• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT: Comey tried to shield FBI from politics & instead shaped the election

Status
Not open for further replies.
Same idea, different execution. Was she wrong in her execution of said idea? Yes, and she admitted as much after the fact, but there wasn't some crazy dark conspiracy behind getting more convenient emails.

You are reaching this much to defend Hillary? using a Yahoo account is a tad different from setting up a secret server in the bathroom of your basement. On top of that she bleached the shit out of the hard drives as soon as she was about to face an FBI investigation. What else do you wish to excuse for your helpless queen?
 

Xe4

Banned
Again? sure...



and...



I'm glad to refresh people's minds about the shady shit going on at the Justice Department over the Clinton investigation. The article notes a few of those.

And LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER THE PARAGRAPHS YOU QUOTED:

In spring last year, Mr. Strzok, the counterintelligence supervisor, reported to Mr. Comey that Mrs. Clinton had clearly been careless, but agents and prosecutors agreed that they had no proof of intent. Agents had not yet interviewed Mrs. Clinton or her aides, but the outcome was coming into focus.

Nine months into the investigation, it became clear to Mr. Comey that Mrs. Clinton was almost certainly not going to face charges. He quietly began work on talking points, toying with the notion that in the midst of a bitter presidential campaign, a Justice Department led by Democrats may not have the credibility to close the case, and that he alone should explain that decision to the public.

Ms. Lynch said she would not step aside but would accept whatever career prosecutors and the F.B.I. recommended on the Clinton case — something she had planned to do all along.
...
Two days later, on the morning of July 5, Mr. Comey called Ms. Lynch to say that he was about to hold a news conference. He did not tell her what he planned to say, and Ms. Lynch did not demand to know.

But please tell me again how evil Mrs. Clinton won by thwarting the good guy FBI by hiding her emails and getting Lynch to interfere.

Seriously man.

You are reaching this much to defend Hillary? using a Yahoo account is a tad different from setting up a secret server in the bathroom of your basement. On top of that she bleached the shit out of the hard drives as soon as she was about to face an FBI investigation. What else do you wish to excuse for your helpless queen?
You're going to have to source that claim. And before you give me a source about her deleting emails, all evidence suggests those were personal emails, which State Dept. Employees are allowed to delete. Show me that she "bleached her hard drives" after she knew of an investigation.
 

Kyzer

Banned
You are reaching this much to defend Hillary? using a Yahoo account is a tad different from setting up a secret server in the bathroom of your basement. On top of that she bleached the shit out of the hard drives as soon as she was about to face an FBI investigation. What else do you wish to excuse for your helpless queen?

The investigation covered that. Comey said the way in which evidence was deleted was not suspicious based on their regular patterns and methods of doing it.
 
There is an excuse, to anyone reasonable enough to listen. The public knew about the Hillary investigation already, like you said they "re" opened the investigation. Nor did Comey disclose to the public that the investigation was reopened in the first place, he disclosed it to congress. So there is no unfair reveal of one and not the other. Im not sure why people are so steadfast in wanting to believe that Comey was trying to do something to Hillary.

To sit from an armchair and say the director of the fbi had no excuse to disclose to congress that the investigation about the presidential candidate a was reopened after giving a sworn testimony is basically to be actively ignoring reasonable explanations in search of political conspiracy. Ironically, when Comey was defending Hillarys innocence it was the republicans claiming comey was a friend of the clintons and in cahoots with the justice dept and the whole system was politically biased.

You'd be extremely naive to think Comey was not aware that a Republican-majority Congress was going to leak his letter. That was a 100% certainty and he knew that. His statement over the summer made it abundantly clear that case was closed until something substantive was going to happen. He didn't have to provide real-time updates on the re-opening of the investigation either: shit goes in and out of investigation at the FBI all the time. That's the organization he runs, he doesn't run a goddamn twitter account.

Comey was trying to save his ass and in doing so the FBI's activities helped shape the election. Whether or not Comey was actively trying to sabotage Hillary is irrelevant; he did damage the campaign, and the FBI WAS utilized as a political tool, which is a perversion of everything the intelligence community stands for. He was still grossly incompetent and acted completely illogically whether or not it was fundamentally malicious.
 
