|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 31 2016 06:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:59 LegalLord wrote:On October 31 2016 05:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails ![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/LvHG6W.jpg) You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey. Feels relevant to ask who is Krugman and wtf is a "congressional surrogate"? Besides all the things GH mentioned, a fan favorite for people who want a smart-sounding pro-Hillary opinion to parrot as if it were their own. That's gratuitous as hell. You could say the same to dismiss every influent thinker and opinion makers and people who find them interesting.
Any other "opinion maker" who people cite directly instead of making an argument based on their opinion should be treated the same, yes. Opinion pieces aren't sources unless the person in question is directly involved (e.g. Mitt Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" editorial is an exception).
|
On October 31 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey. You seem to figure these people have been caught in a contradiction. But it seems perfectly consistent to believe that Comey's judgment in his previous statements was pretty good, but that putting this letter out (specifically against the DoJ's policy) reflects bad judgment that gets the FBI involved in influencing the election in an irresponsible way. I might like Obama well enough now, but if tomorrow he declares martial law I'll "do a 180" on Obama and be quite critical of him. I'm not familiar with the DOJ's policy you're referring to, do you have a link? Some did. They shut down any accusation Comey could even be possibly doing a bad job (or made a mistake), then as soon as he does something that may hurt their candidate it's fair game to say he's "damaging our democracy". Yet people who say his use of "extreme carelessness" damaged our democracy are shut down without a second thought.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/justice-department-officials-told-fbi-comey-policy
If the goal is an FBI that mostly stays out of politics and doesn't try to influence elections too much, it seems perfectly consistent to say doing his job and making a recommendation about whether the facts of the case back in July is a perfectly reasonable approach to the election. Making a rather vague and ominous announcement about Clinton ten days before the election, on the other hand, is the sort of thing where you could hardly pretend you were unaware of the impact it would have on the election, and there's no way for anybody to become informed about whether or not it's a real reason for her to shift the polls, so as far as the election is concerned, Comey just dropped some mud out of the sky onto Clinton. Then add that he seems to a) have gone directly against the DoJ with this, and b) not done any checking on the e-mails before making this announcement, and it certainly looks a bit questionable. Couldn't he at least have checked if these e-mails were duplicates of emails the FBI already had before going public?
|
On October 31 2016 06:26 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey. You seem to figure these people have been caught in a contradiction. But it seems perfectly consistent to believe that Comey's judgment in his previous statements was pretty good, but that putting this letter out (specifically against the DoJ's policy) reflects bad judgment that gets the FBI involved in influencing the election in an irresponsible way. I might like Obama well enough now, but if tomorrow he declares martial law I'll "do a 180" on Obama and be quite critical of him. I'm not familiar with the DOJ's policy you're referring to, do you have a link? Some did. They shut down any accusation Comey could even be possibly doing a bad job (or made a mistake), then as soon as he does something that may hurt their candidate it's fair game to say he's "damaging our democracy". Yet people who say his use of "extreme carelessness" damaged our democracy are shut down without a second thought. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/justice-department-officials-told-fbi-comey-policyIf the goal is an FBI that mostly stays out of politics and doesn't try to influence elections too much, it seems perfectly consistent to say doing his job and making a recommendation about whether the facts of the case back in July is a perfectly reasonable approach to the election. Making a rather vague and ominous announcement about Clinton ten days before the election, on the other hand, is the sort of thing where you could hardly pretend you were unaware of the impact it would have on the election, and there's no way for anybody to become informed about whether or not it's a real reason for her to shift the polls, so as far as the election is concerned, Comey just dropped some mud out of the sky onto Clinton. Then add that he seems to a) have gone directly against the DoJ with this, and b) not done any checking on the e-mails before making this announcement, and it certainly looks a bit questionable. Couldn't he at least have checked if these e-mails were duplicates of emails the FBI already had before going public?
What you're missing is that the argument for why that was a reasonable conclusion, in part, hinged on the concept that he was basically unimpeachable as a person of integrity, which is the opposite of what's being suggested here and now.
Secondly, it seems you missed the part where several Hillary supporters here and elsewhere leapt to defend Hillary by saying Comey releasing this was just standard procedure.
A few weeks ago it was absurd to suggest someone of Comey's character could possibly be acting politically, today it's the opposite.
|
There was some grumbling among the more astute political Democratic class way back when about Comey blasting her in a press conference, but they were mostly too relieved about there being no charges to make a big deal about it. I've read a few people now talking about it who seemed like they were mostly fine to leave the matter alone now coming out of the woodworks to blast him.
|
On October 31 2016 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 06:26 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey. You seem to figure these people have been caught in a contradiction. But it seems perfectly consistent to believe that Comey's judgment in his previous statements was pretty good, but that putting this letter out (specifically against the DoJ's policy) reflects bad judgment that gets the FBI involved in influencing the election in an irresponsible way. I might like Obama well enough now, but if tomorrow he declares martial law I'll "do a 180" on Obama and be quite critical of him. I'm not familiar with the DOJ's policy you're referring to, do you have a link? Some did. They shut down any accusation Comey could even be possibly doing a bad job (or made a mistake), then as soon as he does something that may hurt their candidate it's fair game to say he's "damaging our democracy". Yet people who say his use of "extreme carelessness" damaged our democracy are shut down without a second thought. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/justice-department-officials-told-fbi-comey-policyIf the goal is an FBI that mostly stays out of politics and doesn't try to influence elections too much, it seems perfectly consistent to say doing his job and making a recommendation about whether the facts of the case back in July is a perfectly reasonable approach to the election. Making a rather vague and ominous announcement about Clinton ten days before the election, on the other hand, is the sort of thing where you could hardly pretend you were unaware of the impact it would have on the election, and there's no way for anybody to become informed about whether or not it's a real reason for her to shift the polls, so as far as the election is concerned, Comey just dropped some mud out of the sky onto Clinton. Then add that he seems to a) have gone directly against the DoJ with this, and b) not done any checking on the e-mails before making this announcement, and it certainly looks a bit questionable. Couldn't he at least have checked if these e-mails were duplicates of emails the FBI already had before going public? What you're missing is that the argument for why that was a reasonable conclusion, in part, hinged on the concept that he was basically unimpeachable as a person of integrity, which is the opposite of what's being suggested here and now. Secondly, it seems you missed the part where several Hillary supporters here and elsewhere leapt to defend Hillary by saying Comey releasing this was just standard procedure. A few weeks ago it was absurd to suggest someone of Comey's character could possibly be acting politically, today it's the opposite.
Well I can't defend every defense anyone gave or could have hypothetically given of Comey before, or every criticism they make or hypothetically could make now. My point is only that there's a through-line in saying "Republicans were just attacking him for doing his job!" when he didn't recommend charges, and then saying "he's threatening American democracy!" when he sends this letter. The former is decidedly in the direction of the FBI not trying to influence American politics, the latter at least moves in the direction of the FBI influencing American politics. If the FBI influencing American politics is bad, the former was defensible and the latter is not.
Or, in short, a few weeks ago it was absurd to suggest someone like Comey was acting politically, because there was no evidence of it. Now there is.
Personally I'm hoping he does actually come out and give some more information before the election, because this seems like a bizarre and unnecessary intervention on his part. I don't know what other liberals are saying, but I don't think by any stretch that Comey is a partisan hack. At the moment it seems like he acted with excessive caution to avoid getting criticized for saying the investigation closed a few months ago, and in the process didn't consider that him commenting without giving any information would fuel a bunch of rumor mill bullshit, and there would be nothing to dispel it with because he didn't give us anything worthwhile. It's the absolute definition of guilty until proven innocent, and if this was what decided the election he would have a lot to answer for.
|
On October 31 2016 06:26 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On October 31 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2016 05:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 31 2016 05:36 ImFromPortugal wrote:Before and after the latest FBI news about the new e-mails You do know what the words "editorial" and "opinion" mean, right? It's not just them though, someone showed Krugman's meltdown earlier, I posted a video with one of her congressional surrogates suggesting the Russians might have given the new emails over to the FBI, and there's plenty more examples of Hillary supporters doing a 180 on Comey. You seem to figure these people have been caught in a contradiction. But it seems perfectly consistent to believe that Comey's judgment in his previous statements was pretty good, but that putting this letter out (specifically against the DoJ's policy) reflects bad judgment that gets the FBI involved in influencing the election in an irresponsible way. I might like Obama well enough now, but if tomorrow he declares martial law I'll "do a 180" on Obama and be quite critical of him. I'm not familiar with the DOJ's policy you're referring to, do you have a link? Some did. They shut down any accusation Comey could even be possibly doing a bad job (or made a mistake), then as soon as he does something that may hurt their candidate it's fair game to say he's "damaging our democracy". Yet people who say his use of "extreme carelessness" damaged our democracy are shut down without a second thought. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/justice-department-officials-told-fbi-comey-policyIf the goal is an FBI that mostly stays out of politics and doesn't try to influence elections too much, it seems perfectly consistent to say doing his job and making a recommendation about whether the facts of the case back in July is a perfectly reasonable approach to the election. Making a rather vague and ominous announcement about Clinton ten days before the election, on the other hand, is the sort of thing where you could hardly pretend you were unaware of the impact it would have on the election, and there's no way for anybody to become informed about whether or not it's a real reason for her to shift the polls, so as far as the election is concerned, Comey just dropped some mud out of the sky onto Clinton. Then add that he seems to a) have gone directly against the DoJ with this, and b) not done any checking on the e-mails before making this announcement, and it certainly looks a bit questionable. Couldn't he at least have checked if these e-mails were duplicates of emails the FBI already had before going public?
Rumour has it there is an internal struggle in the FBI, people handing in their resignations (or talking about it). News would have been leaked if Comey wouldn't have written that crappy letter.
It seems there's a WSJ article about this but it needs a subscription to read.
With regards to the DoJ... there's rumours that it always held up the probing into the Clinton Foundation and Clinton, but the DoJ lawyers aren't the only prosecutors that could work on this. The FBI agents supposedly started working around their issue with the DoJ by asking US Attorney offices for support.
|
I honestly think that the FBI is under some serious political pressure to give the Republicans something to work with right now (or alternatively the DoJ is being obtuse and explicitly partisan like what Loretta Lynch was during her hearing). There is no such thing as a nonpartisan organization if it's dependent on the support of a partisan one.
|
|
|
|
|
scan them all before the election?
|
This isn't going to end well for Comey, he was in a terrible position because of HRC's incompetence and now is going to become a target.
|
Pretty funny coming from him, but more proof that he's actually terrible.
|
Trump offered Christie his VP slot — then rescinded it
Donald Trump initially offered the vice-presidential running-mate slot to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie but then withdrew it, sources said.
With a week to go before the GOP convention in July, Trump had not made his choice among Christie, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Most of his Trump’s advisers — including then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump’s two eldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric — and GOP leaders pressured Trump to pick Pence.
They argued that Pence would unify the party and appeal to evangelical Christians who had not supported Trump in the primary.
But Trump was privately wavering and Christie saw an opening.
“Trump cares about who’s the most loyal and who kisses his a– the most, not who’s the most qualified and what’s the best political decision,” said a source close to the campaign. “If it was up to him, it would have been Christie.”
The two men had developed a close relationship. Whenever Christie visited Trump’s campaign headquarters, he’d spend most of his time in onetime Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski’s office, ignoring Manafort and other top aides, a source said.
Christie contacted Trump and made his final, impassioned appeal on July 12.
“Christie said he thinks he deserves it and he earned it,” a second Trump source said. Convinced, Trump made the offer.
Christie “said all the BS that Trump likes to hear, and Trump said, ‘Yeah, sure I’m giving it to you.’ ”
That didn’t sit well with Manafort, who had arranged for Trump to meet Pence in Indianapolis on July 13, and fly back together to New York the next day for a formal announcement.
