home

Teen in Weiner Sexting Case Blasts James Comey

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 04:27:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The teenager from Gaston County, North Carolina who is the subject of the latest Anthony Weiner sexting investigation is very unhappy with James Comey's recent letter to Congress about emails. She has provided Buzzfeed with an open letter to Comey. The full letter is here.

I am the 15-year-old (now 16) who was the victim of Anthony Weiner. I now add you to the list of people who have victimized me. I told my story originally to protect other young girls that might be a victim of online predators.

...In his “cooperation” with you and with his love of the spotlight, Anthony Weiner has given information that led to the media finding me. You have assisted him in further victimizing me on every news outlet. I can only assume that you saw an opportunity for political propaganda.

[More...]

....I thought your job as FBI Director was to protect me. I thought if I cooperated with your investigation, my identity as a minor would be kept secret. That is no longer the case.

....Anthony Weiner is the abuser. Your letter helped that abuse to continue. How can I rebuild my life when you have made finding out my “story” the goal of every reporter?

She was interviewed for 7 hours by the FBI on Friday, the day of Comey's dump. Apparently, the FBI agents who interviewed her read about it in the news just like the media did. They called her to see if she was okay.

Keep in mind this teen already told her story to the Daily Mail. She signed a non-disclosure agreement with them -- was she paid?

Although the girl said she did not want to press charges because she believes her relationship with Weiner was consensual, she and her father agreed to sit down for an interview out of concern that Weiner may be sexting with other underage girls

The girl told the Daily Mail she sought out Weiner, not the other way around, via his Twitter account:

The girl first reached out to Weiner on the evening of January 23, 2016, when she noticed his Twitter page allowed non-followers to contact him through private messages

She acknowledges that she sought Weiner out, she was obsessed with him and was going to write a book about him. She thought of him as her "Hannibal Lector" and wanted to study him.

She told DailyMail.com she was interested in politics and had heard about his sexting scandals, and was curious to see what he was like.

... It was clear from the messages that she was encouraging Weiner to engage with her in a sexual manner. She told DailyMail.com she didn't consider Weiner her boyfriend, but thought the relationship was a 'romantic' one.

... She acknowledged during interviews that she had developed an obsession with Weiner, and sought him out on Twitter in January while trying to write a book about him. She said she continued to write the book as their relationship developed.

She told her family and a teacher in April. Her father did not report it to the FBI. She said she engages with a lot of men online and knows she needs help. One of the emails reportedly refers to her father as an attorney.

Huma and Hillary are the victims of James Comey more than this teen. I have little sympathy for her, especially if she sold her story, and none for Weiner.

< Answering Trump: What Do You Have to Lose? | Bernie, Hillary and Pharell Williams in N.C. >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Teen in Weiner Sexting Case Blasts James Comey | 173 comments (173 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Personally, I just want this election to be over. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 04:39:19 PM EST
    I also want James Comey to be shown the door at the Hoover Bldg. ASAP. Hillary Clinton didn't deserve this. It's simply nauseating.

    Comey just needs to go. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 04:50:45 PM EST
    Get somebody competent running the FBI. The FBI went to interview somebody and it shows up immediately. BTD has been saying this over and over on twitter. Who on earth is going to have any trust in the FBI with all that has happened?

    Related article that's well worth reading: (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 07:30:03 PM EST
    The Guardian | November 3, 2016
    'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaks, sources say - "Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election. Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record, have described a chaotic internal climate that resulted from outrage over director James Comey's July decision not to recommend an indictment over Clinton's maintenance of a private email server on which classified information transited. 'The FBI is Trumpland,' said one current agent. This atmosphere raises major questions about how Comey and the bureau he is slated to run for the next seven years can work with Clinton, should she win the White House."

    Comey needs to go, and so do a lot of others.

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 07:45:39 PM EST
    she's going to be able to work with Comey like the retired agent suggested. But there's also the fact that no one trusts the FBI at this point. You know, if Comey had just followed DOJ rules he would not be in this pickle but he put himself there twice. Now we've got what looks like Nixonian level of election meddling.

    Parent
    We also ought to remember that ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 10:26:29 PM EST
    ... the FBI is an organization which once appointed a special agent named Robert Hanssen to head up the effort to ferret out a suspected KGB mole -- which proved to be an epic fail, because Hanssen himself was the mole.

    Today, it's being reported by the New York Times the FBI had to build customized software in order to separate Huma Abedin's emails from those of her now-estranged husband Anthony Weiner on Weiner's laptop computer, causing a two-week delay.

    Now, I don't pretend to be an expert in modern document management and analysis software, but even to a lay person like me, this sounds borderline preposterous. I've long used MS Outlook, which has tools that allows one to filter emails by both recipient and sender.

    (I'm assuming, of course, that Abedin and Weiner each had computers which were at times sharing the same home network, which may ultimately explain how her emails ended up on his laptop.)

    While it's probably a mistake to underestimate the FBI's capacity for Machiavellian intrigue, I think that we sometimes assign to that agency a high level of professional sophistication and organizational competence which is sometimes undeserved.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Oh, geez. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 06:22:30 AM EST
    They sure didn't seem to have to build that software looking at anybody else's computer it seems. They are spinning and spinning trying to dig themselves out of their own self created mess.

    Parent
    The FBI needs ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Erehwon on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 05:12:45 PM EST
    a Hoover applied to the current Hoover wannabe and all the Bush leftovers. Sorry for the puns!

    Parent
    Up is down (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 05:30:16 PM EST
    Wrong is now right

    Parent
    Allow me to assist you two Lovebirds... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 11:19:23 AM EST
    The contents and validity of the hacked and emails is one important story relating to the sh*tlection, while the perpetrator(s) of the hacks, any doctoring/forging of emails, and the motives of the hackers are another important story relating to the sh*tlection.

    We're big boys and girls, we can address/weigh two separate if related issues at once...can't we?  I, for one, am interested in both questions independently...while my vote hinges on neither issue.  What Putin wants or what the DNC wants is not how my vote goes...it goes by what I want, or would like to see, in an employee of the nation.

    Get back on topic please (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 05:59:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Good .. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    ... for you.

    Parent
    That's a false equivalence. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    The sum total of the WikiLeaks disclosures proves only that Democratic candidates and campaigns actually behave like -- SURPRISE!! -- political candidates and political campaigns have always done, from the time the first party banners were foisted in convention halls in the early 19th century.

    The other is a Russian intelligence operation that has as its primary purpose the undermining of this election, by ratfcking one particular major party candidate for the obvious benefit of the other.

    And if you insist upon seeing this merely as two sides of the same coin, thus minimizing the serious threat to national security which the Russian effort poses for our country, then I feel very sorry for you, because you clearly don't know your a$$ from your elbow and are talking out of the former.

    You call yourself a "big boy." Well, I suggest that you put on your big boy pants and face facts as they are, rather than as you prefer to see them through the haze of bong smoke.

    Better still, you should stop deluding yourself with illusions of your own self-perceived moral superiority over our Democratic nominee, who has actually had the courage to put her money where her mouth is, weather a quarter-century's worth of the most vile personal abuse, and run for the presidency.

    Because you, OTOH, couldn't even be bothered to muster the minimum effort necessary to change your voter registration to "Democrat," so you could vote for your preferred candidate Bernie Sanders in your state's primary.

    Your post implies that you view elected officials as employees, and yourself as one of the bosses. If that's the case, then I suggest that you start acting like a boss, take some serious personal responsibility for your proscribed duties as their employer, and stop trying to blame the workforce whenever you fail to perform those duties with due diligence.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You can say it... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 03:52:47 PM EST
    I'm deplorable;)

    I actually agree that the hacked emails have revealed no bombshells...just your typical Machiavellian bullsh*t that is as old as the rackets.  But you are way off that it's the same story/same coin...it's two stories/two coins.  

    Once the free press has their hands on the emails, the source is irrelevant if there is newsworthy information to publish.  Any objective ethical journalist is duty bound at that point.  And I think it is newsworthy, if lacking in anything too terrible.