You are reaching this much to defend Hillary? using a Yahoo account is a tad different from setting up a secret server in the bathroom of your basement. On top of that she bleached the shit out of the hard drives as soon as she was about to face an FBI investigation. What else do you wish to excuse for your helpless queen?

What does bleaching the shit out hard drives actually entail?
 
And LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER THE PARAGRAPHS YOU QUOTED:





But please tell me again how evil Mrs. Clinton won by thwarting the good guy FBI by hiding her emails and getting Lynch to interfere.

Seriously man.

They could not prove intent because Clinton destroyed evidence by destroying emails. Her aids proceeded to cover for her by pleading the 5th at every turn the FBI tried to link decisions to Clinton. None of what you posted changes that tidbit.
 

Mully

Member
Powell used a private email, not an unauthorized server tucked away in his basement. Big difference there.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

I'm aware Powell had a private email. I'm also aware that having a private email account makes you more susceptible to a massive hack (see: Yahoo) as well as possibly leaving an unknown backdoor open for third parties.

I'm not defending either one's actions, but it's clear they were both done due to incompetence and not maliciously.
 

Xe4

Banned
They could not prove intent because Clinton destroyed evidence by destroying emails. Her aids proceeded to cover for her by pleading the 5th at every turn the FBI tried to link decisions to Clinton. None of what you posted changes that tidbit.

Literally nothing suggests she deleted emails for anything other than personal reasons (which you're allowed to do). You're going to have to point to specific requests for deletions of emails after the FBI investigation was known.


Except they literally said the opposite...

In Mr. Combetta's first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton's lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions ”he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data" on the Platte River server.

If the FBI suspected that those emails had been important or that Clinton's actions were suspicious they would've noted it. They didn't, and those that did delete the emails specifically noted they were ordered not to to by the Clinton campaign.
 

Kyzer

Banned
You'd be extremely naive to think Comey was not aware that a Republican-majority Congress was going to leak his letter. That was a 100% certainty and he knew that.

Comey was trying to save his ass and in doing so the FBI's activities helped shape the election. Whether or not Comey was actively trying to sabotage Hillary is irrelevant; he did damage the campaign, and the FBI WAS utilized as a political tool, which is a perversion of everything the intelligence community stands for. He was still grossly incompetent and acted completely illogically whether or not it was fundamentally malicious.

Your explanation is far more of a reach than mine, and has many more presumptions, not to mention you make a bunch of claims as if they were factual that you cannot possibly know or are the entire crux for debate. Your worldview also dictates that the potential of Hillary having mishandled classified information was already determined to be known beforehand, whereas a bipartisan one would think it of great importance and reason for concern. If she had been found to be guilty of something, not disclosing to congress after having a giant public hearing would have meant his and the departments heads. You say all this as if its an easy issue with an easy decision and the fact that he made one other than your "obvious" one means he must have also had this logical leap of a motive. Its not that black and white and anyone who disagrees with you on this clearly complicated and contentious issue is not automatically naive.
 

Lothars

Member
Its not that black and white and anyone who disagrees with you on this clearly complicated and contentious issue is not automatically naive.
Hmm no they are pretty naive. I don't believe for a second that Comey didn't do it for any reason other than to ensure Trump got elected.
 

Kyzer

Banned
Hmm no they are pretty naive. I don't believe for a second that Comey didn't do it for any reason other than to ensure Trump got elected.

I guess if you totally ignore the possibility that there could be a reasonable explanation and think hillary being investigated by the fbi had nothing to do with a potentially serious crime then yeah its naive to believe it
 

Xe4

Banned
Hmm no they are pretty naive. I don't believe for a second that Comey didn't do it for any reason other than to ensure Trump got elected.

Most of the interviews in the article seem to state that Comey did it to avoid controversy, not get Trump elected. Not that it wasn't a stupid and partisan move, but I don't think it was deliberately to get Trump elected.
 
Your explanation is far more of a reach than mine, and has many more presumptions, not to mention you make a bunch of claims as if they were factual that you cannot possibly know or are the entire crux for debate. Your worldview also dictates that the potential of Hillary having mishandled classified information was already determined to be known beforehand, whereas a bipartisan one would think it of great importance and reason for concern. If she had been found to be guilty of something, not disclosing to congress after having a giant public hearing would have meant his and the departments heads. You say all this as if its an easy issue with an easy decision and the fact that he made one other than your "obvious" one means he must have also had this logical leap of a motive.