After Trump tentatively decided on Christie, Manafort told Trump his plane had a mechanical problem, campaign sources said, forcing Trump to spend another night in the Hoosier State. Pence then made his case to be Trump’s No. 2 over dinner as Trump’s advisers argued that Christie’s Bridgegate troubles would sink the campaign.
“Trump had wanted Christie but Bridgegate would have been the biggest national story,” a third Trump source said. “He’d lose the advantage of not being corrupt.”
Trump agreed to name Pence the next day and broke the news to Christie, saying it would “tear my family apart if I gave you VP,” a source said.
Christie acknowledged to MSNBC that Trump’s decision bothered him. “If you’re a competitive person, like I am, and you’re used to winning, like I am — again, you don’t like coming in second, ever,” Christie said.
A Christie aide said it was “completely wrong” that Trump offered the job to the governor.
http://nypost.com/2016/10/30/trump-offered-christie-his-vp-slot-then-rescinded-it/
|
|
|
The is the coldest burn I've seen in a while.
|
Reid sort of decided to be stupid here. I guess when retirement is a month away he feels he can be hyperbolic and rude as hell. I sympathize more and more with the Republican narrative that he is a terrible leader of the Democratic Senators.
|
On October 31 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote:
Reid sort of decided to be stupid here. I guess when retirement is a month away he feels he can be hyperbolic and rude as hell. I sympathize more and more with the Republican narrative that he is a terrible leader of the Democratic Senators.
No it's a perfect plan if there was/is damning evidence he should have released it weeks ago. Instead Comey doesn't even know if anything is even there let alone if it belongs to Clinton. Then to add insult to injury he only informed Republican members not Democratic ones who found out via Social Media.
|
On October 31 2016 08:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote:
Reid sort of decided to be stupid here. I guess when retirement is a month away he feels he can be hyperbolic and rude as hell. I sympathize more and more with the Republican narrative that he is a terrible leader of the Democratic Senators. No it's a perfect plan if there was/is damning evidence he should have released it weeks ago. Instead Comey doesn't even know if anything is even there let alone if it belongs to Clinton. Then to add insult to injury he only informed Republican members not Democratic ones who found out via Social Media.
Not sure there is much to gain by deciding to be quite so pissy about it. His letter comes off as "omg why didnt u bury trump with russia connections, i helped u y u no help me, i h8 u now" more than any genuine concern about influencing elections.
|
The dems were cc'd on the email btw
|
I can't be the only ones sick of partisanship and cognitive dissonance? Oh, when Comey does everything I like and want he's great. When he doesn't he's the spawn of satan and ex-communicated. He was just a principled public servant when his actions lined up with my political inclinations and when they don't he's attacked mercilessly lmao. This is why I scoff when (D) partisans bicker about "obstructionism" and "partisanship" like they've never been known to delve into that whenever the (R)'s are in power, and vice versa. I can't stand our political climate and the useful idiots who keep voting in these asshats.
I mean, the argument ChristianS is making is hilarious. You can easily make the argument that either decision he makes is an influence on the electorate. By not pressing charges he's in the pocket of Clinton and the Democrats blatantly disregarding whatever criminal conduct has been committed in order to preserve face for her and not give the election to Trump. That's entirely in the same plausible realm as this non-sense being peddled now (that he's a partisan hack and influencing election by bringing this up now to help Trump, etc. etc.). There's no winning with partisans because you can spin whatever he does to fit into narrow agendas. The fact is though that none of this would be an issue if Clinton wasn't a total incompetent dunce who conducted herself in a manner in which any other person with access to compartmentalized spaces and classified information would be thrown in Leavenworth (and this goes for CO's of bases). I would know considering that was a huge part of my job in the Coast Guard. So, yeah, I don't expect either side to see their own cognitive dissonance, but I always get more elation when the (D)'s are eating face because they're so puritanical about being "above the fray" so to speak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