    The other story, Russian meddling in our elections, is troublesome.  But their meddling has not changed my vote, nor has it changed yours.  I'm much more concerned about domestic meddling in elections aka the big money and Super Pacs and domestic interests running ads trying to influence voters.  Or our very own FBI, who I trust about as much as Putin.

    Those are the facts, as they are, my friend.  Two stories, two coins.

    I claim no moral superiority over Hillary Clinton.  I just have no desire to support her or see her be president.  I believe that is my right.  Not because of bullsh&t like Whitewater or a private server or handling of classified info or 25 years of GOP mudslinging.  Because of her foreign policy record and platform, because of her close ties to what I view are criminal enterprises in the finance industry and a lack of vision in regards to our economic situation, and skepticism of her commitment to her newfound progressive positions that only came to be when the old socialist gave her a scare or the latest public opinion poll spurred a faux epiphany.  I like our employees ahead of the curve, not following the political winds like a runaway kite.

    Parent

    For an open thread one day (none / 0) (#87)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    Would be interested in hearing the vision or goal for our economic situation you would deem appropriate. Not snarking.

    Parent
    Guaranteed Income... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 08:39:57 AM EST
    Is the ticket I think, no stopping globalization and automation.

    It's Star Trek time...we have the resources and technology to provide a life of comfort for all...and people can work for the good of mankind instead of their daily bread.  

    Parent

    That's irrefutably true (none / 0) (#116)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    "...we have the resources...to provide a life of comfort for all.."
    -------------------------------

    ...but, the 1% who own America would have to be satisfied owning 99% of America's wealth instead of the 99.9% they own now.

    Parent

    Actually, that's a wee bit of an exaggeration. ;-D (none / 0) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 05:05:28 PM EST
    Per G. William Domhoff, Ph.D, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, as of 2010 the wealthiest 1% in America actually owned only 35.4% of the country's financial assets and net worth.

    But to place and consider that particular statistic in its truly proper (and appropriately alarming) perspective, it's important to note that it was only 20.5% in 1980, which (not coincidentally) was the year that Ronald Reagan was also elected president.

    Thus, the share of national wealth that's owned by the wealthiest 1% increased by a staggering 73% over the three decades between 1980 and 2010.

    I trust that I won't need to illustrate the math in order to show the economic disparity that our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will likely be facing some three decades hence, were that trajectory be allowed to continue apace.

    (To add a couple of historical footnotes, in 1929 -- the year in which the stock market crash triggered the Great Depression -- the wealthiest 1%'s share of national wealth was 44.2%. In 1995, the year in which President Bill Clinton's tax increases on the wealthy first took full effect, that share was 38.5%.)

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Since 1980, the tech boom started and (none / 0) (#149)
    by Green26 on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 05:36:46 PM EST
    continues. Related stock options. Professional athletes and other celebs starting getting incredible amounts of money. The stock market is way up and continues to climb. Other nice investment opportunities proliferated. This includes hedge fund and private equity funds. People with money have money to put into these investments. Middle and lower income don't. Some people think this investment "gap" has caused a lot of the increase in wealth equality. Yes, increased CEO pay is in there too.

    The money that the very rich has, keeps getting invested, which tends to create more jobs and help the economy. A bit of it gets spend. It doesn't just sit in a savings account (and certainly not under a mattress), and even in savings account, the bank is using some of it to make loans to businesses and individuals.

    Parent

    And your point is -- what, exactly? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 09:03:14 PM EST
    Historically speaking, extreme economic disparities amongst the citizenry and high concentrations of wealth within a relative handful of families and individuals are not generally conducive to the creation and maintenance of healthy societies. And that's the last I'll say on the subject, because Jeralyn says we're straying off topic.

    Parent
    The point of the post was merely to point out (none / 0) (#164)
    by Green26 on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 12:08:21 AM EST
    some of the reasons for the increasing wealth gap.

    Would be happy to have you provide more information on your assertion. What are your examples?

    Parent

    The Great Depression and the Panic of 1893, ... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    ... just for starters. Significant concentration of wealth renders the economy vulnerable to wild fluctuations of boom-and-bust cycles, creates severe economic stratification and disparity, and ultimately contributes to social unrest. Ask the Romanovs what can happen when those conditions become ripe.

    Parent
    Donald, examples or reasons that the US (none / 0) (#173)
    by Green26 on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    wealth gap has increased since 1980.

    Panic of 1893 not so helpful in that regard.

    Parent

    Trump Avoided Paying Medicare (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    and Social Security Taxes. NYTimes, Nov 3, 2016, Fred Goldberg, former IRS Commissioner,  and Michael Graetz, Columbia professor of law and former Treasury official, As we know, Trump has used all kinds of maneuvers to get out of paying his fair share of taxes.

    Since Trump has not provided tax returns, the only public information offered about his finances is buried in his 2015 Financial Disclosure Form filed when he entered the Republican primary. He reported only $14,222 in total salary on his 2015 form, all of it paid by 208 Productions, which made "The Apprentice."  That means that he was paid no salary by the more than 200 corporations that he owns and runs.  

    By declaring such a low salary, the authors believe Trump avoided paying millions of dollars of Medicare taxes, and he may have shortchanged Social Security by declaring salary and self-employment income below the limit on Social Security taxes ($118,500 in 2015).  For high income taxpayers, Medicare taxes are paid on all of the salary and self-employment income at the rate of 3.8 percent. It is legal under to minimize Medicare taxes, but there are limits. And, Trump may have avoided paying federal tax on any Social Security benefits.  

    Since Trump has refused to release his federal tax returns, it is not known what, if any, payroll or other taxes Trump paid. Goldberg and Graetz claim that absent any evidenced to the contrary, the inescapable conclusion is that Trump has failed to pay millions of dollars in Medicare taxes.

     Mrs. Clinton was quite accurate, it seems, when, in the third debate, she suggested that Trump would figure out how to get out of paying any increases that may be needed to support Medicare and Social Security.  But, she, like the rest of us, were not aware that Trump was already on that train.

    Well, I am no fan of Tramp, (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    but, really?

    (btw, your linky no werky)

    You really have not explained how your authors came to their "inescapable conclusion."

    If he only took 14k in salary that year, he only took 14k in salary.

    Are your authors claiming he actually took a much larger salary but did NOT report it to the IRS, and therefor did not pay his taxes on it?

    Or are they claiming that he actually took a much larger salary and DID report it to the IRS, but then paid a much smaller amount than what was due?

    fwiw, there is nothing illegal nor immoral about taking a smaller salary than what your business could potentially pay you.

    And, generally, if you leave money in the business it will have been "double taxed" by the time you do take it as salary. So, often, doing so is a financial detriment rather than a benefit.

    Parent

    I knew Trump was (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    never going to release his tax returns. Why would he pay taxes when he doesn't pay anybody?

    Parent
    He's actually managed to twist (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:21:53 PM EST
    a lot of his unscrupulous getting-over to his advantage..

    It means he's "a good business man."

    Apparently a tremendous number of his supporters wish they could be unscrupulous con artists too. It's their idea of realizing the American Dream.

    Of course, the fact that we in-effect let a lot of Wall St barbarians get away with murder in the last 10 years, takes the quite a bit of the air out of our ethical/character arguments..Which isn't to say that the arguments themselves are wrong .

    Parent

    No it doesn't (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 10:39:20 PM EST
    That means that he was paid no salary by the more than 200 corporations that he owns and runs.
     

    Salary does not mean income.

    You have heard of dividends .... gains... bond interest.... haven't you??

    Parent

    You have missed the point of this article (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 11:17:32 PM EST
    Jim. The point is that from the available information it appears that Tr*mp meneuvered to shift his income from "salary" to other forms, where that shift serves no economic purpose other than to avoid (or, one might say, evade) contributing to the Social Security and Medicare funds through paying those taxes, which are calculated on the basis of "wages and salary."

    Parent
    I'm no expert on S-corps, (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 12:12:05 PM EST
    but I believe one of the reasons they are popular is that they can provide tax benefits to the owner.

    Not that I think we'll ever see his tax returns, but if he did take the tax benefits that our government legislated into existence, I think its hard to blame him.

