4. If Clinton doesn't have a private server in her basement none of the happens.
5. If Clinton turns over all Emails none of this happens.
Everything else flows from this.
James Comey FBI director reopens Clinton email investigation
- Thread starter SuperCharge
- Start date
5. If Clinton turns over all Emails none of this happens.
Everything else flows from this.
So why would Comey publicize this and refuse to publicize the fact that Trump and the Russians were trying to influence the election through these illegal hacks?
I don't believe it was "legal advice". It was Democrats in the DOJ. Big difference. They either lied or didn't actually say that but implied it like a lawyer would.
So far I don't hear the DOJ calling for his arrest.
Whether it's Trump, Clinton, a guy in a clown costume, no matter who wins, Putin is still going to stand up to America, flick his finger and nicely say "fuck off".
Yeah, poor Hillary, "we came, we saw, he died" 0:07 "ehhhh!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM
I have no idea. Except either they don't have this, or the "evidence is either provably false or so ambiguous at this timethat he would be considered in contravention of the Hatch act.
The President is confident in him. Surely that counts for something.
Here's more from the article.
So why was it ok to release vague innuendo against Clinton and refuse to release more solid innuendo against Russia/Trump?
I think you may be dealing with someone who has a lack of imagination as well as no relevant experience or knowledge.
Imagine this sequence. You are an FBI investigator tasked with investigating charges against Anthony Weiner. Weiner realizes he's in pretty hot water, so he proposes a deal premised on his co-operation. The thing you want at a minimum condition of any deal is access to the laptop as well as any other devices that he likely used to communicate with his victims. Weiner realizes that he can restrict any warrant to access to only those e-mails/documents that are relevant to investigating charges against him. He also knows that on the same laptop that he used, Uma kept backup copies of e-mails she exchanged with Clinton from the Clinton personal server. He has seen these e-mails and knows what they discuss. He also knows whether all of these e-mails were turned over the Department of State or not. He also knows whether they contain classified information or not. Weiner knows that the FBI would have interest in this. He proposes a deal. The FBI wants to know whether he is trying to play them (although he's desperate and estranged from Abedin, so it's credible that he'd be prepared to take her down to save his own skin). The FBI asks for sample documents. Weiner has some as his own insurance policy. The samples don't disappoint - they disclose e-mails not turned over to the Dep't of State/FBI/Congress, they include classified information, perhaps they even discuss deletion of e-mails. The FBI makes the deal, and seeks a search warrant for the entirety of the records in connection with the e-mail server investigation. The sample e-mails disclosed to them, plus the corroborating information from Weiner, supports the issuance of the search warrant.
This is just an example of how Comey could already have incriminating evidence in hand, but also be seeking the balance of e-mails in order to look for more (which Weiner has promised they will find).
Posters can either accept that the justice system works that way, or they can wait until they are subjected to a serious criminal investigation and see for themselves.
I think because the intelligence community deals in speculation. As in low to high confidence. So they can make statements like that.
The FBI is actually one, not connected to international investigations unless they directly land on American Soil, and two, concerned with the law and not espionage.
So while I don't agree completely with the assessment it could be argued it isn't in the FBI's purview and possibly as a result in contravention of the Hatch act.
Honestly I don't know the details. Just throwing out thoughts. But in the end the President is confident his is on the up and up. And Comey's rep does stand up to that.
The FBI tried negotiating with Hillary and she lied to them, screwed them over and left them embarrassed. Expect the events happened as reported, FBI seized Weiner's computers, found the emails, reviewed headers in emails and found emails that have not been turned over, requested and obtained a warrant to view the emails. Doubt the FBI will be negotiating with Hillary any more.
It also came out that the FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation, wanted to take the investigation to a higher level by reviewing banking records, but was blocked by the DOJ.
Hillary gave a speech today, said was sorry for using a personal server. Still not sorry for lying to the FBI, deleting emails and wiping the server. Not yet...
Interesting that you assume that the 'Democrats' were lying and trying to have a political impact by following the decades old precedent yet the Republican Comey broke with it out of purely non-political purposes.
Hillary might actually stand up to Putin while Trump will be too busy getting into twitter wars (or just do as Vlad tells him).
A formal complaint has now been filled alleging that Comey violated the Hatch act by:
1. Publicly criticizing Clinton when announcing that she had not broken the law, thereby using his position as a Federal official to influence an election
And
2. Announcing this investigation against her two weeks before the election in violation of FBI and DOJ policy, a second violation of the Hatch act forbidding Federal officials from using their position to influence an election
If the Attorney General had really wanted to she could have forbidden, rather than having advised. Second, having put herself in the position by having met with former President Clinton aboard her official aircraft of not having the moral authority to say NO. We are where we are.
You will note that the White House went out of its way today to say that Director Comey is man of 'integrity' and is not trying to influence the election.
uke:OK. So now will will see if it has merit. They now have to prove it. I don't have an issue with the complaint. I just don't see it, unless there is written evidence(like say, oh I don't know, maybe an email? ) of proving what he was thinking.
Considering her tarmac meeting with Clinton yes I will.
Got any proof Comey met with trump?
By the way anyone bother to remember the charges brought against Secretary Weinberger four days before the 1992 presidential election and which may well have cost President George H. W. Bush a second term. Of course after the election the indictment was dismissed by the court because it not only violated the statute of limitations but also improperly broadened the original charges.
Then there was the case of Senator Stevens of Alaska who was indicted in the midst of a reelection campaign. Subsequently it was shown that the U.S. Attorney's Office intentionally withheld exculpatory material including redacted prior statements of a witness. The judge calling the conduct outrageous held the prosecutors in contempt for failing to provide exculpatory material to Senator Stevens counsel subsequently both the verdict and the indictment were set aside.
Obviously these events couldn't have happened since they only occur to the poor misunderstood Clinton's, and evil Republicans are responsible.
Then there was the case of Senator Stevens of Alaska who was indicted in the midst of a reelection campaign. Subsequently it was shown that the U.S. Attorney's Office intentionally withheld exculpatory material including redacted prior statements of a witness. The judge calling the conduct outrageous held the prosecutors in contempt for failing to provide exculpatory material to Senator Stevens counsel subsequently both the verdict and the indictment were set aside.
Obviously these events couldn't have happened since they only occur to the poor misunderstood Clinton's, and evil Republicans are responsible.
Check out the video in this link. One of the people who pounced on those charges and described them as evidence of the "culture of corruption" in the Bush government was Democratic challenger Bill Clinton:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...t-that-doomed-bush-reelection/article/2606000
The issue is that there's a law prohibiting what he did.
Start with his previous public criticism of Clinton. It's not his place as a Federal official to criticize a candidate for President. He should have limited his statement to saying that she had not violated any law, and not gone on to share his own personal opinion about her. Calling her careless was illegal. As a Federal official he's prohibited from that kind of public comment, particularly as he used his office add FBI Director for his political agenda.
Similarly he is over the line on this matter as well, ignoring policy and advice against public comment and unwind himself as what is now the #1 issue in the campaign.
Several former Attorney Generals have said that Comey made a serious mistake in sending the letter and in fact not only violated the Hatch law by interfering in an election but also jeopardized his own investigation by putting himself in a position where he will be forced to release additional information.
Or so you believe. The Administration seemingly disagrees with you, nor does there seem to be a groundswell in the U.S. legal community that your viewpoint is correct.
By the way two former Attorneys General and a few dozen former state Attorney Generals (most of whom are Democrats and elected or appointed on a partisan basis) is not a ground swell of the legal community.
