to act with integrity and I don't doubt that he felt he was doing so but in actuality he seems to be channeling J. Edgar Hoover's abuses of the role of FBI director.
The heart of that op-ed by Painter:
But an official doesn’t need to have a specific intent — or desire — to influence an election to be in violation of the Hatch Act or government ethics rules. The rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is no other good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election.
Absent extraordinary circumstances that might justify it, a public communication about a pending F.B.I. investigation involving a candidate that is made on the eve of an election is thus very likely to be a violation of the Hatch Act and a misuse of an official position. Serious questions also arise under lawyers’ professional conduct rules that require prosecutors to avoid excessive publicity and unnecessary statements that could cause public condemnation even of people who have been accused of a crime, not to mention people like Mrs. Clinton, who have never been charged with a crime.
Painter has forgotten more about the Hatch Act than I'll ever know about it, but I wonder whether anyone investigating Comey would be able to prove that he acted "under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election."
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Comey was a US attorney for New York and then US Deputy Attorney General (the #2 position at Dept. of Justice), so I imagine he was at least familiar with the outline of the Hatch Act. His handling of releasing information about Weiner's computer and Clinton emails is very puzzling. He was strongly warned by senior officials at DOJ that sending a letter to Congress would break with longstanding policy of not interfering in elections. He didn't even know anything about the contents of the emails when he sent the letter. It's also puzzling that the FBI agents handling the Weiner investigation knew of these emails on Weiner's computer for weeks but didn't inform Comey of the emails until quite recently.
In an Op-Ed in the New York Times, Richard Painter, George W. Bush’s White House ethics lawyer from 2005 – 2007, wrote about his problems with the FBI’s latest investigation of Hillary Clinton and, most surprisingly, he’s taking legal action to stop it. According to Painter, it’s an abuse of power.
I admire Comey's desire to act with integrity and I don't doubt that he felt he was doing so but in actuality he seems to be channeling J. Edgar Hoover's abuses of the role of FBI director.
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
Oct 30, 2016 - 9:57am
earthbased wrote:
Wait for Monday's Wikileak's bomb drop. LOL...finally the corrupt Clintons taken down???
If that happens, we get the "benefit" of President Trump. The walking, talking, human vulgarity. A man with no definable moral compass, nor discernible, or laudable, core principles? The candidate with no experience with responsibility anywhere near the level of President. Worse, a man who has shown little desire, or capability for that matter, to learn.
This is you LOL moment?
Be careful what you wish for. Want change? Trump is the change that happens when you drive off a cliff...with a thousand foot drop. HRC is a very flawed candidate, but she will not tear up the fabric of our society nor alienate much of the rest of the world. She has a core-competency to be President that makes her, imo, the only viable alternative available this election cycle.
It's a piss-poor strategy, at this point, to vilify Hillary. She's mostly likely going to be the President, but will be going in with such manufactured Two Minutes Hate that it will - big picture - be very bad for the nation.
Folks who started this crap, just for the sake of partisanship or ratings, are culpable in the destruction of America. Much more than she ever will be.
Note that I'm not saying she gets a pass on things she does wrong. It's the hatred that's being fed to the folks who want Trump. Go ahead and want someone else besides Hillary (I do) but if she's going to run the country anyway, don't set us up for failure or the inability to compromise and work together once she's in the office. It's just short sighted.
There is definitely a group of politicians and pundits who've found professional success and profit through demonization. Tarring an opponent marshals your supporters and gives them a sense that they are righteous victims of corruption, malfeasance and even treason. Unfortunately, these claims against a political opponent now frame most discussions of policy and party motivations, so much so that they choke off reasonable debate.
Haters of Trump and Clinton are quick to assert that their policy proposals are only attempts to line their own pockets and pay off cronies. Obama supposedly is a Muslim or a socialist trying to destroy America. GW Bush and Cheney supposedly had an agenda of American domination in the Middle East. Bill Clinton and Poppy Bush had their own portraits of evil.
Americans don't read or discuss much about policy when choosing a President. They go with their gut and flock to the preachers of outraged anger. Unfortunately, less responsible news networks, politicians and pundits have made SCANDAL the new normal. Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah is already saying that there's two years of material on Hillary worth investigating . I don't have much hope for inter-party cooperation. I don't know if the GOP can pull itself together enough to put out coherent policy messages or forge agreements with HRC.
It's a piss-poor strategy, at this point, to vilify Hillary. She's mostly likely going to be the President, but will be going in with such manufactured Two Minutes Hate that it will - big picture - be very bad for the nation.
Folks who started this crap, just for the sake of partisanship or ratings, are culpable in the destruction of America. Much more than she ever will be.
Note that I'm not saying she gets a pass on things she does wrong. It's the hatred that's being fed to the folks who want Trump. Go ahead and want someone else besides Hillary (I do) but if she's going to run the country anyway, don't set us up for failure or the inability to compromise and work together once she's in the office. It's just short sighted.
Thinking about this incident, I think he acted improperly and shot himself in the foot doing so. He should have notified his boss and let her make the call. Yes, his boss is the Attorney-General and the Republicans would have been really pissed off. But notification is a political issue, not a law enforcement one. It's called chain of command and he made a mistake in flaunting it.