    Assuming he did nothing illegal, imo the only people who should be casting this particular stone at him are those who puroposely do not take their own government legislated tax deductions.

    afaik, our CST is in that camp.

    Parent

    No, I get the point (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 12:17:41 PM EST
    Democrats want to attack Trump who may have
    taken perfectly legal steps to avoid taxes...

    As if everyone doesn't.

    Parent

    Not what you said at all (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    (in yr comment #99), but never mind.

    Parent
    "MAY have" ... - heh (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 01:42:24 PM EST
    Democrats want to attack Trump who may have
    taken perfectly legal steps to avoid taxes...

    As if everyone doesn't.

    That wasn't the point, of course.  Moreover, you have absolutely no idea whether the steps he took were legal or not, since - unlike every other candidate for POTUS in the last several decades - he won't release his taxes.

    There's a reason he won't.

    Parent

    Are you claiming that IRS (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 03:38:33 PM EST
    is crooked?? Haven't checked his returns??

    Wow. Next thing you'll tell me they view so-called Tea Party organizations with disfavor.

    Parent

    You're not very good at this, are you? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 04:25:05 PM EST
    Are you claiming that IRS is crooked??

    No, we're suggesting, on the basis of tons of evidence, that TRUMP is crooked, and that while his returns may be LEGAL, they may also show that his a liar about his wealth, and that he does considerable business with Vladimir Putin.  They may show that he donated zip to charity (the Clintons donated millions).

    (It's hard to believe you could be 180-degrees wrong about the nature of the discussion, but you are.)

    Would it concern you if Trump and Putin were better buddies than say, Trump and Reince Priebus?

    Would it concern you if you found out that Trump was really broke and needed the campaign contributions to gold plate his newest toilet?

    Parent

    Checking Trump's returns (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 03:53:22 PM EST
    is probably like methodically picking through the detritus on the underside of a big rock..

    With accompanying odor, so to speak.

    Parent

    Can you actually read? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    Because you have this habit of taking very clear statements and weakly trying to turn them into different statements by restating them as "questions".

    There are classes that can help you with basic reading comprehension.

    Parent

    I am interested in the email subject (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Green26 on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    because I'm a lawyer who has operated in or close to the white collar area including emails for decades. I enjoy reading long reports, whether on government investigations or sports investigations. I read the OIG report on the emails twice. I've read the Penn St, Miami and some other reports multiple times. I read some of the footnotes too.

    The email subject continues (as I thought it might from the outset), and looking at current chatter, could get worse.

    I have been on this site since the Duke lacrosse case, and enjoy it. I am not a troll in any respect. I am honest in my posts, unlike you. You post the same mistakes and even lies over and over again.

    I don't believe I have ever even mentioned the name Putin on this site. Feel free to post any reference I have ever made to Putin. If I ever mentioned his name, it would have been to say that Putin was pushing Obama around.

    Green 26 (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 10:23:47 PM EST
    you are fine here. The comment accusing you has been deleted. It has never been a requirement here that you share the editorial views of TalkLeft. The site was never intended just to preach to the choir.

    On the other hand, comments like the one I deleted which resort to name-calling and emotional attacks are not welcome. No matter how long the commenter has been posting here.

    Please stick around.

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    is not supposed to be happening in America, 'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaks, sources say
    Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election.
    . Forget the oligarchy, we are hurtling straight towards a police state.

    Not to stereotype.. (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 04:03:07 PM EST
    but I've always heard the FBI is partial to hiring a lot of Mormons and other obedient-to-traditional-authority types..

    Not exactly a milieu instinctually congenial to cooperation with liberal democrats..

    Parent

    It (none / 0) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    is not about cooperation, which in our system should be baked indelibly into the cake. When LEO's are allowed to push a political agenda, all is lost.  

    Parent
    I have heard that too (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    and the Bush Administration was especially keen on those types of agents.

    Parent
    The question remains (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 10:44:15 PM EST
    Are the leaks correct???

    Yes??? No????

    Your turn.

    Parent

    Funny you should ask (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    FBI examining fake documents targeting Clinton

    Oops.


    Parent

    Yes, but is the information (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 09:46:53 PM EST
    in those fake documents correct??????

    Parent
    What Leaks? (none / 0) (#111)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 09:47:40 AM EST
    The spin from the Trump Camp is that "reliable sources" confirm that

    1. HRC's carelessness and poor judgment lead to (top?) secret government communications landing on a computer of a sex pervert, which most certainly was hacked by hostile foreign powers as a result of his clicking on links that seemed to guarantee titillation.

    2. Bill and Hillary had a scam going where shady foreigners like sheiks would contribute money to the Clinton Foundation with extra tips on the side to Bill, like for giving speeches, and in return Hillary would steer the State Department to do $omething good for the sheik, banker or whatever.

    Yes, there are people who believe such stuff.  But is the "evidence" anything more than Bret Baier and James Kallstrom bragging about their inside information on Fox News?

    Parent
    You must also believe that James Earl Ray (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 12:10:48 PM EST
    didn't kill Martin Luther and that there was a man on the knoll....

    But I digress.

    The question remains.

    No matter who hacked the servers.....Are the emails real or made up??

    Parent

    Jesus Jesus jesus (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    After 9/11...where did we discover our single biggest failure?

    I just heard Gulianni say there's some kind of revolution going on at the FBI.

    As if...as if rogue law enforcement agencies in this country is a new thing.

    Law enforcement agencies had built unprincipled fiefdoms, and innocent Americans died.

    I have zero tolerance for this crap. Anybody who thinks maybe they do needs to remember 9/11.

    We are one house...or we fall. We are a nation under the rule of law or we fall. Innocent until proven guilty or tyranny. Legal principles that create truth and stability or chaos and tyranny.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#151)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 06:16:55 PM EST
    After all, it was an FBI Agent that was the infamous "Deep Throat"
    Another  leaking by the corrupt FBI

    Parent
    We all (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 06:45:42 PM EST
    know Republicans have Watergate envy but in this case it is the FBI breaking the law not the other way around. I mean when you've got agents who want to base and investigation on a conspiracy based book something is wrong. The Republicans again are acting like Nixon. Lest you forget Nixon tried to influence an election too.

    Parent
    There is nothing of that caliber (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 11:10:25 PM EST
    Going on Trevor.

    OMeffingG grab a clue. No, on second thought don't. Just sitting here waiting for Wednesday and interfering in an election to not be a factor in hammering frickheads

    I'm done. Until the New York FBI office is de-putrified I will be unhappy in every voting, telephoning, public letter writing way I can think of.

    Parent

    Whaaaa? (none / 0) (#118)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    MLK, Grassy Knoll and Emails?  I think the emails to Podesta, dealing with the Clinton campaign, are real.  But the accusations I mentioned have to do with something totally different.

    Parent
    Well then we agree (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    My point was that the Democrats have been running around claiming the emails were obtained by Russian hackers...as if that is the important thing... when the real question is are they real..????

    Typical misdirection.

    As for the FNC stuff....lots and lots of smoke for there to be no fire...but we'll see.

    Parent

    I disagree. I think the bigger issue (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 12:35:48 PM EST
    is whether Russian-sponsored hackers attacked the Clinton campaign and/or DNC. Whether the emails are real is not important at all, since none of them are damning.

    Parent
    With some Fox type people saying (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Green26 on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    their sources say that Hillary's server was hacked multiple times (which I take with a grain of salt), why aren't more Dems also concerned about foreign hacking of her server? Personally, I think the Dem outrage over the possible Russian hacking of the Dem site(s) is a bit overblown, and getting into the spin area. Is there any evidence that it was done by the Russians? I haven't been following that part, so don't know.

    I am more concerned that Hillary and her team didn't use the gov server, and more secure servers, for conducting at least some level of State Dept. business.

    Also, where is the outrage over other hacking of government systems? It's as if the current outrage is just over possible Russian hacking of Dem sites.

    That hack in 2015 got info on over 20 million people. Social security numbers and fingerprints. Of everyone who had a government background check done on them for the past 15 years. The current outrage seems to be much greater than it was over that one.

