Comey Gets a Warrant, But it Costs Him His Reputation

"If you got a warrant, I guess you got to come in"

A law enforcement source tells the AP the FBI now has a warrant for Huma Abedin's emails on a computer seized in her husband's sexting investigation.

There are differing accounts in every major news publication about why the FBI wants to look at Huma's emails. None are reliable, all are anonymous leaks.

What is clear is that FBI director James Comey has torpedoed his legacy and the reputation of the F.B.I. See this article by former Deputy Attorney Generals Jamie Gorelick (under Clinton) and Larry Thompson (under Bush) opining Comey has damaged our democracy:[More...]

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

...First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions.

They conclude:

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

Eric Holder and dozens of prosecutors have also written a letter blasting Comey. Two ethics complaints have been filed. The person who filed one of them has this oped in the NY Times on his decision to file it.

Weiner's computer was reportedly seized a while ago, and there are unconfirmed reports FBI agents have known for weeks that it contained some of Huma's emails. Comey says he was only told Thursday. I assume there is no federal grand jury investigating Weiner because otherwise someone would point out Comey should be in deep doo-doo for violating grand jury secrecy rules by discussing any evidence seized in the Weiner investigation. (That's not to say a Weiner Indictment isn't imminent -- if it is, maybe Comey believed details about Huma's emails on a computer seized in the Weiner investigation were going to be leaked before the election, so he decided to get in front of it to save his reputation.)

Search warrants for computers aren't authorized for everything on the computer, only for things that might constitute evidence of the crime under investigation. The Weiner investigation was for an alleged child sexting incident in 2016. While it's possible the affidavit for the first warrant asked to search for information on his 2011 and 2013 alleged sexting incidents as well the 2016 incident, to establish a pattern or modus operandi, I can't see how the warrant for Weiner's computer would have authorized a search of his wife's work-related emails.

Assuming the date and header details of Huma's emails were "in plain view" when forensic analysts were examining the Weiner computer, I think any seasoned FBI agent or state law enforcement officer would have stopped and sought advice of his superiors or the prosecutor before opening the emails. Any ethical prosecutor would have told them they need to apply for a second warrant before (admitting to) reading them.

It seems the new search warrant was obtained in the Southern District of New York, which reportedly has taken control of the Weiner case over the Western District of North Carolina and the local New York authorities. The Western District of North Carolina (where the 15 year old whom Weiner sexted with resides) at one point confirmed it had launched an investigation. There are reports it has since yielded to the Southern District of New York.

Also of note: In the Clinton email probe, the Eastern District of Virginia was the only federal District to have a prosecutor present during Huma Abedin's FBI debriefing -- see the FBI's 302 report of her interview.

Huma testified in her Judicial Watch deposition that she gave two of her laptops and a Blackberry to her lawyers who searched for and turned over relevant emails to the State Department, which was conducting a review of whether all work-related emails from Hillary's SOS days had been returned to the State Department.

The investigation of Hillary's emails on her private server pertains to the time she served as Secretary of State. She left in 2012. Any emails sent or received after Hillary left office would have no relevance to the investigation of Hillary's use of a private server or email chains discussing possible classified matter while Secretary of State. (Comey testified no classified documents were downloaded from anywhere -- the whole investigation is about whether there was a discussion of classified material among a chain of people.)

The timeline is curious. For Huma's emails from SOS days to be on Weiner's computer, he has to have had the computer since 2012 or earlier. Was this laptop no longer in use and stashed in a closet in the apartment? Who uses a 4 year old laptop? Yes, I know Donald Trump's doctor still uses Windows XP but that has to be an unusual case. I doubt very many people whose jobs are as highly computer-dependent as those who work as a chief logistical aide to a cabinet member or for a national political campaign or who are themselves running for a prominent elected office are using 4 year old laptops. It's not like Weiner or Huma were electricians during the day and only got online at night to check their email or stream a video. Surely they would have a newer laptop. And if this was an old laptop not used for a few years, what relevance does it have to Weiner's 2016 sexting allegation?

Huma told the FBI (see the 11 page FBI 302 of her April, 2016 interview or the final 347 page FBI report) that until Hillary changed email systems after leaving the State Department, she (Huma) only accessed her email via a web portal -- she did not have Outlook or any means of downloading emails sent to and from Hillary's private server onto her own computer. After 2012, she couldn't access emails on the server at all.

Also, contrary to some news reports, Huma did tell the FBI that she also had an email account with her husband's campaign. From the FBI 302 of her interview:

ABEDIN provided that she was issued an official DoS email account, abedinh@state.gov, which she used for DoS related work. She also had an email account that was provided by CLINTON, huma@clintonemail.com, which she used for matters related to CLINTON's personal affairs and to communicate with CLINTON's personal staff and friends. ABEDIN also had a personal Yahoo email account. ABEDIN could access her clintonemail.com account and her Yahoo account via the internet on the unclassified DoS computer system. She would use these accounts if her DoS account was down or if she needed to print an email or document. ABEDIN further explained that it was difficult to print from the DoS system so she routinely forwarded emails to her non-DoS accounts so she could more easily print. ABEDIN also had another email account that she had previously used to support her husband's campaign activities.

If Huma opened an email that she sent to one of her private email accounts from Hillary's server email or her state department email, it would still be on the computer she used during those days, since she didn't delete them. But it's likely the FBI already has them, since her lawyers turned over all work related emails on her two laptops and Blackberry, and other Clinton aides did the same with their emails. And if the laptop was acquired after 2012, there shouldn't be any emails on it from Hillary's SOS days.

Of course, Huma was required to return all State Dept. emails to the State Dept., and if she didn't know that she had used Weiner's computer to open some, they might not have been returned. But that's not a crime, there's no intent, and it has nothing to do with Hillary. Hillary is not responsible for her aide's choice of computer to use when emailing her or printing documents.

In any event, Comey is a disgrace. He should resign. The only more disgraceful person is Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is delusional if he thinks he can win the Presidency because of James Comey's bizarre announcement. The net effect of Comey's actions (other than tarnishing the reputation of the FBI and Justice Department) will be to ensure that every Democrat, and every person who shudders at the thought of a Trump win, will take nothing for granted and turn out to vote on Nov. 8. With one ill-advised letter that was devoid of facts and seems to have been motivated by ego and self-aggrandizement, Comey has single-handedly erased complacency among voters.

< Reuters: Hillary Has 15 Point Lead Among Early Voters | Trump Campaign Manager: Emails are More Significant Than Child Rape Accusations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm just going to be an a$$hole and say (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:04:30 AM EST
    FBI directors don't get a legacy. Hoover displayed all the reasons why they don't get one. You get pass or fail upholding this nation's rule of law.

    I have the same belief about Generals though...no legacy. When power under the rule of law lies in your hands...no legacy. You are not a President, a Senator, as Congressperson. You administer the law. No legacy...you aren't vision, you are administration of the law.....pass or fail. Comey is at FAIL!

    Jeralyn, drawing upon your own expertise ... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:22:37 AM EST
    ... as a defense counsel, how would you assess the FBI's original "discovery" of Huma Abedin's email accounts on her now-estranged husband Anthony Weiner's laptop, while agents were investigating the entirely unrelated matter of Weiner's alleged sexting of a 15-year-old girl?

    Given that the Dept. of Justice has already determined that no crime had been committed in the original server case, and further that Abedin is not considered a person of interest in Weiner's case, how does the FBI's apparent perusing of Abedin's email accounts without her permission NOT constitute a gross violation of her 4th Amendment rights? How is this NOT a fishing expedition?

    And Peter G, if you're lurking about, please feel free to weigh in with your take and enlighten me. This whole sorry matter has been much ado about nothing from the outset, and the motivations of Mrs. Clinton's pursuers are entirely political in nature. I just don't understand how the courts can allow the FBI to ride roughshod over Abedin's rights, simply because of her professional relationship with the Clintons.

    In answer to your question, "Who uses a 4-year-old laptop?", I have an HP Pavilion dv7-3165 Notebook that I use at home, which I bought in Dec. 2009, and it runs like a champ. If you maintain your computers properly, there's no reason why they can't last a long time. I've upgraded its operating platform to Windows 10 from Windows 7, and it works fine. It's just not touchscreen compatible, and so will likely be obsolete in a few years. I've since purchased new computers this year for my firm to keep up with the evolving technology.


    I put this in my post (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:12:07 AM EST
    that I think answers your question

    Search warrants for computers aren't authorized for everything on the computer, only for things that might constitute evidence of the crime under investigation. The Weiner investigation was for an alleged child sexting incident in 2016. While it's possible the affidavit for the first warrant asked to search for information on his 2011 and 2013 alleged sexting incidents as well the 2016 incident, to establish a pattern or modus operandi, I can't see how the warrant for Weiner's computer would have authorized a search of his wife's work-related emails.

