US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5807

On October 29 2016 08:33 biology]major wrote:
Also, how is it legal for that reporter to release details of an ongoing investigation, did he have direct permission from the FBI to do so? This doesn't make sense, do you guys see Comey clarifying in the next 11 days?

On October 29 2016 08:40 Plansix wrote:

There are times I question if you live in the US, but then I remember that schools have shitty civics seduction.

Reporters can report on anything they want. They have ethical rules if they will put someones life in danger, but after that, its all fair game. If information gets leaked, that's on the FBI/Justice department. That is not the reporters problem.

On October 29 2016 08:02 Plansix wrote:
A special reminder that George W Bush and his administration deleted 22 million emails, mostly relating to the lead up to the Iraq war. Weirdly Republicans are not very invested into looking into that. And Bush's SOS used a private email account for all his communication. And again, no one seems to mind or even bother looking into it.

On October 29 2016 08:46 biology]major wrote:


Ah Ok, I just wouldn't dare cross the FBI like that, but I'm not a reporter. The coverage I am seeing on TV don't mention anything about it and say "thousands" of emails repeatedly, not sure where they are getting this information from.

Like many other Americans, I got a letter last week. This letter is becoming an annual tradition, arriving on my doorstep in October to inform me of my Obamacare insurance premium hike.

Last year, the letter said my Bronze plan, purchased on the marketplace formed by the, ahem, Affordable Care Act, would increase by almost 60 percent.

This year, my premium is going up 96 percent. Ninety-six percent. My monthly payment, which was the amount of a decent car payment, is now the size of a moderate mortgage. The president refers to these for thousands of citizens as “a few bugs” when to us it feels like a flameout.

For this astronomical payment, I get a plan with an astronomical deductible that my healthy family of three will likely never hit except in the most catastrophic of circumstances.

On October 29 2016 08:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given his reluctance to press charges in June, I highly doubt that Comey would be stirring up such a hornet's now unless he had found something important.

On October 29 2016 08:48 Danglars wrote:

Give me the FBI investigation, sources, and the prosecutor or investigator that said it hinged on intent.

He pointed to the 1917 statute "that on its face, makes it a crime, a felony, for someone to engage in gross negligence. So that would appear to say, well maybe in that circumstance you don't need to prove they knew they were doing something that was unlawful. Maybe it's enough to prove that they were just really, really careless, beyond a resonable doubt."

But Comey noted that at the time Congress passed the law in 1917, "there was a lot of concern in the House and the Senate about whether that was going to violate the American tradition of requiring that before you're going to lock somebody up, you prove they knew they were doing something wrong. And so there was a lot of concern when the statute was passed.

"As best I can tell, the Department of Justice has used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting that same concern," he said.

"I know from 30 years with the Department of Justice, they have grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence, which is why they've done it once that I know of, in a case involving espionage.

"And so when I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that's sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it that they were doing something that was against the law.

"So given that assessment of the facts, and my understanding of the law, my conclusion was and remains, no reasonable proseuctor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence."

Comey told the committee, "That's just the way it is."

"I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying they would. I wonder where they were in the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did."

On October 29 2016 08:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given his reluctance to press charges in June, I highly doubt that Comey would be stirring up such a hornet's now unless he had found something important.

On October 29 2016 09:01 Danglars wrote:
If Trump can keep his damn mouth shut and not give reporters something like tax returns or Russia to gleefully switch to, this could be good. If I was his campaign manager, I'd be breaking out the silver duct tape.

On October 29 2016 09:01 CannonsNCarriers wrote:


From Comey in July:



http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/comey-nobody-uses-1917-law-making-gross-negligence-crime

On October 29 2016 04:17 cLutZ wrote:

Yes, but it is both a strength and a weakness. Because birthplace, ethnicity, religion, etc do not unite the nation, there has to be something that does, and those become the nation's symbols.

This is exactly why there is such a virulent reaction when people disrespect the flag, the national anthem, the Constitution, the military, etc. Those acts are basically striking at the core of Americanism.

On October 29 2016 05:59 oBlade wrote:
That's a rich tweet, Donald Trump, who everyone knows is a Russian puppet being propped up by Vladimir Putin and his global alt-right network, is McCarthyist.

On October 29 2016 09:04 Danglars wrote:

Yes that certainly is a source for Bush and his Plansix Woodward's 22 million! You know, you can save time and energy not quoting my post when you want to talk about something totally different.

On October 29 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:


I was thinking this initially, but it could also be something benign but that Comey is proactively covering his ass from any implication of corruption AFTER HRC gets elected. If he reopened the investigation at that point, his career would get fucked and riots would be on the street. The distrust internally in the FBI was probably too high to avoid a leak and so he just had to stop this immediately, and had no choice.

He could be just trying to maintain the dignity of the FBI

"In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony," Comey wrote.

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," he added.

"Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony," Comey concluded in the letter addressed to several lawmakers who chaired committees.

It’s possible Comey was partly motivated by fear. When he chose not to prosecute Clinton for her use of a private email server, he was brought before Congress to defend his decision; a hearing at the House Judiciary Committee in September lasted nearly four hours. If he failed to amend his testimony and inform Congress about new evidence potentially relevant to that case, he would almost certainly face more hearings—particularly if the agency discovered information about Clinton’s actions after November 8. “I have a suspicion that he didn’t just do it because he felt like doing it,” said Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who served as the chief ethics lawyer in the Bush administration from 2005 to 2007. “This close to the election, you have to get out with it. How many of these dang things are there?”

The opposite scenario is equally consequential, though: What if it turns out these new emails have nothing to do with Clinton, yet Comey’s announcement hurts her chances in the election? “There obviously needs to be some sensitivity to the fact that an FBI investigation can be mischaracterized and abused in the context of an election,” Painter said.

In other words, Comey faces an impossible choice. If he refused to tell Congress, officials could claim he knowingly withheld information that was important to the American people. But in disclosing the investigation, he’s potentially shaping the outcome of the election; it’s unclear how the public will interpret the announcement, but the stock market has already taken a dive. As Benjamin Wittes argued on the website Lawfare, “Comey and the FBI are in a terrible position here, one in which they would be accused of playing politics whatever they ended up doing.”

Comey’s letter to Congress revealed few details about the possible connection between the Weiner-Abedin emails and Clinton, nor about the potential classified nature of the messages. That’s part of what Democrats are calling him out on: With so little information available, Clinton’s political opponents are free to speculate about worst-case scenarios. As Donald Trump said on Friday, “This is bigger than Watergate.”

The former Department of Justice spokesman Matt Miller argued on Twitter that Comey has violated the precedents of his office by commenting publicly on the Clinton email investigation in the past. “Today’s disclosure might be [the] worst abuse yet,” he wrote. “Why? Because voters have no way to interpret FBI/DOJ activity in a neutral way. Who is the target of an investigation? What conduct?”

On October 29 2016 08:28 Plansix wrote:
Keep wishing, because if there was any juice behind those emails, they would be out by now. October Surprise is best served in early October.

On October 29 2016 09:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

FBI reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton less than two weeks from the election is a massive October surprise.This is history in the making.Unless the democrats can dish some big dirt on Trump before the poll this thing is all over.She's done.

On June 04 2016 08:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Horrific non farm payrolls yesterday.
Expected 159,000, Actual 38,000.Prior two months also revised lower.Worst since 2010.

Expect the USA to be in recession by November, allowing Trump to win in a landslide.

On October 29 2016 09:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

FBI reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton less than two weeks from the election is a massive October surprise.This is history in the making.Unless the democrats can dish some big dirt on Trump before the poll this thing is all over.She's done.