    Parent

    Because all my personal information (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 04:50:23 PM EST
    Was already hacked by Russia. They got everything on everyone with any kind of a security clearance from .gov servers.

    There is actually an effing chance our Sec of State wasn't hacked.

    Parent

    Then you think (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 03:47:08 PM EST
    collusion between media outlets and political parties are okay?

    Link

    And I bet Brazile and Schultz think they are very damning.

    Parent

    I don't have to accept your characterizations (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    and I don't.

    Parent
    Some of them are even... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 05:05:09 PM EST
    endearing...I wish I got invited to avant-garde artist's Mr Crowley style dinner parties. That sounds fun as sh:t...get your freak on Podesta, that ain't no crime.

    Parent
    Those e mails (none / 0) (#152)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 06:18:59 PM EST
    Aren't damning?

    Perhaps no criminal action is shown in them

    But they are damning

    paint a separate reality, a special club of insiders that look down on the rest of us, and play by different rules

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#153)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 06:24:24 PM EST
    I use email all the time and I do not feel like an insider, nor do I feel damned.

    Parent
    Just read (none / 0) (#154)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 06:25:49 PM EST
    The ones hacked from Podesta, you will get a view from the privileged few


    Parent
    Most (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 06:42:52 PM EST
    of it seems like political sausage making to me, some harsh talk certainly, but understandable and the fact that they did not even spare their own candidate does not point to privilege at all.  

    Parent
    The ones (none / 0) (#158)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    Where Dept Justice officials release info to Podesta, debate questions coming in prior to the debate, and then the person responsible being promoted to the top job,
    And, lol,
    The person losing her job goes to work for Madame Sec
    Just off the top of my head

    Parent
    You do know (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 07:01:42 PM EST
    those are being investigated as being fakes don't you? Why do you trust Putin so much?

    Parent
    No they aren't (none / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 11:11:27 PM EST
    Unless you're an idiot

    Parent
    I'm just sitting here waiting for Wednesday (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 11:03:21 AM EST
    Me and the Department of Justice...just sitting back waiting for Wednesday to roll around.

    There's some insane egomaniacs somewhere who can't comprehend the wave of deep $hit coming for them.

    Parent

    What was the relationship? (none / 0) (#5)
    by McBain on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 06:00:07 PM EST
    Just online or did they meet in person?  Did he know her age?

    Sounds like both Weiner and this girl have serious issues but I'm trying to figure out what crime (if any) was committed here.  

    Apparently (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 06:33:16 PM EST
    just online from what I have read. There might not be a crime. I'm not sure Weiner has been charged with anything.

    Parent
    It's an investigation, in which no charges (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 07:01:08 PM EST
    have been lodged, and might never be lodged. It would be a federal crime if he knowingly attempted to entice someone under 18 to engage in sexual activity (including masturbation as well as intercourse), or transmitted or solicited explicit photos. These are examples; I'm sure there are other offenses that might be charged. They would not necessarily involve this particular 16-yr-old, depending on what turns up from forensic examination of his devices.

    Parent
    Is this something the FBI normally does (none / 0) (#11)
    by McBain on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 08:05:52 PM EST
    or are they doing it because he's close to the Clintons?

    Parent
    What "something" are you referring to? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 08:36:29 PM EST
    As far as I can see, the only thing that's unusual about the Weiner case, is that it is publicly known the investigation is going on. I have had a dozen cases more or less like this, and all of them involved a lengthy investigation of electronic devices by either the FBI or Homeland Security (no idea why ICE has concurrent jurisdiction in these cases, but they do) prior to the formal filing of charges (or not). Also unusual that examination of computers for child sexual exploitation evidence would reveal evidence relevant to a different investigation. Much more common the other way around -- search of a computer under a warrant for evidence of tax fraud or financial crimes or whatever, that stumbles on child p*rn.

    Parent
    OK.... normal FBI work (none / 0) (#27)
    by McBain on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 11:11:48 PM EST
    I was just curious if they were going after Weiner because he's close to the Clintons.

    Parent
    Weiner and the girl (none / 0) (#69)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:13:05 PM EST
    live in two different states. Thus any potential crime would potentially be a federal crime. Thus the FBI's involvement.

    Parent
    Potentially, yes (none / 0) (#81)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    Or it could be a state-law crime in either state, depending on who did what and where. Most crimes of a sexual nature against children are prosecuted locally, not federally.

    Parent
    Why don't you research those questions ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 07:04:05 PM EST
    ... and get back to us? I honestly have no idea. As far as the girl in question -- emphasis on "girl" -- is concerned, her actions and words underscore the fact that she's quite obviously a teenager.

    And because the frontal lobes of their brains -- which controls cognitive processes such as our ability to reason -- are not fully developed, teenagers lack the physiological capacity and life's experiences to be able to rationalize their behavior in the manner which adults can and do. As such, they are often motivated and more prone to act upon emotion and impulse, than are adults.

    In any case, this girl is most certainly not an adult, and it would be a mistake to assess and judge her actions through that particular lens. In any personal mutual interaction that a minor child has with an adult, the law presumes that the adult is the responsible and controlling party. So it shouldn't really matter whether or not she sought out Anthony Weiner's company or vice versa. The law is going to focus primarily on his actions and not hers.

    As an adult who's over twice this girl's age, I would assume that Weiner really should've known better than to get involved in such nonsense. That he's apparently prone to impulsive acts himself strongly suggests that he has some serious behavioral health issues and should hopefully be under the care of a qualified professional in that field.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Are you talking about a teen or a presidential (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Erehwon on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 08:06:20 PM EST
    candidate?


    As such, they are often motivated and more prone to act upon emotion and impulse, than are adults.

    Come to think about, didn't his wife say she has two boys at home?

    Parent

    Took your advice (none / 0) (#9)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 07:13:15 PM EST
    The 52-year-old disgraced congressman is receiving treatment at an undisclosed facility that bans cellphones and separates patients by gender, according to the Daily Mail.
    The clinic reportedly offers counseling for those grappling with a wide range of sex addictions -- cybersex and exhibitionism, anonymous sex and pornography.


    Parent
    Therapy (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 06:30:38 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/zwmqqr4

    NUNNELLY, Tenn. -- This horse's ass is getting touchy-feely with a new partner.

    As this exclusive Post photo shows, Anthony Weiner spent Friday morning getting a dose of "equine therapy'' for his sex addiction at The Recovery Ranch at Nunnelly, Tenn., a tony woodsy respite for deep-pocketed patrons.


    Parent

    Taking responsibility (none / 0) (#10)
    by Green26 on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 08:03:06 PM EST
    Why do so many people want to blame someone or something else for so many things?

    The now 16 year old victim seeks out Wiener and has an obsession for him, gives/sells her story to the press, and now is  blaming Comey? I agree with Jeralyn on her view of the victim, as well as of Wiener. When I saw the thread title, I immediately had a negative view of the victim.

    Without taking any position of Comey's announcement, why didn't the DOJ high-ups tell him he couldn't send the letter to Congress when he apparently consulted them? They were in position to stop the letter, unless he went against their orders.

    Where's Huma? Why isn't she explaining how the emails got to that computer? It seems suspicious to me that she has supposedly told her friends she didn't know they were there. If there's an explanation, let's hear it. Her silence makes me wonder if she knows she's got a problem, or knows some of the emails are problems, or knows something.

    And then there's Hillary. Had there been no server at her house, I don't think there would have been any significant email issue for her.  And if so many people didn't distrust Hillary, I don't think the reaction occurring now would have been as significant.

    The DOJ did (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 09:30:23 PM EST
    tell Comey not to send the letter but he did it anyway and he did go against the orders of the Justice department.

    Parent
    This CNN article and others I saw said DOJ (none / 0) (#16)
    by Green26 on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 09:54:26 PM EST
    officials expressed "concern" about his letter. Expressing concern is not the same as telling him "not to send" the letter.

    CNN.

    Parent

    Here is (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:27:10 PM EST
    a more detailed version

    However twice Comey broke with Justice Department regulations and now he's paying the price with a rogue agency on his hands. He knew it was wrong to do what he did but he did it anyway.