    Assuming the date and header details of Huma's emails were "in plain view" when forensic analysts were examining the Weiner computer, I think any seasoned FBI agent or state law enforcement officer would have stopped and sought advice of his superiors or the prosecutor before opening the emails. Any ethical prosecutor would have told them they need to apply for a second warrant before (admitting to) reading them.

    In other words, if you don't limit what you are seeking on the computer to evidence related to the suspected crime under investigation, it becomes a general exploratory warrant in violation of the particularity clause of the 4th Amendment.

    The particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment "prevents a 'general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings." ' As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.  The particularity requirement "'ensures that a search is confined in scope to particularly described evidence relating to a specific crime for which there is demonstrated probable cause.'"

    Search warrants are governed by the 4th Amendment. The  Stored Communications Act applies to requests from third party internet service providers (ISPs), not a physical search of someone's computer.


    Whose Fourth Amendment Rights? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Michael Masinter on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    Depending on who owned the computer(s) in question, wouldn't the fourth amendment rights and standing to raise them belong to Huma and her execrable husband, but not to Secretary Clinton? Without defending for a moment the conduct of the FBI generally or Comey in particular, it doesn't seem as though Secretary Clinton can claim a fourth amendment violation even if the FBI ran roughshod over it.

    Who mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 02:31:08 AM EST
    Hillary's 4th Amendment rights in the Weiner computer? She would have no standing as you point out. By all accounts I've seen, the computer belongs to one or both of the Weiners. That's whose 4th Amendment rights I've been talking about.

    Thank you for further explaining that point. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:46:17 AM EST
    It makes much more sense now. I'm still at a loss as to why this particular FBI inquiry is valid, given that they already had access to Huma Abedin's email accounts. This brings back very unpleasant memories of Ken Starr and the GOP's Whitewater snipe hunts of the 1990s. It's become a persecution.

    They are looking (none / 0) (#7)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 04:44:33 AM EST
    For the Bleach Bit e mails

    The ones deleted by the firm storing Madame Sec's hard drive.

    If Abedin never deleted anything, some of them may actually be retained on this hard drive.


    Hmm, so personal (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:57:07 AM EST
    email. More crotch sniffing by the GOP but in reality even bleach bit doesn't take all the emails off the server. There's nothing that takes the emails off the server.

    However the GOP has lied about so much stuff we don't know.

    This does show how bad apparently the numbers are for the GOP since you must really have to be in dire straits to blatantly attempt to interfere in an election the way the GOP is.


    Some relevant Clinton-server emails (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 08:37:56 AM EST
    were found in other places, is my recollection I believe the FBI concluded that those other emails were not deleted or not produced by Clinton or Clinton advisors to avoid providing them in the investigation.

    Thus, looking at another source of old emails could locate some of the lost emails. It could also reveal some emails that Huma's attorneys decided did not have to be produced.


    There was only (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 08:56:45 AM EST
    one server. Huma's attorney's erred on the side of caution giving more emails than were necessary as well as Hillary did the same. Some of Hillary's emails were even returned to her. So much misinformation being put out there by the GOP for their weak minded supporters.

    Most amazing thing is this is Richard Nixon level of corruption by the FBI. It's kind of ironic that the GOP has been throwing that at Clinton while the truth is the ones operating like Nixon are his fellow travelers in the GOP. The GOP's hero Roger Stone even has a full Nixon tattoo on his back.


    Sigh....assumptions abound (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 08:47:56 AM EST
    You do not work for the FBI, so you're hardly privy to their discussions or their methodology. We don't need you to update us on whatever latest nonsense you read on Drudge or Breitbart, or heard from the phony-baloneys on squawk radio shows like "Savage Nation." They don't know any more than you do.

    Lol (3.00 / 2) (#69)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:40:17 PM EST
    You are too childish and petulant.
    This is not rocket science, and also a field which I practiced.
    If they are looking at e mails on Abedins laptop, that might have any reference to the Clinton e mail investigation...Well
    They are looking for ones that they do not have,
    Ergo, the deleted ones.
    Since the e mails were deleted off the server in April 2015 using Bleach Bit.
    Since Abedin appears not to have deleted e mails, any e mails she forwarded to her other addresses and captured and stored in the hard drive of the laptop might still exist, even after the Bleach bit of the server.
    Normal investigate practice would require that they review all of them to try and discover any new mails.

    Once again, you are ascribing ... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:33:17 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "This is not rocket science, and also a field which I practiced. If they are looking at e mails on Abedins laptop, that might have any reference to the Clinton e mail investigation...Well They are looking for ones that they do not have, Ergo, the deleted ones. Since Abedin appears not to have deleted e mails, any e mails she forwarded to her other addresses and captured and stored in the hard drive of the laptop might still exist, even after the Bleach bit of the server. Normal investigate practice would require that they review all of them to try and discover any new mails. Simple"

    ... an ulterior motive to an act in which you were most definitely not a party, and then given that rather dubios basis, are presuming malice aforethought on the part of its actors. Yet for months now on this particular matter, you've repeatedly provided no evidence whatsoever to support your specious allegations of felonious wrongdoing on the part of Mrs. Clinton and her immediate staff at the State Department.

    Speaking for myself only, in theory your behavior here mirrors that of the vindictive House of Bourbon, the former French royal family whose surviving but hapless members in the wake of the Revolution were rightly disparaged by Lord Talleyrand as having learned nothing and forgotten nothing from the experience.

    And in practice, while others may envision you as a latter-day Inspector Javert, boldly determined in your quest to uncover wrongdoing (and heedless of any actual evidence proving otherwise), I see only Jacques Clouseau from The Pink Panther movies.

    Have a nice day, sir.


    "childish and petulant?" (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:43:50 PM EST
    Can the insults.

    So you know because...well, logic and your experience....Sorry, not good enough.  Not real facts, just your opinion unsupported by actual facts.


    In your inimitable expertise (none / 0) (#77)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    What else would they be looking for???

    If it pertains to the Hillary e mail investigation?

    More e mails.  And now another opportunity to find what was previously beyond your reach, due to Bleach Bit of the server.

    Again, not rocket science here

    But if those deleted e mails were yoga routines and wedding plans, then there is nothing to worry about


    I am not the one (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    trotting out my c.v.

    Nothing to worry about?  Throwing an election when there is really nothing new is nothing to worry about?  

    I do assume there will be nothing new.  "Logic" would dictate that.  Even finding more classified emails would not change the analysis.

    But what remedy is there for the rumor and innuendo casting a pall over this election?  None.  Dirty trick realized.  Thanks, Comey.

    There is a reason for the rule against public comments on the status of an FBI investigation. In an ironic twist, it is Comey--not Hillary--that thinks he is above the law and personally knows best.

    He needs to resign for violating DOJ policy and inserting himself into this election.    


    That is exactly (none / 0) (#88)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:18:28 PM EST
    The rock and hard place Comey is in.

    If you are correct, and there are no new e mails, or any new ones found  are harmless, the fact that Comey announced that they found more e mails to examine may tank the election for Trump?

    Or, in the upcoming review of Abedins laptop, they find a new previously deleted e mail, that is very serious. And then they proceed a case against the new sitting President. And people would say that Comey had information prior to the election that should have been made known to the public.

    Comey loses in both cases.


    Comey has no information (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    now.  None.  The FBI has not read the emails. But he just announced something that could change the outcome of the election.  

    And, no rock and hard place.  How hard is this?  Just follow DOJ policy and keep your mouth shut.  Instead we get announcement of incomplete information.  Worst possible result.


    Comey was just (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:27:40 PM EST
    doing CYA for his GOP friends.  Not serving the country as a whole.

    Caught in a double standard (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:38:19 PM EST
    See a report in the last hour or so that Comey has in fact, followed a double standard, knowingly declining to sign onto disclosure of Russian involvement in political hacking of the DNC etc. because it would be politically hot so close to the election.  See top headline at Huffpo.

    Even more explosive report (none / 0) (#172)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 08:05:31 PM EST
    by David Corn, Mom Jones

    back to school for me......


    A different take (none / 0) (#94)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    From Page Pate is a criminal defense and constitutional lawyer based in Atlanta. He is an adjunct professor of law at the University of Georgia, a founding member of the Georgia Innocence Project, a former board member of the Federal Defender Program in Atlanta, and former chairman of the criminal law section of the Atlanta Bar Association.



    Comey is not (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    responsible for his own actions. Oookay.

    If you read the article (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    Comeys actions were all precipitated by those of Madame Sec and her staff

    If she came out in front of this investigation, and actually assisted instead of stonewalled, if all evidence was given to the investigators  from the get go, this would be far in the rear view mirror by now.

    But the criminal defense lawyer expounds on it far more  eloquently than I


    The Comey (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    apologia apparently has no bounds. He could have followed the rules but twice he did not. So Hillary made Comey do everything he did. He has no control over himself nor does he thinks the rules apply to him. Hillary is just magical and made him do all that. Do you realize how freaking bizarre you sound? That's just as bizarre as Comey saying the right wing radicals in the FBI made him do it. Sheesh.