Comey had already completed the investigation to its full capacity by the end of the summer. The only reason he went public was to appease the conspiracy theorist bullshit that Loretta Lynch was in cahoots with Bill Clinton, which was dumb and overly reactionary.

You can continue to act like there were this big, gigantic mysteries of things we didn't know about the Clinton investigation that were amazingly relevant to the election at the time that Comey wrote that letter that he full well knew was going to be leaked. But I, along with millions of other people, actually remember what happened and the state of the investigation at that time.

I'm not the one conjuring the notion that he should've kept his mouth shut. That is the standard operating procedure for the FBI, and a procedure that has been followed for decades. But for mysterious reasons that was more illogical than blabbing to Congress at the drop of a hat.

Nothing changes the fact that the FBI changed the election, something that an intelligence agency is absolutely never meant to do. It's right there in the NYT headline. Comey tried to save his ass, instead he affected the election. Please point out all the "reaching" I'm doing, because from this vantage point you're the one defending Comey from going against standard procedure, against nearly everyone in his own community, and coming up with nebulous excuses as to why this was somehow the more logical conclusion.
 

Kyzer

Banned
. Please point out all the "reaching" I'm doing


Ok


That was a 100% certainty [that the letter would leak] and he knew that.

You act like a presidential candidate being under investigation by the fbi is no big deal and that there is NO potential reason for him to ever disclose to congress that its been reopened after having a HUGE public hearing proclaiming her innocence to the entire american public and the committee, and that he MUST have done this intentionally, knowing it would leak. No, its definitely not that simple.
 

Lothars

Member
Most of the interviews in the article seem to state that Comey did it to avoid controversy, not get Trump elected. Not that it wasn't a stupid and partisan move, but I don't think it was deliberately to get Trump elected.

Why would he want that so badly?
Not sure but it's exactly what happened. I don't believe anything he says in interviews saying that he did it to avoid controversy. If he wanted to avoid the controversy he would have said that both Trump and Clinton were being investigated but he didn't.

So It naturally lends itself to show that he wanted Trump elected.
 

That's not reaching. Do you honestly believe he wouldn't know that? Do you understand Comey's background?

"Here, have something that would be utterly devastating to Clinton's campaign. But make sure you don't tell anyone anything! Here's a big red button. Don't push!"

OK guy. Great example. Any more of me """reaching"""?
 

kirblar

Member
At the time of the letter it was reported that they were hearing it was to preempt potential leaks from the NY office. This isnt a retcon, we knew something was forcing his hand and now we know it wasnt random.
 

Xe4

Banned
Not sure but it's exactly what happened. I don't believe anything he says in interviews saying that he did it to avoid controversy. If he wanted to avoid the controversy he would have said that both Trump and Clinton were being investigated but he didn't.

So It naturally lends itself to show that he wanted Trump elected.

Well, as far as I know, Comey was never interviewed. This was based on other people interviewed as to why he did what he did. He believed that Clinton was guaranteed to be elected (as did so many), and that if anything came up in the emails it would invite controversy. So he sent an email to congress to avoid said controversy.

Now, it was a stupid move that went against FBI procedure, and ultimately led to controversy anyways (as it rightfully should). The FBI could have played off any outrage over the fact that they do not, and should not, reveal any ongoing investigation particularly before a national election. But they didn't, nor did they examine the emails first, to confirm whether or not there was any substance to them (which there was not).

That said, I don't believe it was done to get Trump elected. There is nothing that substantiates that, particularly since Comey was worried about Russian interference into the election so much.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Not sure but it's exactly what happened. I don't believe anything he says in interviews saying that he did it to avoid controversy. If he wanted to avoid the controversy he would have said that both Trump and Clinton were being investigated but he didn't.

So It naturally lends itself to show that he wanted Trump elected.

So you believe it regardless of what he has to say about it and can't come up with a motive. Sounds like you didn't actually reason your way into that conclusion. Don't stoop to the Trump level of analysis here.
 

Kyzer

Banned
That's not reaching. Do you honestly believe he wouldn't know that? Do you understand Comey's background?

"Here, have something that would be utterly devastating to Clinton's campaign. But make sure you don't tell anyone anything! Here's a big red button. Don't push!"

OK guy. Great example. Any more of me """reaching"""?