    Parent

    The New Yorker article doesn't support (none / 0) (#28)
    by Green26 on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 11:13:46 PM EST
    your statement either, Ga6. As usual, you are making up stuff.

    "According to the Administration official, Lynch asked Comey to follow Justice Department policies, but he said that he was obliged to break with them because he had promised to inform members of Congress if there were further developments in the case."

    This doesn't say that Lynch told him or ordered him not to send the letter. Why didn't she do that?

    Parent

    Yes, that pretty (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 11:51:35 PM EST
    much proves my point. She told him to obey the rules and he said I'm not going to. He's making up a reason here. He could have obeyed the rules but he didn't want to.

    Parent
    Here ya go (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 09:37:49 PM EST
    Trump admitting sexual assault.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump charity fraud.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump calls for nuclear proliferation.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump calls for national stop and frisk.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump violates trade embargo with Cuba.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump sued over Trump University fraud.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump accused of bribing DA in IRS case.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump doesn't pay taxes for 20 years.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump employs campaign manager accused of being involved in illegal corruption with Russia.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump calls for ban of an entire religion from entering US.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump lied about support for Iraq War over and over in debate.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump case dismissed by accuser to re-file b/c of new witness in child rape case.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump unaware of Russia's Crimea occupation.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump unaware of situation in Syria.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump penalized for racist housing discrimination.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump files for bankruptcy 6 times.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump goes 0-3 in debates by showing scant knowledge of world politics.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump slams people for being POWs. (prisoners of war)
    Clinton emails.
    Trump calls Mexicans rapists.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump questions judge's integrity because of parent's heritage.

    Clinton emails.
    Trump deletes emails involved in casino scandal.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump has over 10 assault victims and witnesses come forward with allegations of abuse.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump attacks former Miss Universe for being overweight.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump tweets about sex tapes at 3am.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump says he will try US citizens accused of terrorism at Gitmo.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump calls for more extreme forms of torture to be used.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump asks why we can't use our nukes if we have them.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump calls for offensive bombing attack on sovereign nations because someone gives the middle finger.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump calls to kill women and children of suspected terrorists.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump says women should be punished for having abortions.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump makes fun of disabled people.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump calls for end of freedom of the press.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump calls global warming a chinese hoax.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump praises Putin and Kim Jong Un's & Saddam Hussein strong leadership skills.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump openly admits to not paying his contractors during debate.

    Clinton emails.
    Trump openly admits not apologizing to wife in debate about Access Hollywood tape.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump started the Birther movement and calls Obama an illegitimate non- citizen hundreds of times over 7 years.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump uses campaign donations to enrich his own businesses.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump says Ted Cruz father involved in JFK assassination.
    Clinton emails.
    Trump says laziness is an inherent trait in black people.
    Clinton emails.

    Trump insults a Gold Star Khan family and says "they started it".

    Clinton emails

    Trump INSULTS the POPE.

    Clinton emails

    Trumps incites his supporters to violence if they punch a supporter "he will pay their legal fees" but doesn't pay wages to people who work for him.

    Clinton emails

    Trump claims he doesn't know a mobster, proven he does. (lies to the nth)

    Clinton emails

    Trump announces at Rally that VP pick Pence was in a "BIG ACCIDENT" BIGLY LIE.

    Clinton emails

    Trump ignites war against the media putting them in harm's way calling for security escorts.

    Clinton emails

    Trump calls to end Obamacare or ACA with nothing to replace it with.

    Clinton emails

    Trump calls for illegal poll watching in minority polling sites.
    Clinton emails

    Trump says he knows more than the generals.

    Clinton emails

    Trump says don't announce you are going to war with a country putting innocent civilians lives at risk. Ignorance of protocol and war.

    Clinton emails

    ​Trumps says his sacrifice for a Gold Star family who lost their son, was his businesses.

    Clinton emails

    Trump says he will get us jobs and more jobs but he built his D.C. Hotel with steel from China not the USA just like everything else he wears, builds and contracts with.

    Clinton emails

    Parent

    If the emails are almost balancing out all of (none / 0) (#17)
    by Green26 on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:02:33 PM EST
    those things, then a lot of people must think they are a big deal.

    I tried to tell you long ago that the emails were probably going to be a big deal. I have chuckled since earlier this year, thinking about your statements, as Hillary's lead kept going down.

    I see some Fox guy is spewing some Clinton Foundation indictment stuff tonight. My college kid sent the link to me. I told him I thought it was not likely accurate.  

    Parent

    It's a joke. (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:17:21 PM EST
    It's a joke on you and just proved my point with what you said. You're missing the point. The only reason the press is on the emails is because it's the ONLY thing they have to "balance" out with all the Trump scandals. He has so many that the answer to everything is EMAILS!!!!

    I know they are a big deal to you but most people are past it.

    All of this is coming out of the NY FBI office from a guy who is friends with Giuliani and lives in Trump tower. The guy has been trying to get the DOJ to investigate regarding the book Clinton Cash. The DOJ basically laughed at the guy like they did with the whole email thing.

    Parent

    Please circulate this list everywhere you can (none / 0) (#38)
    by Menanna on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 08:30:54 AM EST
    I hope you don't mind that I posted this list on my Facebook page.  

    Parent
    It's not mine (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 08:38:05 AM EST
    I got it from somewhere else but it's going viral apparently.

    Parent
    Just one thing he didn't say (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:31:28 AM EST
    Trump says don't announce you are going to war with a country putting innocent civilians lives at risk. Ignorance of protocol and war.

    What he has said is that you don't announce when and  where you are going to attack an enemy when you already are at war.

    Specifically, Mosul. Given the ISIS leaders months notice was stupid.

    Loose lips sink ships was a true statement in WWII.

    To bad Hillary doesn't know that.

    Just see her emails...

    Parent

    Don't (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:54:53 AM EST
    be ridiculous, any genuine military expert will tell you that it's impossible to hide a major assault on a city. ISIS certainly had to know that eventually Iraqi forces would try to retake Mosul.

    It's been a long stated objective of the Iraqi government to drive ISIS out all the cities, Mosul just happens to be the last in line. In general long term strategic goals in any kind of warfare are really secret.

    Trump's idea of a "sneak attack" by 100k troops is a joke.


    Parent

    Actually the allies (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    did it very successfully in that thingee called WWII and D Day,

    Parent
    Don't (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    be silly, the Germans knew the invasion was coming they just didn't know the exact time or place.

    Amphibious landings by their nature must be a surprise or they are most likely doomed. However those assaults have the luxury of several hundred miles of landing zones and the ability to marshal their forces over the horizon undetected.

    A ground assault against a point target is a whole different ball game. The Russian high command knew (through their own observations) for months that the Germans were coming for Moscow and later Stalingrad, just as the German high command knew the Russians were coming for Warsaw and later Berlin.

    Parent

    Facts are stubborn things (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 05:29:52 PM EST
    for folks on earth.

    Fortunately for them, Trump and his people spend most of their time in a parallel dimension, bearing only a superficial resemblance to the one the rest of us inhabit.

    Parent

    Thanks for making my point (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:08:19 AM EST
    the Germans knew the invasion was coming they just didn't know the exact time or place.

    But that excuse didn't work for Bush and 9/11!

    And the countryside around Mosul lends itself to attacks from multiple directions.

    But no matter. I could post a video of Obama/Hillary robbing a bank and you'd claim they were merely making a withdrawal.  lol

    In the meantime here is some good advice when it comes to combat.

    Parent

    You mean James O'Keefe (none / 0) (#172)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 02:15:17 PM EST
    doesn't have a video of Obama robbing a bank yet? lol

    Why not? "they" all look alike to you folks anyway..

    You must be a strategic-historical 'originalist'; a military Clarence Thomas, as it were..

    Apparently technological capability and the means of instantaneous communication haven't advanced significantly enough since 1944 for you to consider the possibility that Trump's or your board game fantasy has only the most oblique relationship to current reality.

    Parent

    Your vast military experience (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    is unsurpassed.....

    Oh, you don't have any?

    Sigh.....

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    Yeah - better defer to a guy who washed dishes and knows nothing about actual combat.

    "Sigh".

    Parent

    Yes and I'm sure the Romans (none / 0) (#139)
    by CST on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 03:52:00 PM EST
    accomplished similar feats.

    These days we have a huge swath of the global population with these amazing mini computers that are called cell phones that can take and send photos instantaneously almost anywhere in the world.  Not to mention satellites, drones, and twitter.

    It's not the 1940s anymore.

    Parent

    Loose, unoriginal thinking undermines (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 03:18:15 PM EST
    one's credibility.

    But then, maybe Trump will go down in history as an underappreciated strategic genius -- like Bush and Brian Kilmeade..

    After all, he's rich, ain't he?

    Parent

    this list (none / 0) (#83)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 04:17:13 PM EST
    is reportedly from a comment at Huffington Post

    link

    great minds, &c

    Parent

    FBI leaks are pouring out (none / 0) (#18)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:15:22 PM EST
    Brett Baier on the Fox 6PM news tonight,
    These are so specific, This is out of control.

    http://tinyurl.com/zedtnbf   Real Clear Politics link

    Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:

    1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.

    2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.

    3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.

    4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.

    5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.


    It's all coming from (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:22:29 PM EST
    the same guy. The guy that gave the misinformation to the NYT times the other day about Trump and Putin. This guy has been shopping this same bogus information for over a year but wow I guess the Comey thing didn't turn out too well for the GOP if they're desperately shopping this kind of stuff.

    Some good hysterical comedy. Hillary is up 22 points in NC and I think over 20 in FL in early voting. This is all about GOP numbers collapsing I would guess. They must be a lot worse than the public polls are indicating.  

    Parent

    Apparently, the current Clinton Fdn. nonsense ... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 10:58:15 PM EST
    ... is based upon certain FBI agents having taken heart the questionable contents of GOP political operative Peter Schweitzer's dubiously sourced and now-discredited 2015 book, "Clinton Cash." How bad was this book?:

    "This book was a disgrace then, and is revealed as an even greater disgrace now, with the revelation that Amazon.com has notified all consumers who had purchased the book that it contained significant factual errors that have now been corrected. The book's publisher, HarperCollins, has now admitted that the book contained factual errors that included 'seven or eight' passages that had to be corrected.

    "Peter Schweizer owes Hillary Clinton a full public apology, taking personal responsibility for the numerous factual errors in his now-discredited book, admitting that he was so anxious to write a partisan book attacking Clinton that he failed to adequately research allegations that are now proven false, and promising he will never let this happen again."

    (Emphasis is mine.)

    After a preliminary inquiry was conducted immediately following the book's publication, senior DOJ and FBI officials put the kibosh on further investigation by noting that there wasn't any evidence to support the specious allegations of a professional Clinton-hater and Sarah Palin fanboy. When those agents continued to insist that all investigative steps must first be exhausted, DOJ stood firm and ordered them to stand down until otherwise notified.

    And now, it appears that these same FBI agents are talking to Fox News.

    Parent

    He claimed (none / 0) (#22)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:31:02 PM EST
    He got it from 2 separate sources.

    If any of it is untrue, they should be jailed.

    Might face jail even if it is true

    Time for a special prosecutor,

    Justice Department claims the FBI is barking at shadows
    FBI thinks that Justice is stonewalling a valid criminal investigation

    This is a mess

    Parent

    Well, this is the rogue (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:35:30 PM EST
    agent that's been presenting nonsense to the DOJ for quite a while. I guess he has a partner in crime so to speak. Yes, this rogue agent is going to have to be dealt with one way or another.

    The idiot wants an investigation based on that discredited conspiracy theory book Clinton Cash and yet you have an entire political party infiltrated by a Russian dictator and your own party refuses to look into it. They're shopping this stuff because they're trying to pretend there's no problem in the GOP when the problem is huge.

    Considering the hysteria in your post there must be some sort of big bomb dropping tomorrow. Several GOP operatives have stated that there are two really huge ones getting ready to drop on the entire GOP. Maybe they know what they are talking about or maybe they don't.

    Parent

    It looks like the NYC Police (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Green26 on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    are also involved in the Weiner investigation. If some reporters/sites that I've never heard of can be believed, they seem to be getting their information from the NYPD and not the DOJ/FBI. Or, just lies and chatter.

    Parent
    Please see my comment (none / 0) (#84)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 04:24:24 PM EST
    No. 81.

    Parent
    Peter, thanks (none / 0) (#89)
    by Green26 on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 06:00:25 PM EST
    Wish you would post more. I assume you work in the criminal area, I assume defense, and it's obvious you know what you're talking about. I'm just a big firm lawyer whose clients sometimes get into white collar jams.

    Parent
    You know, you're probably right (none / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 07:55:11 AM EST
    Time for a special prosecutor

    But they should probably wait until after the election to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Comey and the two FBI leakers.  Wouldn't want to intherfore with the election.

    Parent

    An FBI distracted by Hillary hate (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    What could go wrong?

    Perhaps the FBI should focus on its most important role:  Counter-terrorism.

    If there is another attack, then the FBI will have a lot of answering to do.

    Parent

    They've never (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    been held to account for the Pulse shooting. But that all kind of makes sense now finding out the FBI is full of Trump supporting white nationalists. They were too busy trying to shop conspiracy theories to the DOJ.

    Parent
    New FBI Investigation! (none / 0) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 03:15:42 PM EST
    The FBI is investigation the FBI.  In keeping with Comey's dictum, "it is irresponsible not to speculate," the FBI has been called in to look into an alleged "tweeting caper." at the FBI. Unnamed officials are checking out a mysterious tweet, one at 4 in the morning, with late-breaking historical information indicating that Fred Trump, father of Trump, was a swell fellow and a philanthropist. Another, later, was of a controversial pardon by President Clinton at the end of his presidency.  

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 06:22:23 PM EST
    take on the conduits for these leaks.  
    the leakers are Rudy Giuliani and James Kallstrom, former assistant director of the New York division.
    of course it's all paid for
    Trump's largest charitable contribution ever was given to a charity which Kallstrom heads -- The Marine Corps Law Foundation.
    Pay to  play with the FBI ?

    Parent
    Yeah, Guiliani (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 06:35:33 PM EST
    has been spinning conspiracy theories apparently and Fox News had bought into it hook, line and sinker. Kallstrom is trying to blame it all on retired FBI agents. So FBI agents who have not even worked on any of this apparently know everything. You read that story in the Guardian and you see what a CF Giuliani has created with all this.

    Parent
    Ghouliani (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 03:14:00 PM EST
    is even bragging about it now.
    Rudy Giuliani, gleefully admitted to the Fox and Friends co-hosts today that he knew all about James Comey's letter to Congress before Comey ever sent it and said, "I did nothing to get it out, I had no role in it, did I hear about it? You darn right I heard about it..."

    I want to puke.

    Parent

    Wait (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    a minute, if he knew about it before Comey sent it, doesn't it strongly suggest that the leak came from Comey's office? It's almost impossible that this came from "retired agents".  It's also, given the time frame, rather improbable that this info could have filtered down to some "mid-level" rouge agents.

    The almost inescapable conclusion is that some high level active agent in the FBI is funneling information to a high ranking member of the Trump campaign.

     

    Parent

    Point 4 is so blatantly partisan (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:35:27 PM EST
    and patently unfounded (not anything an FBI agent could know or say, as those decisions rest with DOJ attorneys), that it calls all the rest into serious question, as to reliability.

    Parent
    The whole (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:37:17 PM EST
    thing is a hysterical farce.

    Parent
    "Secret Recordings Fueled FBI Feud (none / 0) (#30)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 11:41:29 PM EST
    - in Clinton Probe"

    by Devlin Barrett, Christopher M. Matthews, 11-2-2016, The Wall Street Journal

    Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay, people familiar with the matter said.


    Parent
    That's pretty (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 11:58:20 PM EST
    much where the reporting has been saying. These agents would keep bringing nonsense evidence to the DOJ and the DOJ would laugh at them and say that's a joke. Then the rogue agents would go to Fox News and say the DOJ was stifling their investigation.

    Parent
    Clinton's "Coordinated PACs" (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    Soon after Clinton entered the race, Brock announced that Correct the Record, a super PAC he created in 2013, would work directly with her campaign. That wouldn't break campaign finance rules prohibiting coordination with a candidate, group representatives argued, because no money would be spent on ads; Correct the Record would instead concentrate on posting material for free. With that, the organization assumed key roles for Clinton, handling opposition research and the "rapid response" job of blasting out fiery attacks on her critics.

    Brock boasted in an interview about pulling off maneuvers others still considered taboo, such as heeding the campaign's orders to quickly "saturate the airwaves" last week to spin the revelation that the FBI is looking at the emails of a Clinton aide.

    "That is the kind of thing we couldn't have done before," Brock said, pointing to federal rules that other super PACs still interpret to ban such conversations with a presidential campaign. "This legal interpretation is breaking new ground."

    "Hugely problematic" and illegal is how Brendan Fischer, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, described the arrangement Brock has brokered with Clinton's campaign. The group has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission.

    - Profitable New Roles for the Clintons' Old Attack Dogs, Evan Halper and Joseph Tanfini, The Los Angeles Times, November 4, 2016

    Parent

    Trevor has been told over and again, Peter, ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:34:42 AM EST
    ... that decisions concerning federal indictments and prosecutions are outside an FBI agent's authority and jurisdiction. But he just doesn't care, and neither do his sources, apparently. It's really a waste of time to engage him, but it's also really maddening to allow such blatant misinformation to go unchallenged.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#35)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 05:19:51 AM EST
    Point 4 is out of their control.

    That one is just piling one.

    The others are quite specific as to details within the investigation and would be very easy to deny if not true.

    If true this is very ugly.

    Actually, it is ugly even if it is not true, shows the state of affairs between the Justice Department and FBI

    Parent

    There is also absolutely no evidence ... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 11:09:16 PM EST
    ... that the Clinton Foundation is currently under federal investigation, nor is there any evidence that the foundation's server was ever successfully hacked by outside or foreign sources. I don't know why you keep insisting otherwise about the latter, but you were wrong the first time you offered this specious assertion, and repeating that falsehood doesn't render you correct after a certain amount of tries. Just stop.

    Parent
    It's the early voting (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 05:49:25 AM EST
    numbers with Hillary up  22 points in NC and 26 points in Ohio. John Ralston reporting Nevada is already out of reach and as of yesterday Florida may be becoming out of reach too. Evidence the Comey stunt didn't work so gin up some more nonsense in a desperate attempt to motivate Republican voters to actually show up and vote.

    Parent
    If you don't mind... (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:10:00 AM EST
    The rest of the country will vote next Tuesday.

    Parent
    Yes, but if the margins (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:13:36 AM EST
    are large enough and Republican voters continue to not show up at the rate they have been it won't matter.

    Parent
    Saw a poll that (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:18:04 AM EST
    showed the late voters 50 to 29 for Trump.

    As in your case no one knows if that is BS or factual.

    You claim Repubs are trying to suppress the vote.

    Aren't you doing the same???

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:29:16 AM EST
    those numbers I quoted are hard numbers of people who have already voted from the Q poll. I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. I googled and nothing showed up.

    Suppressing the vote means actually doing something like kicking people off voting rolls before checking.

    All I'm saying is that so far according to the Q poll Trump voters or Republican voters are not showing up. Or either they are showing up and not voting for Trump and are voting for Hillary.

    Parent

    Hard numbers?? Really? (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:39:50 AM EST
    A poll is about as hard as a over ripe banana.

    Remember the exit polls that showed Algore a shoo in ????

    That was supposed to say, "No need for you Bushies to vote. It's all over,"

    No polls or surveys or interviewsn of voters or  should be allowed on election day until ALL states have voted. That includes early voting.

    Parent

    People who have (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:47:55 AM EST
    voted is pretty accurate. A lot more accurate than people who "might" show up on Tuesday.

    No, those polls showed George W. Bush a shoo in and Gore losing when Gore won the popular vote in 2000. If you're going to criticize polls then at least get your background information correct. Glad you reminded us all of that disaster President though.

    Parent

    The pollster (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    reviewing the Florida early votes explained why his polling is not the same as exit polling from 2000.   He has actual data on who voted, so he can make sure his sample of early voters mirrors those who have early voted.  

    They can also see if the Earl Voters have voted before or infrequent voters that would not clear a likely voter scree of some of the public polls.

    All the polls of Early Voters show a substantial lead in Clinton voters.

    Nevada is slipping out of reach for Trump.  The early vote is very similar to the 2012 Early Vote.  And forget the CNN Nevada poll yesterday.  As Ralston points out, any poll that shows Trump ahead in Clark County (Vegas) is off.

    Parent

    All of the information shows Hillary slipping (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 10:33:39 PM EST
    again, exit polls showed Algore winning.

    Don't count your chickens.

    Parent

    Fox News?? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 01:27:29 PM EST
    Nonstarter.....

    Parent
    Hypocrites all!!! (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:14:07 AM EST
    A few months ago the Repubs attacked Comey for what he didn't do...recommend indicting Hillary and the Demos loved him.

    Now the Demos hate him and the Repubs love him.

    No wonder a lot of people say politics disgust them.

    You are so silly. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:16:32 AM EST
    There was plenty of criticism around here about Comey breaking justice department rules back in July and now he's broken them again. There never was enough evidence to indict Hillary even though the alt-right has bee spinning that lie for a long, long time. At least now it's coming out where all this is coming from and it's positively Nixonian.

    Parent
    Uh, really?? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:19:35 AM EST
    Go tell Harry.

    lol

    Parent

    Harry is (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:30:14 AM EST
    the same as the FBI? Sorry, you'll have to tell me when Harry Reid became a rogue FBI agent.

    Parent
    Uh Harry as in Reid. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:33:20 AM EST
    and 100% of the DC demo establishment.


    Parent
    Are you talking about (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    the FBI withholding information on Trump's ties to Putin and the Russian Mafia? You need to take up that issue with the FBI not Harry Reid.

    Parent
    ;-) Sail on sail on ship of state! (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 10:36:08 PM EST
    No, I'm talking about the major hypocrite Harry Reid of the real estate corruption AKA Senator.

    Why do you waste our time arguing??? I said they were all hypocrites. ALL as in both sides.

    Parent

    According to John (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 06:47:02 AM EST
    Ralston Harry Reid beat you guys again. Trump is going to have to have 120% of Republicans show up to vote on Tuesday to win there. Likely cost the GOP a couple of house seats too he says.

    Parent
    Yeah but a friend told me (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    that neither Hillary or Harry has ever paid FIT.

    Parent
    Well, then, if a friend told you (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    what else would I need to know? Or you could look at any of HRC's tax returns for the last twenty years, all of which she voluntarily made public. Unlike a certain presidential candidate who has promised to release his returns (as all other presidential candidates have done for decades now) only when and if Hell freezes over. Given that refusal, why should anyone credit his self-serving claims only to have taken advantage of lawful, tax-minimizing provisions? If he has done nothing wrong, and is even proud of his ability to avoid taxes lawfully, then why would he resist releasing the returns?

    Parent
    " If he has done nothing wrong" (none / 0) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 01:47:45 PM EST
    If he has done nothing wrong, [snip] then why would he resist releasing the returns?

    If you've done nothing wrong, why would you need a lawyer when being questioned by police?

    Not a direct equivalency, but same basic concept.

    Parent

    I don't see the analogy (none / 0) (#131)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    at all. The expectation and tradition of releasing your tax returns when running for president is not the least little bit like being wrongly suspected of a crime.

    Parent
    Opening yourself up to examination (none / 0) (#133)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    always has the potential for problems, often unforeseen.

    If I was, say, a career politician, who's tax returns reflected various gov salaries, speaking engagements, a book or two, etc., I would be much more open to sharing my returns than if I was a businessman like Tramp.

    At the very least, I would not be comfortable with my business competitors gaining knowledge that they may use to the detriment of my business.

    Parent

    Then don't run for president (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by vicndabx on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:02:28 AM EST
    That's not an excuse.

    Parent
    Sorry to set you off, Peter (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 03:30:01 PM EST
    But the comments were sarcasm reflecting Sen Reid's past problems re real estate and his claim that he had been told that Romney had not paid FIT.....

    And I don't think you'd want this comment...

     

    If he has done nothing wrong....then why would he resist releasing the returns?

    applied to anyone about anything.

    BTW - I have no doubt that Trump took every advantage that his lawyers told him that the government lawyers had written into the tax code.

    Parent

    Then your imaginary friend is lying (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 01:51:57 PM EST
    You can view Hillary's returns for the past 20 years, and she most certainly paid FIT.  But I guess if you have no evidence, just make it up ...

    Parent
    Actually it was sarcasm based on (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 08:37:22 AM EST
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., touched off a firestorm last week after he claimed that an unnamed investor in Mitt Romney's company, Bain Capital, told him that Romney hadn't paid any taxes for 10 years.

    In a July 31, 2012, interview with the Huffington Post, Reid attacked Romney for refusing to publicly release tax returns prior to 2010. Reid said, "His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," referring to George Romney's decision to release 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

    But  you knew that.

    Parent

    And your claim about your ... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    ... imaginary "friend" lying about Hillary was a lie.

    But you knew that.

    Parent

    Nobody loved Comey (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:55:09 AM EST
    people just wanted him to STFU and move on since he'd already threw his first bomb in July.  Acknowledge his statements and let us move on in time for the election.

    He hasn't allowed that though so he should be fair game now.  As I said a few days ago - white men circling the wagons.  50's guys longing for the day when women knew their place.

    Read thru all the connections and tell me your conspiracy meter doesn't tingle.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    What Comey SHOULD have done all along was follow DOJ protocol.  Pour out a brief statement indicating the investigation was concluded and no charges were warranted.  Then,  he should have made no further comment and released nothing exceptfor his testimony before Congress.  He most certainly shouldn't send out vague letters with no evidence of wrongdoing less than 2 weeks before

    Parent
    Hey now... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:35:38 AM EST
    I have and always have been down on the FBI old buddy!  

    But your point is well taken...and the irony burns.  Citizens blinded by media & party propaganda partisanship that clouds their reasoning lamenting the state of hopelessly partisan politics.  This is the government and electoral abomination we deserve...no bout a doubt it.

    Parent

    What's really ironic about this, kdog? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 09:47:04 AM EST
    The poor dumb ba$tards who are paying the bills get a teensy tiny sliver of transparency, the narrowest of peeks under the blackout curtains surrounding virtually every official government function, and it's shouted down.

    Parent
    Key word dumb... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    It's the poor dumb bastards paying the bills doing the shouting down in a bitterly partisan manner, Mr. Nat. That's the irony...if it was the RNC hacked by the EU feeding Wiki the Republican proles would be hollering about foreign election influence, and the Democrat proles would be all up in the emails.

    Parent
    Speaking of money and influence (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 10:24:03 AM EST
    A Florida man pleaded guilty to helping funnel $80,000 in illegal foreign campaign contributions to a joint fundraising committee for President Barack Obama's re-election campaign in 2012.

    William Argeros, 57, also admitted Monday in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, that he lied to a grand jury in 2015. Argeros said he facilitated the transfer of the $80,000 to Bilal Shehu, a New Jersey resident who gave it to the committee.

    Link

    And more.

    And more.

    And more

    PARAMUS -- A Bergen County limousine driver has admitted to illegally funneling $80,000 from the Socialist Party leader in Albania to President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.

    Link

    But taking foreign money is no problem for partisan Democrats....but they go ape when some foreign people...we don't really know who hacked...issue emails that show them cheating and being nasty.

    Parent

    Where is the evidence that candidate Obama (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 11:35:38 AM EST
    or his fundraisers knew that the source of these funds was foreign and therefore illegal? Was such evidence presented in these criminal cases? If not, the lesson to be gleaned is that when Democrats learn of such violations in advance they reject the contributions, and when they learn afterwards, then Democratically-appointed U.S. Attorneys, acting under a Democratic Attorney General, prosecute the violators as criminals. Sound impressively non-partisan to me. The same cannot be said for the Putin-puppet.

    Parent
    Which Putin puppet are you referring to? (none / 0) (#171)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 01:47:20 PM EST
    Trump, or Jim?


    Parent
    The court of public opoinion (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 03:01:33 PM EST
    is now in session.

    I have no idea as to what the jury will do.

    Parent

    Why do I have a feeling that on Wednesday (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 04:20:20 PM EST
    all the questions you ask are going to have four question marks and all the statements four exclamation points?

    Parent
    The "court of public opinion ... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 12:34:18 PM EST
    ... already decided your silly attempt to Obama from 2012.

    The court ruled against you.

    Oops.

    Parent

    Goldberg and Graetz (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:14:02 PM EST
    NYTimes op ed.

    Sarcastic Unnamed, (none / 0) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:28:20 PM EST
    sorry, try this link...it works for me.  Commissioner Goldberg and Mr. Graetz are speculating on Trump's non-payment of Medicare taxes, opening themselves up to Trump's ridicule when the IRS finishes his audit and he can release his tax returns.  

    Parent
    Thanks, very interesting. (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    Their speculation is based on assuming Trump's businesses are S-corps and that he filed his taxes in the mid 90's in accordance to the S-corp tax law of the mid 90's.

    Which law, apparently, was so badly written that it was re-written by congress in 2002.

    The only other explanation offered is that he actually did lose almost $billion in 1995.

    btw, don't think the humor in this went unappreciated:

    Commissioner Goldberg and Mr. Graetz are speculating on Trump's non-payment of Medicare taxes, opening themselves up to Trump's ridicule when the IRS finishes his audit and he can release his tax returns.


    Parent
    Funny you should mention that (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:41:01 PM EST
    FBI examining fake documents targeting Clinton campaign

    Heh.

    SITE VIOLATOR. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 02:36:11 AM EST


    Comey Defended (none / 0) (#112)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 10:18:26 AM EST
    At the time, Obama called Comey a "rarity." Why? "He doesn't care about politics," said the president. Later that year, at his Senate confirmation hearings, Comey committed to "transparency," a concept he said would be crucial when dealing with Congress. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), then the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted that Comey had "shown a willingness to stand his ground if necessary."

    - Paul Charlton, The Washington Post, November 4, 2016

    Paul Charlton was a career prosecutor and is a former U.S. attorney for Arizona. He is now in private practice in Phoenix, specializing in white-collar defense.

    If James Comey is indeed a straight shooter ... (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 02:34:47 PM EST
    ... who disdains politics, he'd have taken immediate steps to publicly clarify the contents of his otherwise vague and opaque letter to GOP congressional leaders last Friday, and correct Rep. Cheffetz's subsequent false public statement that the email investigation was being reopened. (In fact, despite what Comey assured to members of the House oversight Committee and the American public last July, we've since learned it was never officially closed.)

    That the FBI director remains silent seven days later, and further allows his FBI agents to selectively leak misleading information to Fox News about the Clinton Foundation, speaks volumes about the general nature and quality of the man's honesty and integrity.

    Far from being apolitical, Comey has instead disgraced his office by his explicit actions and non-actions these past few months on behalf of a manifestly irresponsible Republican Party (of which he's a member) and its emotionally unbalanced presidential nominee, and has further seriously compromised the institutional veracity and integrity of the agency he purports to love and lead.

    Once this election is concluded, Comey needs to be fired by President Obama. I'll leave it up to the American Bar Association to address the general ethics of the director's overall conduct, in which he's presided unofficially -- and perhaps even willingly -- over an orchestrated smear of Mrs. Clinton and her husband, carried out by members of the very agency to which Comey had only three years earlier sworn an oath to lead to the very best of his abilities.

    Because if this week's events are any indication of those abilities, then it's quite apparent that Comey's best really blows phuquing chunks.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    "At the time" ... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 12:37:02 PM EST
    Heh.

    Parent
    Teen in Weiner Sexting Case Blasts James Comey | 173 comments (173 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment