Comey said he received 3 leaked emails. He then, based on those 3 emails, decided to get a warrant for the rest of the 650,000 emails to see what else he could find
Trump up 34% in early Florida voting
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
Frank a couple months ago the Clinton's were praising Comey and his work, now they hate him and blame him.
Funny, you guys werent calling him a partisan hack when he let Hillary off her original email stack last month.
So what has changed?? Did Comey just become a partisan hack last week??
Did Comey telephone you or email you to tell you where he is at the moment" and how he feels?
I think you were more truthful and accurate when you said, "we'll only know the full story when someone close to the case writes their memoirs one day", but that's 'cause I include you in the 'we'. Given your professed insider status, maybe you're keeping notes? just be careful of the classified stuff.
I know how investigators and prosecutors behave. You can accept my posts as insight, or you can prefer the posts of some mega posting individual with nothing but his biases and preferences to draw upon. Your choice.
This is what's called a hit piece.
The article admits that Trump has ZERO businesses in Russia. Trump has NO ties to Putin.
It also makes idiotic claims that American banks stopped lending to Trump after his 4 corporate bankruptcies. Every bank in America has been trying to throw money at Trump. If you believe he has ever had trouble getting financing on American soil, you need therapy.
"Ties" as in Russian investors in various companies or projects? Sure. That's called the American Way. You and the Times journalists may not be privvy to the way investments (particularly real estate in the US) works but foreign investment from across the globe but main Russia, China, and the ME is commonplace. Cities like Manhattan are safe havens for foreign investment and have been for years and hundreds of millions flow into it every year.
No you don't. You were caught posting a falsehood that betrayed just how ignorant you are on this matter.
You made a bunch of speculative and extremist claims about how the FBI must have a substantial case when it turned out they didn't even have the warrant required to read the emails.
You are totally exposed as somebody who posts made up nonsense.
Comey hid info that the Russians were trying to influence the election.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-comey-opposed-naming-russians-citing-election-timing-source.html
Trump's connections to those emails are also being hidden by Comey as well.
I'll believe those investigators and prosecutors, but until we hear from them, you're just boasting about your self-proclaimed knowledge. Gotta actually demonstrate that knowledge first, if you want credit for it in every post.
Rather than a courtroom choice — learned you, or that clown on the other side — I'll continue to offer my own logic and reason, which you're welcome to try to disprove. But you'll need something more persuasive than merely citing your own authority.
There's some problematic reasoning above.
I believe you said you spent years working in the news business. If someone tried to persuade you that the news business operated a certain way, because according to their "logic" it should operate that way, but you knew from experience that it doesn't (and you also know why), would you be persuaded by their logic? I doubt it. Should that person be persuaded by your insight? He should be.
I suppose you might really be saying that you don't believe I really know what I'm talking about. That might be a fair point, given that this is an internet forum, if I hadn't already demonstrated that I do (most recently in the Ghomeshi threads). I also pointed you to the most compelling legal precedent and analysis regarding impeachment in the course of our discussions about this election. Do you think that's consistent with the idea I'm just a poser?
If nothing other than presentation of credentials would make an impression on you, you won't be getting that from me. Winning an argument on an internet forum like TERB does not matter as much as anonymity.
If, as an alternative to presenting credentials, I have to be proven right (as I was in the Ghomeshi trial), how many times do I have to be right before you accept my comments about this type of topic as insight? 10? 100?
If nothing less would dissuade you of your perspective, that's a pretty sure way to stay locked onto a misconception. You may have trapped yourself in a cage of your own logic.
p.s. I wouldn't urge you to simply accept what the investigators and prosecutors ultimately say publicly about the process. Recall what I've said about the strategic nature of their communications. You'll have to wait for memoirs (or an investigation into their conduct - unlikely) to get the truth.
There's certainly some problematic reasoning in your post quoted above:
I never said I worked in the news business, because I never have; that belief of yours is an entirely false one.
Like your profession, your arguments in Ghomeshi and on impeachment are compelling only by your own claim, not because they have convinced me.
I don't want to see your credentials, what I want is to see a persuasive argument. While I understand and accept the condition of anonymity, that completely forecloses recourse to any claim of professional learning or experience except by demonstrating it to those who don't possess it. The claim alone amounts to zero.
Your PS did confuse me: Surely those memoirs are what"…the investigators and prosecutors ultimately say publicly about the process". But until that ultimate enlightenment, we have to get along with what they say and we know. And for all the supposed strategy any of us chooses to make up and read into their words, it is their words not our fantasies that they have to persuade us, to live with themselves and defend until memoir time. That's what we have to work with now. So, as I said above, I'll stick to their words, as I understand them. If you can enlighten me with deeper insight, I'll be grateful. But it's the wiser understanding I'll be accepting, not some anonymous authority.
I admit I relied on my memory here. Instead of news, was it the television business you said you worked in? Or have I completely confused you with someone else? It doesn't really matter. Insert any business you have personal familiarity with. The analogy still holds.
Whether you are "convinced" of a description of the workings of the legal system is no more relevant than whether you are "convinced" of the principles of mechanical engineering that allow your car to be driven from A to B. People who are familiar with how things work in a particular field are familiar with how things work. Others are not. Others can only judge the statements of those familiar by whether their claims align with what can be observed (i.e. the car actually arrives at the destination). There is no way for you to observe the workings of the justice system (unless, unfortunately, you find yourself before the courts). You may be able to read about these events from memoirs (much later).
I have already clarified my p.s., but I'll try one more time. Investigators and prosecutors have good reasons for releasing misleading (but not false) statements throughout the progress or focus of an investigation. Sometimes they are trying to gather more evidence. Sometimes they are trying to provoke a reaction from the accused or from potential witnesses. Sometimes they are trying to misdirect as to the focus of their investigation, in order to ensure that the evidence they are really after is preserved. As a result, you can't necessarily take them at their literal word. Clear enough? Now, in memoirs, they are usually prepared to brag about their clever tactics, or about the division of opinion that led to seemingly incoherent strategy.
And which of those reasons would be more important then not influencing a presidential election?
I haven't disputed that the authorities sometimes use misdirection. But again, you'd have to persuade me that's operative in this instance. If the literal words uttered days before the Presidential Election were actual falsehoods, one hopes they'd be subject to professional discipline, certain of action by the unjustly maligned parties, or derided in the public forum. Certainly the incentive is there for a President Clinton to sanction the FBI Director if he spoke anything but the direct, literal truth as known at that moment.
'Literal' meaning exactly what is written or said and no more. A term often as misused as 'verbal' when the word intended was 'oral' or 'spoken'. I prefer to think what you intended was that one needs to be careful not to read beyond the literal —and often intentionally meagre — truth of the precise words. But by all means do cite a legal usage by which 'literal' includes the personal fairytales of underlying strategy imputed to the speaker, though invented by members of the audience.
Your analogy with how cars work is comparable if the mechanical engineer says, 'you don't need to know how, as long as I do, because we engineers keep them safe'. Fair enough, if I get to see the credential. But when I can't, then she's gotta persuade me that the spark ignites the gas vapor with enough explosive force to drive the wheels. Or that the demon that lives in the gas tank hypnotizes the wheels if that's the line she's offering today.
On the Interweebs we're all lawyers. And/or Pomeranians.
I feel like you're not reading my posts carefully enough. I used the word "misleading" and distinguished it from "false". Re-read my post accordingly, and see if that alters your comment.
Secondly, you seem to be proceeding from an incorrect application of what I have said about investigator comments. To further clarify what should already be clear:
1. When Comey made his statement in July, I don't believe he was foreclosing further investigation (contrary to how most people interpreted his words). I think he was providing misdirection as to the continuing direction of the outstanding investigations. It turns out he was right, as relevant information was uncovered that no one thought to destroy in the meantime.
2. His current statement suggests that he is unsure of the materiality of the e-mails the FBI is now reviewing. That is just investigator-speak, designed to protect against the following typical defence arguments: 1) the FBI investigation was tainted by its prejudgement of the guilt of the accused, and/or b) the impetus for the seeking a warrant to lawfully review the 650,00 e-mails was review of unlawfully obtained e-mails. I think Comey reviewed a number of sample e-mails provided by Weiner (who may not have obtained them with the consent of his ex-wife) that are clearly material to the charges the FBI were investigating, and these sample e-mails are the springboard for a complete review of Abedin's e-mails.
That's what I'm talking about when I refer to Comey's statements as misleading, but not false.
And no, I don't think either one of his statements (without a provable motivation to falsely malign Clinton) would expose him to professional discipline.
Tactics for investigation are not reason enough to publicize information that is changing the election while still refusing to publicize similar information on Trump.
Certainly the presidential election is more important then an investigation that he previously stated wouldn't lead to charges.
The issue is now Comey and his interference, not the Clinton emails.
So confident that you are willing to put money on it? I would put up a $100 that this new information does not result in Hilary even getting a reprimand within the next 6 months or so.