If you think "The FBI director intentionally leaked a letter knowing it would devastate the clinton campaign, and definitely could never be because of any other reason", is just some known inherent fact of life you can throw around then you dont realize how entrenched in bias you are. What do you have, a very strong hunch? Whats the point of even arguing with you if your viewpoint is just that youre right because youre right, and look how obvious it is, while guarding against any attempt at any other explanation, means youre not going to ever accept any rational explanation. Anything other than what you believe, even though its not a fact, is naive and ludicrous.
 

Lothars

Member
Well, as far as I know, Comey was never interviewed. This was based on other people interviewed as to why he did what he did. He believed that Clinton was guaranteed to be elected (as did so many), and that if anything came up in the emails it would invite controversy. So he sent an email to congress to avoid said controversy.

Now, it was a stupid move that went against FBI procedure, and ultimately led to controversy anyways (as it rightfully should). The FBI could have played off any outrage over the fact that they do not, and should not, reveal any ongoing investigation particularly before a national election. But they didn't, nor did they examine the emails first, to confirm whether or not there was any substance to them (which there was not).

That said, I don't believe it was done to get Trump elected. There is nothing that substantiates that, particularly since Comey was worried about Russian interference into the election so much.
He had an agenda on doing it. I don't believe for a second it was because he was worried about controversy especially since it was a long running procedure that he went against.

So you believe it regardless of what he has to say about it and can't come up with a motive. Sounds like you didn't actually reason your way into that conclusion. Don't stoop to the Trump level of analysis here.
The analysis is that Comey helped Donald Trump win by going against a long running procedure. It's pretty suspicious and also indefensible.
 

KHarvey16

Member
The analysis is that Comey helped Donald Trump win by going against a long running procedure. It's pretty suspicious and also indefensible.

That is not the extent of your conclusions shared here. You've assigned a desire to get Trump elected without offering a motive or any evidence.
 

Xe4

Banned
He had an agenda on doing it. I don't believe for a second it was because he was worried about controversy especially since it was a long running procedure that he went against.

I mean, the article goes into a lot of detail about this. This wasn't the first time he has screwed himself over trying to be "independent" and "non-partisan", and all of his discussions with people suggested his motives were to try to avoid controversy.

It's possible he could've been lying to people when he said his reasons, and really didn't want to release an op-ed about Russian meddling in our election to try to help Trump. It's also possible that he didn't have deep reservations about Trump and the campaign's ties to Russia even though others said he did.

But that goes against evidence. If we're to combat the flood of fake news and conspiracy theories spewed by the extremes of the political spectrum, we have to back up our claims. Gut feelings are only worth so much.
 
If you think "The FBI director intentionally leaked a letter knowing it would devastate the clinton campaign, and definitely could never be because of any other reason", is just some known inherent fact of life you can throw around then you dont realize how entrenched in bias you are. What do you have, a very strong hunch? Whats the point of even arguing with you if your viewpoint is just that youre right because youre right, and look how obvious it is, while guarding against any attempt at any other explanation, means youre not going to ever accept any rational explanation. Anything other than what you believe, even though its not a fact, is naive and ludicrous.

You're making an even more ludicrous and naive argument by suggesting that such a thing never even crossed Comey's mind. Him poking the beehive resulted in bees coming out of the woodwork, who woulda thunk?!

You're barking up the wrong tree. I am reiterating what the NYT said, and it goes in line with what the intelligence community generally believes and its procedures. You don't make statements that are public or that will eventually be made public on ongoing investigations. Full stop. You're so stubbornly convinced that this is all armchair punditry that you're willing to go above an beyond in contortions to exonerate Comey for no particular reason. I am not arguing that Comey did this with the express intent of hurting Clinton's campaign. But there is no chance that he didn't know that the letter was going to be used as a political weapon. Anyone with even one iota of understanding of politics in the US knows what the through-line was going to be. But he did it because he didn't believe it was going to have any effect, and did it because above all, Comey was looking after Comey, integrity of the US election be damned.

Again, I have history and procedure of the FBI on my side to say that writing that letter was monumentally stupid. Your "hunch" is far more reaching than mine.
 

Kyzer

Banned
Besides everything else I already mentioned, even if Comey had literally revealed details to the public,Comey has already clearly outlined that they are willing to show info in cases they believe to be pertinent to the american peoples interests, so everyones question should really be what his reasoning is for not sharing that trump was also under investigation. Revealing new info in hillarys case to the public (which he didnt) wouldnt even be against procedure.


You're making an even more ludicrous and naive argument by suggesting that such a thing never even crossed Comey's mind. Him poking the beehive resulted in bees coming out of the woodwork, who woulda thunk?!

You're barking up the wrong tree. I am reiterating what the NYT said, and it goes in line with what the intelligence community generally believes and its procedures. You don't make statements that are public or that will eventually be made public on ongoing investigations. Full stop. You're so stubbornly convinced that this is all armchair punditry that you're willing to go above an beyond in contortions to exonerate Comey for no particular reason. I am not arguing that Comey did this with the express intent of hurting Clinton's campaign. But there is no chance that he didn't know that the letter was going to be used as a political weapon. Anyone with even one iota of understanding of politics in the US knows what the through-line was going to be. But he did it because he didn't believe it was going to have any effect, and did it because above all, Comey was looking after Comey, integrity of the US election be damned.

Again, I have history and procedure of the FBI on my side to say that writing that letter was monumentally stupid. Your "hunch" is far more reaching than mine.

What hunch of mine? Not thinking theres a conspiracy is not a hunch, its just nothing
 

Lothars

Member
That is not the extent of your conclusions shared here. You've assigned a desire to get Trump elected without offering a motive or any evidence.
That is the extent of my conclusion. You have as much evidence as I do. Comey could have not done this and it wouldn't have changed the election but he did and now is saying whoops I didn't mean to affect the election?

I mean, the article goes into a lot of detail about this. This wasn't the first time he has screwed himself over trying to be "independent" and "non-partisan", and all of his discussions with people suggested his motives were to try to avoid controversy.

It's possible he could've been lying to people when he said his reasons, and really didn't want to release an op-ed about Russian meddling in our election to try to help Trump. It's also possible that he didn't have deep reservations about Trump and the campaign's ties to Russia even though others said he did.

But that goes against evidence. If we're to combat the flood of fake news and conspiracy theories spewed by the extremes of the political spectrum, we have to back up our claims. Gut feelings are only worth so much.
Fine, I will admit I am wrong right now until more evidence comes out.

Edit: I apologize for derailing the thread. just seems pretty strange how it all comes out right before the election but nothing about trump being investigated.
 

kirblar

Member
You're making an even more ludicrous and naive argument by suggesting that such a thing never even crossed Comey's mind. Him poking the beehive resulted in bees coming out of the woodwork, who woulda thunk?!

You're barking up the wrong tree. I am reiterating what the NYT said, and it goes in line with what the intelligence community generally believes and its procedures. You don't make statements that are public or that will eventually be made public on ongoing investigations. Full stop. You're so stubbornly convinced that this is all armchair punditry that you're willing to go above an beyond in contortions to exonerate Comey for no particular reason. I am not arguing that Comey did this with the express intent of hurting Clinton's campaign. But there is no chance that he didn't know that the letter was going to be used as a political weapon. Anyone with even one iota of understanding of politics in the US knows what the through-line was going to be. But he did it because he didn't believe it was going to have any effect, and did it because above all, Comey was looking after Comey, integrity of the US election be damned.

Again, I have history and procedure of the FBI on my side to say that writing that letter was monumentally stupid. Your "hunch" is far more reaching than mine.
It was monumentally stupid. That doesn't mean it wasn't done in good faith, nor does it mean that there weren't other external factors that pressured Comey to release it.
 
What hunch of mine? Not thinking theres a conspiracy is not a hunch, its just nothing

Like I said, I don't subscribe to the notion that Comey's actions were part of a conspiracy to get Trump elected. I do subscribe to the notion that Comey was an incompetent hack from the circus he ran over the course of the election.

It was monumentally stupid. That doesn't mean it wasn't done in good faith, nor does it mean that there weren't other external factors that pressured Comey to release it.

What do you mean by "good faith"?
 

Xe4

Banned
Besides everything else I already mentioned, even if Comey had literally revealed details to the public,Comey has already clearly outlined that they are willing to show info in cases they believe to be pertinent to the american peoples interests, so everyones question should really be what his reasoning is for not sharing that trump was also under investigation. Revealing new info in hillarys case to the public (which he didnt) wouldnt even be against procedure.
Discussing an open investigation is and will always be against FBI procedure, for obvious reasons. Comey clearly violated that procedure, and Lynch and Yates could have stopped him on those grounds, though they chose not to.

To be entirely fair to Comey, whilst he did not want to reveal Trump was under investigation, he did want to discuss Russian interference in the election towards Trump via an op-ed. Obama stepped in and stopped him, which was the right decision on many different levels.

It's in the best interest of the American public not to have government agencies interfering in our elections. If you can't see why that's the case I don't see how I could possibly persuade you.

That is the extent of my conclusion. You have as much evidence as I do. Comey could have not done this and it wouldn't have changed the election but he did and now is saying whoops I didn't mean to affect the election?

There is far more evidence (interviews for one, the proposed op-ed for another) that Comey did not want to help the Trump campaign than that he did.

Edit:
Fine, I will admit I am wrong right now until more evidence comes out.

Edit: I apologize for derailing the thread. just seems pretty strange how it all comes out right before the election but nothing about trump being investigated.
It's cool. It's always important to remember to go with the evidence, whether you want it to be true or not. It's hard for anyone to do, but vital to coming to the truth of matters.

It was monumentally stupid. That doesn't mean it wasn't done in good faith, nor does it mean that there weren't other external factors that pressured Comey to release it.

It's interesting that the NYT article doesn't go into his hand being forced, because I believe that the FBI's fear that the NY office leaking the info was a well corroborated story.
 

Kyzer

Banned
Discussing an open investigation is and will always be against FBI procedure, for obvious reasons. Comey clearly violated that procedure, and Lynch and Yates could have stopped him on those grounds, though they chose not to.

To be entirely fair to Comey, whilst he did not want to reveal Trump was under investigation, he did want to discuss Russian interference in the election towards Trump via an op-ed. Obama stepped in and stopped him, which was the right decision on many different levels.

It's in the best interest of the American public not to have government agencies interfering in our elections. If you can't see why that's the case I don't see how I could possibly persuade you.



There is far more evidence (interviews for one, the proposed op-ed for another) that Comey did not want to help the Trump campaign than that he did.

Comey:
James Comey said:
“American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.”

And again, he didnt even go to the public, he disclosed to congress. After a sworn testimony. About a presidential candidate. Hardly a scenario of regular procedure by any means.

Like I said, the real question is why he decided against revealing trumps case, and apparently that was obamas fault.
 

Xe4

Banned
Comey

And again, he didnt even go to the public, he disclosed to congress. After a sworn testimony. About a presidential candidate. Hardly a scenario of regular procedure by any means.

Like I said, the real question is why he decided against revealing trumps case, and apparently that was obamas fault.

It doesn't matter what Comey thinks, it matters what is good policy, and it is the policy of the FBI not to discuss matters of an open investigation. It is also the policy of US government agencies not to interfere with elections within a certain amount of time before them. Comey violated both of those policies, which is pretty unheard of.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
It was monumentally stupid. That doesn't mean it wasn't done in good faith, nor does it mean that there weren't other external factors that pressured Comey to release it.

I think on paper, the "boy scout" argument can be made, but if you just watch the interviews and even house questioning at the time, it's really hard to believe Comey isn't picking a side. Just listen to his tones and responses throughout those days. Asked point blank if he doesn't think that exposing one investigation while keeping another secret is at least weird, he blinks like a kid caught in the cookie jar.
 

Kyzer

Banned
It doesn't matter what Comey thinks, it matters what is good policy, and it is the policy of the FBI not to discuss matters of an open investigation. It is the policy of US government agencies not to interfere with elections within a certain amount of time before them. Comey violated both of those policies, which is pretty unheard of.

In that case he also violated it when he cleared Hillarys name by publically recommending that she not be charged, that they found nothing, and done a public hearing defending the decision. Intense public interest is definitely a thing between the DoJ and FBI

Either way, with all this laid out, to ignore it all and vehemently accuse Comey of foul play is purposeful. Theres plenty of reasoning to be found
 

Xe4

Banned
In that case he also violated it when he cleared Hillarys name by publically recommending that she not be charged, that they found nothing, and done a public hearing. Intense public interest is definitely a thing between the DoJ and FBI

That was not within a certain time of the election. I can't remember the specific law, but the meeting was before that time frame. Also, he was wrapping up an investigation which was started long before the election. It's something I'd rather not have happen, but which is pretty unavoidable.
 

