US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5897

On November 04 2016 04:17 xDaunt wrote:

How about it's far more likely to be damaging for a corrupt Justice Department?

On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case.

On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case.

He explained, "Look, if they found a treasure trove information on Anthony Weiner's laptop, they are duty bound to investigate what they found. But, the law prohibits the FBI from taking a snapshot, a progress report of a criminal investigation, and broadcasting that. It is sort of like, "hey, we have some stuff on you. We don't know what it is. We haven't looked at it yet, we haven't decided the significance of it, we don't even know if it's about you or somebody that works for you, but we're just telling everybody that we have it." That violates due process, the essence of which is, notice what's going on, and fairness, and I'm very disappointed, as are a lot of people from all over the political spectrum."

On November 04 2016 04:27 Plansix wrote:
Then they can continue their investigation, find the illegal activity and present it to the Republican congress to impeach Clinton after the election. Or charge her if she loses.

On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case.

On November 04 2016 04:29 TheYango wrote:

The implication, I assume, is that they can't "continue their investigation" due to higher-ups stonewalling the process. Thus the goal of this leak is to put political pressure via the media to allow them to continue said investigation.

I understand the goal of their approach, but I think it's a shitty way to do it, and doesn't reflect well on the FBI as a whole.

On November 04 2016 04:33 xDaunt wrote:

Yes, basically this. What the FBI agents are doing clearly is not above-board, but I'm not sure that they really have a choice.

On November 04 2016 04:33 xDaunt wrote:

Yes, basically this. What the FBI agents are doing clearly is not above-board, but I'm not sure that they really have a choice.

On November 04 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:

If they have evidence and are being stonewalled they can release evidence to the press

If they have no evidence yet they should keep their mouths shut and wait for more evidence.

On November 04 2016 04:33 xDaunt wrote:

Yes, basically this. What the FBI agents are doing clearly is not above-board, but I'm not sure that they really have a choice.

On November 04 2016 04:36 zlefin wrote:

we've already presented better choices than what they did. so they clearly do have choices, which are superior to the choice they chose.

On November 04 2016 04:37 biology]major wrote:


They can't get the evidence I believe because of the obstruction from DOJ, they need subpoenas. Thus their conundrum.

U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs slammed an ongoing North Carolinian voter purge during a dramatic Wednesday hearing, telling county attorneys that she was “horrified” by the “insane” process by which voters could be removed from the rolls without their knowledge. “It almost looks like a cattle call, the way people are being purged,” Biggs said. “This sounds like something that was put together in 1901,” when the state used Jim Crow laws to prevent black citizens from casting a ballot.

Biggs called a hearing after the NAACP sued several North Carolina counties for purging nearly 6,700 voters—most of them black Democrats—from the rolls. These purges were legal under a state law that permits any person to revoke any other person’s voting rights. The process is simple: An individual gathers mail that was returned as undeliverable, then challenges the voter registration of residents at those addresses. If those voters do not appear at a county board of elections or return a notarized form, their voting rights are nullified.

In several North Carolina counties, Republican activists have used this process to revoke thousands of people’s voting rights at once, a majority of them minorities. But as the Justice Department noted in supporting the NAACP’s lawsuit, this process is illegal under federal law, which trumps state law when the two clash. Biggs indicated that she would halt the purges and restore purged voters’ rights under federal law but did not issue a ruling from the bench. Her decision is likely to come within the next few days.

In recent weeks, the North Carolina voter purges have drawn nationwide outcry as the most explicit example of Republicans suppressing minority voting rights. Even President Barack Obama mentioned the purges while campaigning in the state on Wednesday. Obama told the story of 100-year-old Grace Bell Hardison, a black woman whom Republican activists attempted to purge from the voter rolls. “If you don’t vote,” he told supporters, “then you’ve done the work of those who would suppress your vote without them even having to lift a finger.”

On November 04 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:

If they want to pressure via the media then don't fucking do it a week before the election.
This isn't pressuring superiors. This is direct interference with the Democratic process.

On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case.

On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:

you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.

this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents.

this is the very definition of going rogue

On November 04 2016 04:36 Rebs wrote:


Justified or not + Show Spoiler + this is some real cloak and dagger bullshit that is clearly influencing the election and may be legitimate but then we gotta give Drumpf accusers a fair shout aswell.

Just saying.