    But hey, Trevor even your own party is all over Comey but I guess Hillary made them do that too.


    I don't know whether Comey was right (none / 0) (#100)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:07:24 PM EST
    or wrong--back in July or no2--and have not commented on his actions or decisions.

    However, I will say that I know a lot of Repubs and have read some stuff that would indicate that they think the decision of the FBI/Comey not to pursue Hillary was pretty close to a threat to the democracy. They also think the DOJ higher-ups discouraged and hindered the FBI from conducting the investigation as it should have been conducted.

    I had read a lot of good things about Comey, and had trust in decision/announcement in July. However, I admit that as more things have come out regarding the investigation since then, it has caused me to wonder what was actually going on. Seems like some odd decisions were made.


    There is (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:13:39 PM EST
    a big problem in the FBI and you are seeing it play out right in front of you now. There is a faction of right wing Republicans in the FBI appointed by Bush that are extreme radicals. This is not the only problem in the FBI. Yes, the radicals have been whining to the right wing press that they didn't get what they want while other FBI agents have said it was the right thing to do.

    Do you even realize that if they charged Hillary on something that nobody has ever been charged with before that they would have to charge Colin Powell, many people in the state department, aides to Condi Rice and probably many more people I don't even know of. There was a structural problem at state that went on for years and under many SOS and instead of reading people who are telling you what you want to hear the entire FBI report is online. It makes all this pretty clear. Comey in trying to appease people like you who will never be happy until all the political opponents are put in jail sadly destroyed his agency and himself. You simply cannot appease radicals who think we live in some sort of dictatorship.


    FBI Agents (none / 0) (#105)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    Are not appointed.


    would have to charge Colin Powell,

    aides to Condi Rice and probably many more

    Colin Powell conducted (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:34:07 PM EST
    email using a yahoo account. He even instructed Hillary to attempt to avoid using State Department system. All of these people have retroactively classified information too. Thanks for proving to me you have zero understanding of how or what this all is if you don't even understand all that.

    George W. Bush made a point of having his head of the FBI at the time hire radical evangelicals. They don't have to be appointed Trevor.


    Hillary is the only Sec of St, or high public (none / 0) (#151)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:10:57 PM EST
    official, to set up her own server. Therein lies the problem. Using g-mail on occasion isn't the problem. But for the private server, the email thing would never have gotten big.

    Also, charging one person doesn't mean you have to charge others. They are separate things.


    No, it's the same (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:21:25 PM EST
    using Gmail despite what Republicans might like to think. The private server is not the issue. She used the same server her entire time in the senate and no one said one thing. Colin Powell did all his work related email on a Yahoo account. It was not occasional and he would have the same problem with retroactively classified information as it would be the same as if they were on unsecured state department email systems.

    You cannot say it was wrong for Hillary to do it and then say it's okay for Colin Powell to do it or anybody else. I know Republicans think Hillary is beneath the law and they also think they don't need evidence proven by their squeals to "lock her up". But I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you are completely wrong here.

    Please continue to advocate for Putin taking over our country since Comey is holding back all that information since "it's too close to an election". I'm having none of it.


    Not true Green (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:22:20 PM EST
    Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice all used independent servers,  according to ABC News,

    Nope, not true (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:50:36 PM EST
    See PBS article.

    Albright and Rice didn't use email at all. Note the "at all".

    Powell used a personal email account. There aren't records of emails he sent to people outside of the gov account, although he said he did conduct some business with leaders on his private account. Assume that there isn't record of any classified information. Seem to recall a couple emails from his secretary.

    The rules for using private email and preserving emails were much different and looser in Powell's day.

    Nothing comparable and nothing to prosecute.

    You are just making up stuff.


    Your information is around (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 07:05:58 PM EST
    six months old.

    Fish is right about the ABC News Report. other SOS handled classified emails on private accounts

    Again you can't handle the truth. Please quit getting all your information from Breitbart and the alt-right.


    GA6, my article is several months later (none / 0) (#186)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:58:48 PM EST
    than your article. So your article is out of date, not mine. Even your article doesn't say that Rice sent anything classified. She didn't even use emails during her term. Powell disputed that he had sent anything classified, said it wasn't classified (and recall that he was the SofS, so he gets to decide). And the State report involved only a couple emails, not 100's.

    You are cited this old and incorrect article previously, and I have pointed out the mistakes and problems.

    You are not being honest.


    You are willfully (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 05:38:19 AM EST
    being ignorant on this. Condi's information was retroactively classified much as Hillary's was. It's not even about it being sent as the fact that it was classified and retroactively at that. So what if Powell disputed he sent anything classified? He didn't turn his email in. The Bush Administration put everything on secret servers that they later destroyed. Republicans never seemed to mind that. You guys are just being shown to the American people thankfully what a bunch of panty sniffing creeps you really are. You have shown that Republicans are always excused no matter if their lies kill thousands of people like Bush's did.

    Please proceed with your concern trolling for Putin and the alt-right. You can continue to attempt to lie and character assassinate Hillary all you want. After all the GOP has been doing it for a good 25 years. You guys creep me out. You can't represent all Americans. Trump has a secret server that goes directly to Russia but you fools are more concerned with retroactively classified emails that were handed in. Russia even has admitted that they are attempting to interfere in an election and your guys refuse to even look into it because you're email.


    Excellent (none / 0) (#174)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 09:40:03 PM EST
    The rules for using private email and preserving emails were much different and looser in Powell's day.

    Nothing comparable and nothing to prosecute

    So you think you know the "rules"?  Excellent!  Now tell us what rule/statute was in effect during Hillary Clinton's term that wasn't in effect during Powell's term and how she violated it.  Also, specify whether you're refering to a State Department policy or a criminal statute.  Be specific, because this will be fun ...


    I will try to have my response done by (none / 0) (#187)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:14:16 PM EST
    mid-day tomorrow.

    So you need time to find out? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 07:53:19 AM EST
    You're making these claims about "the rules" and you don't even know?!?



    Changing rules (none / 0) (#200)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:21:14 AM EST
    The IG report noted that Powell's office as of May had not responded to the State Department's request -- not that Powell "still has not responded to the IG," as Schiff said.
    Clinton and her allies frequently compare Clinton's use of personal email to Powell's use. But the IG report was pointed in drawing key differences between Clinton and past secretaries. It said the rules governing personal email and the use of nongovernment systems were "considerably more detailed and more sophisticated" during Clinton's time in office.
    "Secretary Clinton's cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives," the report said.

    Not independent servers set up by themsleves (none / 0) (#155)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:38:36 PM EST
    to my knowledge. Feel free to provide the link if I'm not correct.

    There is no (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:40:40 PM EST
    difference when it comes to retroactively classified information. You are going to have to accept the truth. There is nothing there. There was nothing unusual. But I'm guessing you can't handle the truth.

    I haven't said there is something there (none / 0) (#161)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:53:42 PM EST
    It will be interesting to learn what, if anything, is new on the Weiner's computer.

    It's not just classified information. It's whether Huma complied with the laws/regs to preserve records and whether he certification on turning everything over to State and the investigation were accurate.

    You are the one who can't handle the truth. Without seeing anything, you declare everything okay for Hillary and Huma. How could you, of all people, know that?

    You are just a partisan. I, for one, don't believe anything you say on this site.


    Whatever it is (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 07:01:48 PM EST
    it has nothing to do with Hillary. This is about Huma. She probably emailed Weiner from work.

    Nope, I can completely handle the truth. I have been dealing with the truth the entire time. You are the one who has been concern trolling this issue for months with baseless fact free speculation despite despite all of us here trying to tell you the truth.

    It was just revealed that Trump installed a secret server that went directly to Russia. The FBI has been withholding this information due to an upcoming election. But you see this is why so many people have such a low opinion of Republicans. You guys always accuse everybody else of what you are doing yourselves and blame everybody else for your own problems.

    So if there's a server problem it belongs to the Republicans not Democrats.


    BS (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 07:00:27 PM EST
    This was never about the private server, even if these "classified" emails were only on .gov servers(where they originated), the FBI was mandated to act. It is common and decidely not illegal to access the mails over multiple devices and to forward them to other accounts, that's exactly why(even without hacking) classified info on email is verboten.

    The FOIA would apply to Hillary's email no matter which server they came from, the same vetting procedures would take place, the same investigation would have taken place and the same conclusion would have been reached.

    The whole private server thing is a red herring pertaining to the actual investigative aims.


    GWB43.COM (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by KD on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 07:18:18 PM EST
    Numerous members of the Bush administration used private servers, namely the RNC server under the domain GWB43.com and another server registered to Bush-Cheney 04, Inc. When Congress investigated the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, it was discovered that as many as 22 million emails may have been erased or destroyed. That's what makes this relentless pursuit of the Hillary Clinton emails across all tangential computers so aggravating!

    Yes and no outrage (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 07:20:00 PM EST
    from the Republicans and it was in the middle of a criminal investigation by a special prosecutor but Hillary did virtually the same thing other SOS did.

    the NSA refused (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ding7777 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    to give Clinton a device similar to the one used by Obama: a modified BlackBerry 8830 World Edition with additional cryptography installed

    any/all commercial servers were a security risk so she choose to continue to use her private server

    imo, all the wailing about the private server is overblown malarky


    Comey is pursuing (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:33:25 PM EST
    his own agenda of inoculating himself against GOP criticism.

    He knowingly violated DOJ policy in making public statements about the status of an FBI investigation.   He thus thinks the rules do not apply to him.  Isn't that what the GOP says about Hillary?  


    I also know a lot of Repubs (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    ... who believe all kinds of ridiculous,  tinfoil conspiracy theories, despite a complete lack of evidence or facts to support them.  

    Is that supposed to mean something?


    The article (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    makes no sense.  The FBI should not and generally does not publicly comment on the status of the investigation as to anyone.  Anyone.  Not an exception for Hillary, as the GOP wants.

    What serious email do you expect to find? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 09:30:12 PM EST
    The Benghazi stand down order? A confession that she did kill Vince Foster?  

    Seriously, she has been investigated for more than 25 years and the investigations always turn up nothing,  it could be she didn't do anything illegal, immoral or fattening.  

    Have you ever considered that possibility Captain Arab?


    At this point, they're on a snipe hunt. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    As are you, as well. And that's the very last I'll say to you, regarding this appallingly ridiculous and grossly overblown matter.



    You do not know that (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    But this must be what they are saying at Breitbart.

    A 4 year old laptop isn't that old... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lokkju on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:06:49 AM EST
    I don't think it really matters to your overall argument, but your assumption about laptops is a bit farfetched.  Sure, some four year old laptops may be significantly outdated - but, for instance, a 2012 15" Retina Macbook Pro has almost exactly the same specs as one you could buy today.  While operating systems have changed quite a bit, and the low end systems have gotten the significantly better, the upper end of the market has barely changed at all.  Any mid-range or better laptop from 2012 can easily run the newest operating systems.

    I do software development and GPU programming professionally; I've found no reason to upgrade my 2012 Macbook because the new systems aren't much better hardware wise, and I'm an extreme user.  Someone who uses their computer for email and web browsing would notice any difference much less than I.

    Apple stops manufacturing (none / 0) (#9)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 07:06:41 AM EST
    replacement parts for computers that are more than nine years old.

    There is (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:28:07 AM EST
    the after market manufacturing  and Ebay for parts from disassembled devices.

    I know there are people (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    who feel they don't need to keep up with the latest technology. I just would have expected the Weiners, due to how much of their work was done online, would want new gizmos. Apparently not. MACs do seem to have a longer shelf life than PCs.  

    Thanks for your comment, I always enjoy reading about tech things from people who do tech stuff for a living.


    It took overnight for the news to reflect (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 08:54:04 AM EST
    What Comey had done wrong. The Why for his apologists comes down to fear of the Republicans in Congress. So what Republicans began doing under the Clinton administration, generating investigations hoping to create a usable scandal, has now evolved into the FBI threatening the democracy and violating the Hatch Act.

    That's the crux of the (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 08:59:39 AM EST
    problem with the GOP in general. They are terrified of their own base. If these people are too afraid of their own voters they have no business running the country. How on earth are they going to fight terrorism or any other problem there is when they cower in fear of their own home grown terrorists?

    The Republican base was not always this crazy (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 09:38:16 AM EST
    In my lifetime. Something went round the bend in the Newt years and it has only gotten worse.

    I think a big party of it ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 09:51:30 AM EST
    ... was their creation of an alternate reality and promotion of conspiracy theories via talk radio,  the internet and Faux News.  Not to mention the accompanying demonization of actual news/media and government as the source of all their problems.

    Pretty much. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    I saw it explained as the fact that in 1980 with Reagan they thought they were going to have the government forever. Bill Clinton ended that 12 years later. They are forever resentful of that fact. Hence the rise of Newt and the politics of nothing but resentment 24/7 and yes, it has just gotten worse every year since then. Newt sent the GOP on the path to destruction when he started screaming conspiracy theories. So now we've got a party that is based on nothing but hatred and conspiracy theories.

    Threatening the democracy? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:58:59 AM EST
    I saw the WaPost op-ed. Those two are drama queens. Trump might threaten the democracy, but the FBI director's doesn't, or even come close, in my view.

    The real question, in my mind, is how could Huma have "forgotten" or not know that she sent apparently a thousand or more emails possibly pertinent to the Clinton/State email investigation to her email on her husband's computer, which they apparently shared? She had said that she sent emails to other places, so she could print them. Maybe there will be an explanation. Can't wait to here the explanation, if there is one.

    I have already voted for Clinton, but it concerns me that HIllary appears to be surrounded by some people who started working for her when they were so young, that they have grown up around the Clinton's view of honesty.


    As I pointed out above (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    Law professor and Bush administration ethics counsel disagrees with you and has filed a complaint. Not just bathered, wrote it up and filed it!

    An ethics violation is a lot different (none / 0) (#42)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    than threatening the democracy. They are millions of miles a part.

    No they aren't (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:35:23 AM EST
    My husband teaches military ethics. Ethics violations destroy institutions....

    What does Hubby say (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:53:28 AM EST
    about Trump's fondness for torture?

    Army guys I think would very much say stick to Field Manual interrogation/POW standards.


    That's a sensitive subject (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:06:08 PM EST
    At Rucker we just had some warrant officer post photos of SEER training on a public facebook page. Not everyone goes through that sort of training, and it's classified and I think people who go through it have to sign specific authorizations too.

    I don't get people sometimes. I guess a spouse saw the photos, sent them to her husband, the husband showed them to a Colonel who took his phone and was last seen running someplace with it.

    But preparing for capture is one thing. Torturing people gets you inaccurate information. It taints all of your intel, and it destroys everyone's soul.

    The destruction it does to your forces is impossible to calculate because it multiplies destruction of self exponentially. You have tainted information you are acting on now, and there's nothing you won't do to acquire more tainted intelligence.

    But we had some classified "spillage" and nobody went to jail or was charged, they just took it down. There was no intent to harm anyone.


    Ethics may destroy an institution (none / 0) (#95)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:42:24 PM EST
    but the FBI Director's letter is not going to destroy the democracy. Just a talking point, in my view.

    On the subject of ethics, how would you rate Clinton? Trump?

    Bad ethics in the presidency is not exactly good for the democracy, in my view.

    If people trusted Hillary, the FBI letter wouldn't have had as much of an impact, in my view.

    As I said, Trump may be a threat to the democracy. He has no respect for many important things, including the US Constitution.


    If (none / 0) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    In the extraordinary turn of events that The Donald actually becomes President, he will be impeached so fast , he will have a very short leash.
    Both establishment Republicans and Democrats will join together to impeach The Donald.

    No they (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 05:44:51 AM EST
    won't Trevor. Democrats might do it but Republicans never will. They can't even do the simple thing of unendorsing Donald. If they can't even take away their endorsement they are not going to impeach him. The entire GOP is terrified of Donald and his voters. I think you can see that has pretty well played out over this entire election season. The Republican establishment is a bunch of cowards.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:08:48 AM EST
    that's your view but you have to take into account everything the GOP has done over the last 25 years and you get a very clear idea of what is going on here. Maybe you could say taken by itself Comey's letter doesn't threaten anything though the majority of Americans would disagree with you.

    Either way judging by the GOP's reaction today it must have been very damaging to them.


    actually (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:44:10 PM EST
    neither is a drama queen. And one of them, Larry Thompson, the Republican, I know personally and i think quite highly of him. He's the furthest thing from a drama queen I can imagine and I can name 50 lawyers (Dems and Republicans) who know him and would say the same thing.

    Jamie Gorelick was Deputy AG  under Reno during the OKC bombing case. She was hardly a drama queen.


    The Hatch Act (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    he Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch, from engaging in some forms of political activity. The law was named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico. It was most recently amended in 2012.

    And who are those certain high level individuals?


    Who knows what you mean Jim but.... (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    University of Minnesota law professor and former Bush Administration White House ethics counsel Richard Painter filed an official ethics complaint with the Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel against the FBI Director for abusing his office with pernicious political activity.

    The FBI director's recent letter (none / 0) (#26)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    is not a violation of the Hatch Act and is not engaging in political activities, as I know you know. Just spin and drama.

    Ethics counsel for the Bush Administration (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:51:49 AM EST
    Disagrees with you

    He's a drama queen, in my view. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Green26 on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:07:01 AM EST
    Don't think an ethics counsel qualifies him to know anything more about the democracy than many of us know. He's an anti-Trump guys. A law professor. Probably look to raise his profile for a book or two. He should probably stick to ethics. He didn't even major in government, like I did. Ha.

    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:29:31 AM EST
    Being an ethics counsel at the highest level in government, MORE than qualifies  him to know about the Hatch Act - in fact, he would likely be an EXPERT.

    Not sure what ""qqualifies" someone in femocracy, but I do know a whole lotta  Trump supporters DON'T  understand what democracy is.


    I agree (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    I was just hoping some kind soul would save me some research.

    You "know" no such thing (none / 0) (#70)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:40:24 PM EST
    Your opinion on this matter is not a fact,  merely a lay opinion ... and a biased one,  at that.

    Former AG Eric Holder tears Comey a new one. (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    And all too politely, of course:

    "I began my career in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section 40 years ago, investigating cases of official corruption. In the years since, I have seen America's justice system firsthand from nearly every angle -- as a prosecutor, judge, attorney in private practice, and attorney general of the United States. I understand the gravity of the work our Justice Department performs every day to defend the security of our nation, protect the American people, uphold the rule of law and be fair.

    "That is why I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey's decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public, and political, interest. That decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. That guidance, which reinforced established policy, is still in effect and applies to the entire Justice Department -- including the FBI.

    "The department has a practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations. Indeed, except in exceptional circumstances, the department will not even acknowledge the existence of an investigation. The department also has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election Day that might influence an election's outcome. These rules have been followed during Republican and Democratic administrations. They aren't designed to help any particular individual or to serve any political interest. Instead, they are intended to ensure that every investigation proceeds fairly and judiciously; to maintain the public trust in the department's ability to do its job free of political influence; and to prevent investigations from unfairly or unintentionally casting public suspicion on public officials who have done nothing wrong.

    "Director Comey broke with these fundamental principles. I fear he has unintentionally and negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI. And he has allowed -- again without improper motive -- misinformation to be spread by partisans with less pure intentions. Already, we have learned that the importance of the discovery itself may have been overblown. According to the director himself, there is no indication yet that the "newly discovered" emails bear any significance at all. And yet, because of his decision to comment on this development before sufficient facts were known, the public has faced a torrent of conspiracy theories and misrepresentations."


    "I served with Jim Comey and I know him well. This is a very difficult piece for me to write. He is a man of integrity and honor. I respect him. But good men make mistakes. In this instance, he has committed a serious error with potentially severe implications. It is incumbent upon him -- or the leadership of the department -- to dispel the uncertainty he has created before Election Day. It is up to the director to correct his mistake -- not for the sake of a political candidate or campaign but in order to protect our system of justice and best serve the American people."

    (Emphasis is mine.)

    Comey needs to do far more than correct the public misimpressions which he himself has created. He needs to resign the office he has disgraced both by his actions last Friday in sending that letter to GOP congressional leaders, and by his now-deafening silence in the days since.

    So, I'll disagree with Mr. Holder in the following respect, in that Comey's behavior is hardly that of someone whom the former Attorney General describes as "a man of integrity and honor" who is deserving of our respect.

    Rather, it is entirely consistent with the inflated self-importance of a narcissistic little man who sought to inoculate himself from the criticism of his Republican brethren, by baldly abusing his position of authority to place his thumb on the political scales in the waning days of a contentious election campaign.

    And thus, the FBI director deliberately -- and in my personal opinion, maliciously -- impugned the integrity of the Democratic presidential nominee. Further, he did so with both a vaguely compromising insinuation and a precise timing that provided her campaign and political allies no real opportunity to defend her against the resultant public innuendo, and which left them with little or no recourse but to come after him personally.

    This was hardly an unforced error on James Comey's part. On the contrary, he knew exactly what he was doing here. It was a despicable decision fully worthy of the late J. Edgar Hoover's dubious legacy. And to Comey's infinite discredit, we are now much poorer for his choice to place party over country.


    Shakespeare would have put it simpler than Holder (none / 0) (#59)
    by Erehwon on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    For Comey is an honourable man;
    So are the GOP, all honourable men ...

    I'm not sure the Clinton campaign needs Eric (none / 0) (#60)
    by McBain on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:14:44 PM EST
    Holder to opine on this matter.  He's too controversial. I was reading the comments on the CBS article of this story and he wasn't doing well in the court of public opinion.

    From what I have seen (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:36:26 PM EST
    most legal scholars say Comey's violation of DOJ policy in going public was clearly wrong.

    In the legal realm, any decision to act ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    ... in the interest of fairness and justice should be based solely upon fact and truth, and not be predicated upon the fickle and often mercurial whims of other people's contemporaneous opinions.

    To do otherwise would be to forsake longstanding principle for the immediate expediency of the political moment -- which is exactly what James Comey did here.



    Wow ... some comments on the internet (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:35:49 PM EST
    ... are now "the court of public opinion.



    The radicals (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    in the FBI don't understand law, Trevor. You need to get that into your skull. A grand jury cannot be impaneled for a security review which is what the FBI was doing silly boy. It wasn't a criminal investigation despite the GOP repeatedly lying to you that it was.

    Y'all are the most pathetic and gullible people in the country it seems. You will believe any lie told to you by Republicans. That's why I say Donald Trump is the symptom but not the disease. You guys are just sick and like a virus us voters are going to have to put you down.

    The needle on the B/S meter (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    is pegged.

    President Obama defends Comey (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:27:08 PM EST
    White House defends James Comey amid scathing criticism over FBI director's reopening of Clinton probe so close to election

    Let's see... whose opinion has more weight: The President or a gaggle of bloggers?

    Not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    Earnest said no opinion on current public statement by Comey.

    BUT, he did say that he not think that Comey was intentionally trying to throw the election.

    Damning with feint praise; ring a bell?

    And not just us nobody bloggers, but a bi-partisan group of former DOJ officials....And Chairman of GOP Freedom Caucus, and former GOP Rep. Joe Walsh.


    Actually, that's false ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:53:53 PM EST
    The WHITE press secretary specifically said he was NOT defending Comey's actions.

    They said he's "honorable" (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    but the he screwed up big time.

    Okay, then. He's an honorable phuque-up. (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 05:00:07 PM EST
    If that's supposed to somehow reassure us hicks out here in the boonies and hinterlands, then I must respectfully disagree with the Right Honorable White House Press Secretary.

    Because according to his Gospel of Double Standards, James Comey deems Hillary Clinton to be unworthy of the same basic and proscribed courtesies from federal officials that he apparently accorded to a certain Russian intelligence operation -- the frickin' RUSSIANS, fer Chrissake!!

    "FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI's name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former bureau official tells CNBC.

    "The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday."

    Behold, America, your Republican Party in all its racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic and Putin-lovin' glory. And behold, too, those enablers and appeasers who would deign to defend this as nothing at all out of the ordinary.

    Now, what the f--- are you prepared to do about it?


    Oh, yeah (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 05:19:38 PM EST
    well, Obama is not a fighter like Hillary is. It's one of the reasons why Hillary is so feared by Republicans. They know she will take them out in a heart beat with oppo research.

    Comey too conflicted (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 05:30:07 PM EST
    and distracted by email business to work on counter terriorism.....He can be perusaded to step down.

    there is one (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 05:57:30 PM EST
    theory out there that he completely botched the Orlando shooter investigation and he's been using the email thing as a distraction.

    He also said that due to this character (none / 0) (#118)
    by vicndabx on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:34:19 PM EST
    It is on him to clean this up.  Earnest also said PBO considers precedent and the rules we have in place pretty important.  Watch the video here.

    Comey is done (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:58:03 PM EST
    I guess Obama jumped the gun (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:33:06 PM EST
    Declaring Comey "ethical enough" this morning

    What more evidence (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:00:08 PM EST
    of bias do we need?

    He knew he could not charge Hillary but has done everything he can to swing the election to Trump.


    And that was early (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:01:39 PM EST

    What an ego on this guy.  He knows best.  

    Or maybe, Occam's Razor, just another GOP pol doing the dirty work.  


    No way in hell (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by smott on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    Comey is viable in a Clinton Admin. He's done.

    It's also obvious he can't control the leaks in his own building. In fact it's likely his knowledge of that is why he caved and sent the letter. (my bet is that Chaffetz had the laptop info thanks to an FBI leaker and told Comey he would go with it. Comey caved because he knew his guys were leakers. Tough leader there, Jimbo. )

    The FBI leakers need to be house-cleaned. Comey needs to go.

    Does Obama do the deed?

    The whole (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 04:04:39 PM EST
    FBI has been exposed as a mess. The upper echelon of the FBI is leaking and they are LIVID at Comey. They are probably the ones that blabbed about Comey covering for the Russians. Then we have the radical evangelicals that Bush stuffed all over government attempting to affect and election by spreading rumors and false information and an FBI head who can't stand up to them.  What a stink bomb.

    Nov. 9 Obama should (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    pull the chord....whatever he can do given Comey's 10 year term ending in 2013.

    And what is truly disgusting (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by smott on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    Is the all-too-obvious racist and sexist overtones.

    Authoritarian self-righteous white dude, gives the finger to his AA female boss, in order to flout regulations and sway an election, undermining the sitting AA prez, and the female nominee.

    Doesn't get better than that.


    Glad it's not just me (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by vicndabx on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    White men circling the wagons.

    What's so gross (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by smott on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 04:07:34 PM EST
    Is Comey's self-righteous, whiny and self-pitying letter to the FBI as an attempted justification. THIS scaredy-cat  AZZHOLE is our chief Cop? No wonder his team has no respect for him.

    Just a pathetic, balls-less coward, held hostage by his own ineptitude.
    I know the Hatch Act is not a criminal indictment but man I hope this puffed-up Chicken sh-t  POS goes down hard.

    He has no control over his building. His people don't respect him. Pathetic.

    Gots ta GO.


    Harry Reid, on the other hand (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 04:11:21 PM EST
    Just read his latest letter.  In Big Orange recommended diary.

    God, Harry knows how to fight!


    Heh, Comey likes Russians (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    They need protection before the election....

    I mean seriously (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 04:00:29 PM EST
    Does Comey embrace white nationalism? I'm starting to wonder. Can attempt to spank the the little lady in front of the entire country because she doesn't know "her place". This does have a lot of ugly undertones and Comey sure looks like he has a lot of the same values as Trump. But again, he can come forward and tell the truth but he would rather hide out in his bunker. Email is more dangerous to the Republic than Putin.

    I think it's simpler and more pathetic (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by smott on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 04:18:38 PM EST
    Just an insecure white male authoritarian who cannot stand to have a female boss. And cannot IMAGINE a female prez.

    But thinks HE is fabulously infallible and OMG TOTS Above Reproach.

    IOW just another laughably pathetic insecure white dude.

    Except he's in charge of the f-cking FBI.


    Argh (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by smott on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    Sorry messed up the link!
    Look for @matthewamiller on Twitter

    He's very good.

    Also he refs a WSJ story which shows just what a complete sh-t show the FBI has become. Rogue FBI  agents focused on digging up dirt on HRC even after they've been told to stand down.

    Comey has NO control. He cannot remain.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by smott on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    Law enforcement is authoritarian by nature.

    What's so chilling is the reports of DOJ corruption experts basically telling the FBI anti Clinton yahoos that they had NOTHING and the yahoos went rogue.

    These are the guys that leaked to (Chaffetz is my bet) GOP operatives and forced Comey's hand. And he caved like a pansy.

    They need to clean house.

    Stick with your day (non)job (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 05:32:02 PM EST
    Intent is an element of the statute you want her charged with violating.  The FBI investigated and the investigative team unanimously decided no charges were warranted.  Leave the statutory interpretation (and flawed legal analogies) to those who actually have a clue ... or at least  those ago can read a statute.

    Jims comment was deleted (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 01:50:59 AM EST
    for a false statement about the law.  Almost every crime requires a culpable mental state -- it's called mens rea-- it is an essential element of the crime which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- some traffic infractions like not wearing a seatbelt are excepted.

    Green, being in the middle (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by McBain on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:44:50 PM EST
    doesn't go over well here.  You either toe the party line or you're labeled a right wing conspiracy theorist. Emotional thinkers don't understand "in the middle".

    As for the Brazile news, I think that's a bigger story than the email thing.  

    You mean bigger than Reagan (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:51:59 PM EST
    getting Carter's debate briefing book?

    Good lord, the priorities.....


    Conservatives (none / 0) (#162)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 06:54:18 PM EST
    really believe they are logical and Democrats are just emotional.....I have heard that so often.  Yet, these same people reject all kinds of facts, and just make up others....and this is logical?

    How would you know? (none / 0) (#197)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 07:58:44 AM EST
    Just because you're (allegedly) not a Trump supporter didn't mean you're anywhere near "the middle".

    I have a great deal of sympathy/empathy (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 07:08:29 PM EST
    For Huma tonight. Josh and I just watched the documentary 'Weiner'. Sorry Huma, you did the right thing, he went to therapy and a decent spouse would have stayed in the relatonship until it was proven the addiction was not being addressed. Huma has been humiliated many times going through this, and now once again.

    It is considered a Conservative virtue to work to save your marriage unless you are Hillary Clinton's aide.

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 08:00:47 PM EST
    all this stuff is breaking all over the place about how Trump has all these ties to Putin. We already knew some of this stuff already like the Russians were behind wikileaks and Assange. But now Comey is tied to this because of his hiding of the information and how many in the FBI have been hiding this information too? These same right wing conservative FBI agents that seem to think leaking misinformation to the press is fine when it comes to Hillary sure kept their mouths shut about Trump and his ties to the Kremlin. Absolutely astounding.

    Yes, my husband asks who is David Corn? (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:33:52 PM EST
    Is he some kind of Breitbart?

    No honey, David Corn is not the equivalent of Breitbart. Hell if I know what to make of "Russia has compromised Trump, they have something on him and he is blackmailable now".


    This has to (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:49:33 PM EST
    be blowing the mind of your husband for sure. I wonder what the military thinks of all this mess? Surely it must bother those Trump supporters in the military that we have a foreign agent attempting to influence the election.

    What can any American make of this? (none / 0) (#181)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:50:26 PM EST
    I don't know (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:52:22 PM EST
    It's some scary crap for sure.

    NY Times (none / 0) (#192)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 06:00:49 AM EST

    WASHINGTON -- For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead -- which they ultimately came to doubt -- about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

    Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 06:25:13 AM EST
    but that article makes zero sense. If they weren't looking to influence the election for Trump why did they only hack DNC emails? Most people are laughing at that article saying it's yet proof again that the FBI is now covering for Trump and Putin.

    And the intelligence agencies don't agree with any of those findings.

    I mean even you Trevor have been concern trolling for Trump with the Putin emails. It's quite obvious to most people.


    I doesn't have to (none / 0) (#196)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 07:54:57 AM EST
    Make sense to you. The FBI has found no direct connection with The Donald and The Russians.

    And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

    As for the election, well, I stated it all again, Putin doesn't get mad, he gets even. (Well, he might get mad too)
    Madame Sec impugned the Russian election process, calling the system "rigged"
    Well, Vladimir has just made a mockery of the US election system. He proved the primary process was rigged, and I would say has effectively neutered the next American President, no matter who wins.

    Neither Clinton or The Donald have much of a chance of governing.
    Republicans will have Madame Pres answering Congressional hearings for 2 years, and by then the Senate will also be overwhelmingly Republican once again (IMO), just check the number of Dem seats up in that election cycle, especially in red states.


    Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:16:08 AM EST
    the intelligence agencies disagree. It was found out that Trump had a secret server directly linking to Russia. When it was found out about Trump destroyed it and replaced it with another. Who even believes anything that comes out of the FBI anymore? Trump is going to have to do better than something coming from the FBI when the intelligence agencies are telling us stuff that is completely different.

    Donald will sign everything the wackos in congress send him. It's why they are all endorsing him.

    I'm so glad to see you embracing Putin. And you are proving my point and Hillary's point and that is the entire GOP has been infiltrated by the alt-right and Putin. Yes, of course you trust what Putin hacked. You all put your entire trust in Putin instead of doubting that those emails could have been falsified by Putin. There was no rigging in the primaries. I know you are desperate but Hillary won by millions of votes. And if you believe everything is rigged then you just don't even need to worry about voting.

    Hillary has been around Washington for quite a while. She knows how to fight. Don't be surprised if she has people like Chaffetz cleaning the White House bathrooms before long and then bowing down and saying yes, ma'am, what else can I do?


    Face it Trevor (none / 0) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:20:11 AM EST
    You're supporting a whole line up of Putin stooges.

    This is newer information (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:26:12 AM EST
    Has to do with things other than the email hack, and apparently someone went to Senator Reid with information that was then turned over to the FBI.

    Lol (none / 0) (#202)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:31:39 AM EST
    harry Reid? You are going to trust Harry Reid? The man who lied about Mitt Romney again and again during the last election, and after the election , when confronted that his claims were all lies, simply stated, well, they worked , didn't they

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:35:19 AM EST
    why are you trusting the alt-right Putin infiltrated FBI for information then? It seems they've been caught with their pants down numerous times. Besides you don't have rely on Reid. It's all over the news about Trump's former campaign manager Cory Ledanwoski being investigated for his ties to Putin and then the Atlantic did a scathing article by John Kasich's former aide about Trump's ties to Putin and the entire alt-right and the infiltration into the GOP.

    I called my senator Johnny Isakson about the article in the Atlantic and they started freaking out.


    I just read about Michael Flynn (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:41:14 AM EST
    And his relations with Putin now too. You go ahead and laugh....nothing is funny about any of this any longer.

    Its not new (none / 0) (#206)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:50:30 AM EST
    Many articles out months ago,


    Besides he is with Ed Schultz.

    And Flynn is a registered Democrat

    Flynn now makes semi-regular appearances on RT as an analyst, in which he often argues that the U.S. and Russia should be working more closely together on issues like fighting ISIL and ending Syria's civil war. "Russia has its own national security strategy, and we have to respect that," he said in one recent appearance. "And we have to try to figure out: How do we combine the United States' national security strategy along with Russia's national security strategy, despite all the challenges that we face?"

    Isn't that like A Reset?


    What you don't (none / 0) (#209)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:55:33 AM EST
    understand is the alt-right and the alt-left have merged. You really should read the article in the Atlantic. Jill Stein is endorsing Trump for president. All those people you quote are supporting Trump I believe. Yeah, and there's a lot of registered Republicans who are supporting Hillary. The lines are clearly drawn in this election Trevor. You can support the alt-right agenda by supporting Republicans or you can sit home or you can vote for Hillary. You've shown you support the alt-right agenda.

    Oh, and Evan McMuffin? You're dearly beloved deplorables are planning for a Mormon holocaust if he ends up carrying Utah.


    Heh, you mean it's not new information (none / 0) (#212)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 09:16:41 AM EST
    That there's barely a dimes difference between neocons and neolibs.

    Being a traitor though, that's an extra kind of special.


    Flynn is not all there (none / 0) (#210)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 09:02:39 AM EST
    He was fired for attempting to force President Obama's hand in special operations.

    He was always who I suspected leaked General McChrystal's Afghanistan assessment and tried to affect public opinion on Obama's Afghanistan choice and force Obama's hand.

    General McChrystal to this day says if he ever finds out who leaked that assessment.....I think he wants to meet them behind the gym. McChrystal still says the Rolling Stone article that destroyed his leadership is almost entirely fictional, but after the Afghanistan assessment was leaked he had completely lost President Obama's trust so there was nothing in the trust account for the Rolling Stone story. Guess who was privy to General McChrystal's Afghanistan assessment? Michael Flynn. And then who was later fired for trying to leak things that would force Obama's hand militarily? Michael Flynn. Who was vetted to be Trump's VP? Michael Flynn. Who is a top Trump adviser? Michael Flynn.

    Michael Flynn IMO is horribly dangerous and obviously some sort of insecure attention whore like Trump.


    AND (none / 0) (#208)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:51:21 AM EST
    The Atlantic has picked it up now (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:49:14 PM EST
    Can this actually be real? It's a real life nightmare on Halloween.

    We are living The Manchurian Candidate! (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:51:45 PM EST
    Kind of ironic (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:53:16 PM EST
    that we've finally got a real Manchurian candidate when so many have been accused of being one who were not.

    But I'm willing to bet underage girls (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:35:28 PM EST
    Are involved in "compromising" Trump

    Everybody (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 06:40:43 AM EST
    should read this article in the Atlantic. Putin has been successful beyond our wildest dreams and it's scary. He's been funding Trump and the alt-right even longer. He's been funding people like LePen in France.

    Oh God (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:39:19 AM EST
    I am sick to my stomach. Michael Flynn appears regularly on Putin's news channel? He has been seated next to Putin? Does everyone know who Flynn was?

    Holy Shit


    Me too. (none / 0) (#207)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:51:04 AM EST
    I called my senator's office and they said they didn't know anything about it and then I started quoting from the article and the aide to Isakson started to panic.

    I called my representative (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 09:12:15 AM EST
    Barry Loudermilk and his office says he embraces the Putin agenda. Wow. Color me shocked on that one. His office said he was okay with Trump receiving millions of dollars from the Russians.

    Good Lord (none / 0) (#213)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 09:18:00 AM EST
    The Putin Agenda

    Says the right-wing drama queen ... (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    Green26: "Stop being dishonest, Ga6."

    ... who twice labeled in this tread several former DOJ officials with whom he disagrees as "drama queens."

    so ugly (none / 0) (#1)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Oct 30, 2016 at 11:17:26 PM EST

    question (none / 0) (#11)
    by mm on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 08:43:39 AM EST
    Is it possible for the public to see what was in the warrant?

    This must be very damaging to Republicans (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:16:13 AM EST
    also if they are trying to run away from Comey. Also in an attempt to keep their base they're trying to have it both ways. Bizrarre.

    Appreciate explanation (none / 0) (#22)
    by Coral on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    can't wait for election to be over--hopefully with Clinton win.

    GOP seems to be waging devastating war vs. democracy, what with Supreme Court nominations, gridlock Congress, and Trump reigniting the most racist, sexist, and authoritarian forces in the general electorate.

    They have (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    been waging war against democracy since the 90's. It's just gotten worse and worse. You can see it in every action they've done since then. In that respect someone who is in love with authoritarian dictators like Trump is their perfect candidate. They know that they can't win based on issues so they need a dictator to force their agenda on the people of this country.

    I see that no one is saying (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:34:27 AM EST
    Hillary is innocent...they're just saying the evidence can't be brought out.

    That doesn't set well for the public even in mundane day to day court cases.

    It doesn't work at all with government corruption.

    First of all we don't (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:47:38 AM EST
    assume people are guilty until proven innocent like Republicans do.

    Secondly this doesn't even concern Hillary. It concerns Huma.

    Thirdly I'm enjoying seeing the GOP try to spin their way out of an attempt to influence an election. I see that Richard Nixon is alive and well in spirit in the GOP. Judging by the reactions of Republicans this has been very damaging to them.


    I am shocked (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    Yes shocked to find that a political party would try to influence an election.

    Arrest the usual suspects....

    Start with Donna Brazil and DNC chair Shultz

    and then there is that guy who hired people to cause problems at Trump rallies...



    Oh, that guy (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    that was hired to cause trouble at Trump rallies? Did you know that he was hired by Republicans? the wackos at Project Veritas hired him. Man, you guys are so easily led by propaganda it is embarrassing.

    More conspiracy theories (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:06:19 AM EST
    against facts I see. Even you admit it is a blatant attempt to influence an election. Hence the freak out amongst the GOP about all of this.

    In this country (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:53:48 AM EST
    anyone is innocent until proven otherwise.

    That you don't know this is, in the context of all else that you repeatedly get wrong . . . intriguing about you.  Failed your citizenship test? A tip to work on this, for better results next time: Perhaps that fail, too, was for lack of reading comprehension. Start with rereading the Constitution.


    You know Hillary was born guilty Towanda (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:58:05 AM EST
    As were you

    Get back in that damn kitchen before something else is projected onto you!


    Hillary is innocent (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:59:41 AM EST
    Happy now?

    The email issue is bogus b.s.  She never intentionally shared her emails with anyone who should not see them.  No evidence her system was hacked.  Evidence the .gov system was hacked.

    But, true, under the Clinton Rules promulgated by the GOP, Hillary is always guilty of everything--because she is Hillary.


    She's innocent (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:48:03 PM EST
    Problem solved.

    Anything else?


    Hillary is innocent (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 09:46:58 PM EST
    2 republican whitewater prosecutors, 7 or 8 GOP Benghazi committees have cleared her. Ya got nuthin Captain Ahab.

    At this point, having heard ya cry wolf so many times before, it's just noise.  Call us when you have an actual smoking gun, an undoctored non project veritas video and a confession from Hillary and maybe I will believe it.


    And what on God's (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:02:53 PM EST
    green earth do you know about "mundane day to day court cases"?

    Is this pronouncement coming from the same place as your saying that you visited Latin America when you went to the Bahamas, or your comically wrong statement about traffic times in SoCal?


    Jim, this isn't about Hillary (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:46:19 PM EST
    no one needs to say she's innocent because she's never been accused of a crime. Except by Trump and those with CDS

    Would it have been better if Comey recommended (none / 0) (#30)
    by McBain on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    charges back in the July?  He probably wishes he did.  This looks like he's trying to make amends with with his FBI buddies who didn't like his original decision. Perhaps a special prosecutor should be brought in.

    What would it take to postpone an election?  

    There was nothing (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    there back in July. Nobody has EVER BEEN charged with something like this. And if they charged Hillary, they would have charge 1/2 the state department, Colin Powell, aides to Condi Rice and a whole host of other people. Comey knew that and that's the reason he had to say "no reasonable prosecutor" would do something like that despite all the fevered minds of conspiracy addled Republicans.

    Better if he recommended charges last July? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:18:38 PM EST
    McBain: "Would it have been better if Comey recommended charges back in the July?  He probably wishes he did.  This looks like he's trying to make amends with with his FBI buddies who didn't like his original decision. Perhaps a special prosecutor should be brought in. What would it take to postpone an election?"

    Are you completely daft? With what rationale would the FBI director have done so, exactly -- wishful wingbat thinking?

    The career professionals at the Dept. of Justice had determined, on the basis of a very thorough FBI investigation, that no crimes had been committed. That's why no charges were filed.

    What you're proposing here, McBain, is not prosecution in the interest of actual justice but rather, further persecution of a public figure for the mere sake of political expediency.

    And for Republicans who love to pride themselves on being foursquare for law and order, such suggestions are disgracefully un-American.

    You don't use the levers of government to conduct personal vendettas against your political opponents, and thus seek to accomplish through corruption of process what you otherwise fail to gain at the ballot box.

    That's rightly called abuse of power.


    According to Comey's (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    testimony, the decision there was no case to prosecute any Clinton aides was unanimous

    CHAFFETZ: Is the FBI still investigating Hillary Clinton's aides?
    COMEY: No is the answer. The Department of Justice declined on all of those who were subjects communicating her through that e-mail system.
    CHAFFETZ: What recommendations did you make about her aides?
    COMEY: Same, same. We didn't recommend that anybody be prosecuted on those facts.

    The issue (none / 0) (#83)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:57:31 PM EST
    Is the rift between the FBI and DOJ officials

    Comey stated that DOJ career attorneys would not bring a case forward.

    FBI agents are fuming that full investigative tools, most importantly, the grand jury , was not utilized in this investigation.


    The DOJ (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    relies on the evidence gathered. If the FBI didn't have any evidence the DOJ cannot bring a case. I know Republicans don't understand basics and facts don't penetrate.

    Some right wing radicals in the FBI wanted Hillary prosecuted but you apparently don't understand that the FBI does not make that decision. Those people just wanted Hillary prosecuted because they are desperate. Just like the police don't make the decision to prosecute anyone neither does the FBI. Comprende silly boy?


    Oh, for Heaven's sake, Trevor! (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:09:40 PM EST
    Are you now presuming to know more about the legal complexities of this matter than does Jeralyn, who's a renowned and respected counsel in criminal law? She was noting that Comey's own coterie of legal counsels at the FBI unanimously agreed that the acts in question did not rise to the level of criminality.

    Further, their recommendations are not binding upon those attorneys at the Dept. of Justice who'd otherwise have to prosecute the case. Any decision as to whether or not to pursue an indictment is entirely at their discretion, and is (or should be) based upon the evidence provided by the investigators' reports.

    Therefore, FBI agents aren't empowered to determine whether or not someone should be indicted, for the reason cited above. And any agents who think or believe otherwise are clearly operating well outside their wheelhouse.

    And once again, since you are not an FBI agent, you are speaking entirely from ignorance as to whether or not they're "fuming" at the decision by DOJ officials. You are in no position to know or presume, one way or another.

    And in any case, as I said above, it's really not the place of inestigators to object or agree in any event. Their role is to report their findings to those officials who ARE empowered to decide such matters.



    Who fumed? (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    More rumors.

    Those who were actually a part of the investigation unanimously agreed there should be no prosecution.  That according to the public testimony of Comey.

    Other armchair observers at the FBI who were not involved in the investigation are not relevant.  Even assuming they do exist.


    Special Prosecutor (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    Should have been brought in from the get go

    This Justice Department has too much invested in Madame Sec


    Special prosecutor (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    would have found nothing and frankly do you really want a repeat with Ken Star? Frankly the history of the GOP with special prosecutors has not worked out too well and legally I'm not even sure that they can have a special prosecutor for someone who is just a candidate. And then there's the time lapse. She left State years before anyone even mentioned any of this. During her time at state no one even mentioned the possibility. It would reek just as bad as Comey caving to the radicals.

    "Forget it, Jake -- it's Chinatown." (none / 0) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 05:31:54 PM EST
    Trevor's not worth any more waste of bandwidth. While he may think that everybody's out of step except him, including the host, he's really only doing what wingbats do best.

    Delay the election??? You kidding is? (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:58:30 AM EST
    Well.... President For Life Obama would buy that.

    If he had any...YES (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    He effing didn't have any



    Zippity Do Da


    Apparently, that's not how others in (none / 0) (#54)
    by McBain on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    the FBI saw it.  I agree with SomewhatChunky's comment below, Comey has been in a no win situation for a while now.  I don't feel sorry for him, but I recognize his predicament.

    You are calling Comey a liar? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:07:50 PM EST
    Are you saying Comey perjured himself when he testified that the decision to not recommend charges was unanimous among the team who actually investigated the facts?

    No MKS (none / 0) (#62)
    by McBain on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:21:57 PM EST
    And I'm not saying it was the wrong decision legal .  I am saying that he probably wishes he had recommend charges because of everything that has happened since. He would only be hated by one political party.

    He could have said we investigated and found (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 09:55:16 PM EST
    No crime and left it at that. Instead he had, dare I say, poor judgment and editorialized in violation of DOJ policy. He has compounded his poor judgment yet again.

    If had done the right thing in the first place, he would only be hated by one party. His own. But he is a former Ken Starr deputy, so this is not unexpected.


    His public statements (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:30:30 PM EST
    going back to July have been aimed at mollifying the GOP.  In July he tried to explain why there would be no charges, and heaped criticism on Hillary--to appease GOP.  He should have kept his mouth shut.  The FBI should not comment publicly at all.

    After a deluge of GOP criticism, Comey comments again--because, according the benign version, he was worried he would be criticized if this email twist came out after the election.  So worried he knowingly violated express, written DOJ policy and the feedback from the DOJ about this very instance.  Why?  Who would criticize him after the election if the Weiner emails came out then?  Dems?  No.  Republicans?  Yes.  That has always been his concern.

    The non benign version looks like he caved because of GOP criticism.


    More than you have (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    The fact that you hate Hillary is not a reason to post phone an election.  Comey didn't recommend charges because there's no evidence to warrant a crime that only exists in the fevered imaginations of the wingnuts.  Comey recommended no prosecution based on the unanimous conclusion of the investigators and lawyers who - unlike you - saw the evidence and know the law.

    A Rock and a hard place (none / 0) (#44)
    by SomewhatChunky on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:12:53 AM EST
    That's where Comey's been stuck ever since Lynch and Bill had there little supposed to be secret meeting on the tarmac.

    No matter what the reason it compromised any legitimacy Justice had in the eyes of many.

    Try following DOJ (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:47:59 AM EST
    guidelines.  Easy, peasy.  You know, G-Men should follow the law.

    DOJ guidelines say no public statements, especially so close to an election.

    Comey thinks he is above the law and personally knows best.


    Oh for crying out loud (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 11:40:12 AM EST
    Poor FBI director....sniffle sniffle

    Poor powerless rudderless FBI director barely surviving, barely making it through....


    Too true (none / 0) (#71)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:42:30 PM EST
    At some point , Comey will explain everything he has done, to the satisfaction of no one.

    He's destroyed (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    an entire agency along with himself and an assist from radical evangelicals left over from the Bush Administration. When you have defense lawyers using his letter to show that the FBI is a partisan corrupt organization you've got a HUGE problem. It could possibly be that all the cases the FBI has done under Comey could be thrown out of court or charges dropped due to what he has done. But in stupid Republicanland where the the only thing that matters is "getting Hillary" they don't care who they destroy or what they destroy on their way to get her. So here you are with your own homegrown disaster.

    "In the eyes of many" ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    ... the earth is flat and dinosaurs roamed with men.   Their fact-free,  evidence-free claims should be ignored ... our mocked.

    I couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 01:27:19 PM EST
    Just look at the comment right above yours.

    Anyone know what's going on in the Weiner (none / 0) (#137)
    by McBain on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 04:40:36 PM EST
    investigation?  Has it been proven he knew the girl was underage?  All the talk has been about Hillary and Huma. Perhaps Weiner is getting a raw deal.

    ... because Anthony Weiner isn't running for President of the United States, and the ultimate fate of our democracy and its institutions isn't exactly intertwined with his own.

    Sorry, I forgot you're in full panic mode (none / 0) (#148)
    by McBain on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 05:56:10 PM EST
    Says the person who also thinks ... (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 07:50:35 PM EST
    ... that it would've been easier for James Comey had Mrs. Clinton been charged with a crime, as though the actual lack of evidence in that regard were a mere inconvenience.

    Take your odious double standards someplace else.


    How is he getting a "raw deal"? (none / 0) (#147)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 05:49:31 PM EST
    First, you have an investigation.  Then,  if warranted,  you have charges filed.   Then you have a trial (or plea).

    They're still investigating.


    I worked with a guy (none / 0) (#182)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 31, 2016 at 10:50:49 PM EST
    who didn't mean to bring sixteen year olds to parties populated by his horny business buddies, so he didn't.

    For Yman and Ga6: (none / 0) (#214)
    by Green26 on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 09:51:07 AM EST
    I have my general info to respond on changed federal and State rules that applied to Clinton, but I'm reading the 83 page OIG report, again, so I can take my quotes from the source and not articles. Trevor provided one of the quotes.

    Rice did not use government or private email for work, so she didn't and couldn't have sent classified info via email. Stop being dishonest, Ga6.