Kyzer

Banned
That was not within a certain time of the election. I can't remember the specific law, but the meeting was before that time frame. Also, he was wrapping up an investigation which was started long before the election. It's something I'd rather not have happen, but which is pretty unavoidable.

It was definitely close to the election, and he cited intense public interest. Republicans were accusing him of colluding with the clintons the same way some dems are now.
 
I mean, this is clearly bullshit. They finished going through the new emails before the election. They could have waited until that was done before saying anything. If it turned out to be nothing, then good. If it did turn out to be something, he could have crossed that bridge when he got there
 
Because he was trying to pre-empt a leak that he thought would be even worse than him coming out and stating it.

There's a reason you haven't seen Rudy on TV in ages.

"Even worse" for what? The standard procedure is for the FBI to not discuss ongoing investigations. The leak happening was going to be unsubstantiated and could've easily been swept under the rug as Republicans floundering. Comey coming out instead and giving it the official FBI stamp instantly legitimized it.

He was trying to cover his ass for future shit he was gonna get during what he thought was the inevitable Clinton administration. He vomited his real-time updates to Congress knowing it was well against FBI procedure but he didn't care because he thought it would have no consequence. Still struggling to see where's the "good faith" part in this, sorry.
 
He could not let politics affect his decision, he replied. “If we ever start considering who might be affected, and in what way, by what we do, we’re done,” he told the agents.

And this, Comey, is exactly why that rule existed. Because politics and truth in law are not the same thing. Pulling a hardline response was never the correct answer there.
 

Xe4

Banned
It was definitely close to the election, and he cited intense public interest. Republicans were accusing him of colluding with the clintons the same way some dems are now.

Looking it up, the Hatch Act forbids federal employees from intervening in an election, though unfortunately there is no time table. I stand by the fact that Comey revealing the results of the investigation was necessary, but him revealing there was an investigation was not. Notably, one was SOP for the FBI and the other went against procedure.

I can only speak for myself, but a confirmation of intent to prosecute Clinton (if that had happened) would have been also fine, and not against the Hatch act. Again, that is standard operating procedure. Revealing an ongoing investigation is not, particularly two weeks before the election (I wouldn't want Comey to clear Clinton in that time frame either).
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
On the server, as reminded to us all in this very article, they only failed to prove intent after Hillary was being same old shady as fuck Hillary by bleaching away entire batches of emails. I also lost count on how many 5ths were pleaded by her aids to protect the Prima Donna.

As the article states, we can't forget Loretta Lynch's fun casual chat at the tarmac about "golf and grandkids" with Mr Bill Clinton Inc. Comey had the pressure of not coming off as the total pro-Clinton biased tool that Lynch turned out to be.

thanks for the detailed response. no wonder Hillary is in jail for the rest of her life.


you certainly made me rethink my position and understanding of the subject. apologies for hinting you were a redundant shill.
 

kirblar

Member
"Even worse" for what? The standard procedure is for the FBI to not discuss ongoing investigations. The leak happening was going to be unsubstantiated and could've easily been swept under the rug as Republicans floundering. Comey coming out instead and giving it the official FBI stamp instantly legitimized it.

He was trying to cover his ass for future shit he was gonna get during what he thought was the inevitable Clinton administration. He vomited his real-time updates to Congress knowing it was well against FBI procedure but he didn't care because he thought it would have no consequence. Still struggling to see where's the "good faith" part in this, sorry.
He wanted to do something like this regarding Trump/Russia. We have enough context to know that this was his well-intentioned but very naive and bad impulse in multiple similar situations. (the policy is there for a reason!)
 

xxracerxx

Don't worry, I'll vouch for them.
thanks for the detailed response. no wonder Hillary is in jail for the rest of her life.


you certainly made me rethink my position and understanding of the subject. apologies for hinting you were a redundant shill.

Stop being a sheep Stinkles!
 
He wanted to do something like this regarding Trump/Russia. We have enough context to know that this was his well-intentioned but very naive and bad impulse in multiple similar situations. (the policy is there for a reason!)

I simply don't see it that way. Comey is not some doe-eyed newcomer to Washington who doesn't know the procedures and why they're in place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom