Will Comey Cost Hillary The Presidency?

[miketx]

Amazing that you consider an investigation to uncover political wrong doing as damaging to our Democracy. The timing with the election is unfortunate but then if Hillary hadn't gone behind the back of the State Department and set up a home brew server in her damn bedroom, she would be measuring curtains for the White House right now.

Nothing amazing about it. He or it is paid to float this sewage all over the net.

 

[LaDexter]

once again, a Hillary shill goes batty....

 

[easyt65]

Anyone voting for Hillary Clinton now is voting for institutionalized government corruption.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

LMAO! The crying is rich here today.

We should get used it it, it's going to get worse.

 

[miketx]

 

[miketx]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From the OP:

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

The desperate, reprehensible right will stop at nothing, they’ll contrive any lie in an effort to keep Clinton out of the WH, an effort which will as usual fail.

No one should be surprised that Republicans would try such a stunt.

 

[LaDexter]

The desperate, reprehensible right will stop at nothing, they’ll contrive any lie in an effort to keep Clinton out of the WH, an effort which will as usual fail.

No one should be surprised that Republicans would try such a stunt.

Translation (especially with the entire GOP behind Hillary... duh)

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

View attachment 95954

I'm pleased Mike that you chose a set of pictures that show The Diversity Project, I wouldn't want the Hillarybots screaming that you're racist or something

 

[owebo]

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 and is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Larry Thompson served as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and signed a letter from a group of former Justice Department officials in Republican administrations calling for Donald Trump’s defeat.

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

More: James Comey is damaging our democracy

Comey has much to answer for.

Wait....didn't you fucktard fascist liberals tell us comey was saving our democracy a few months back?

I guess it's a good thing we're a fucking republic......

 

[Lakhota]

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 and is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Larry Thompson served as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and signed a letter from a group of former Justice Department officials in Republican administrations calling for Donald Trump’s defeat.

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

More: James Comey is damaging our democracy

Comey has much to answer for.

Wait....didn't you fucktard fascist liberals tell us comey was saving our democracy a few months back?

I guess it's a good thing we're a fucking republic......

Not me! I thought he did a piss poor job when he basically said "Hillary was an idiot - but not a criminal". He should have kept his subjective opinions to himself and let it go at that. His job was to determine criminality - not pass subjective judgement.

 

[LaDexter]

Not me! I thought he did a piss poor job when he basically said "Hillary was an idiot - but not a criminal". He should have kept his subjective opinions to himself and let it go at that. His job was to determine criminality - not pass subjective judgement.

and it continues...

 

[Penelope]

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 and is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Larry Thompson served as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and signed a letter from a group of former Justice Department officials in Republican administrations calling for Donald Trump’s defeat.

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

More: James Comey is damaging our democracy

Comey has much to answer for.

He's doing his job, how is that damaging your Democracy? Also Anthony Weiner has handed his laptop to the FBI now, so they can have full access to what is on it.

An American friend sent me some stuff overnight, which I read this morning. From this it seems that a lot of other people in the FBI were annoyed at Comey for not Indicting Hillary earlier this year, they thought she should have been Indicted, so they've urged Comey to continue the investigation and they can because they have Anthony Weiner's laptop with another 15,000 emails on.

Also what if Hillary's server was hacked before she deleted the other 30,000 emails? That would mean that people out there have a copy of all 30,000 emails.

So Weiner just handed over his laptop. Funny they didn't confiscate it earlier.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Not me! I thought he did a piss poor job when he basically said "Hillary was an idiot - but not a criminal". He should have kept his subjective opinions to himself and let it go at that. His job was to determine criminality - not pass subjective judgement.

and it continues...

 

[Lakhota]

New FBI Announcement Could Throw Wrench Into Down-Ballot Races

But no one really knows how revisiting the Clinton email investigation will affect other candidates on the ballot.

A vague announcement from FBI director James Comey on Friday that suggested he was reopening a case against Hillary Clinton may not be enough to save Donald Trump’s electoral chances, but it just may save a number of Republicans down-ballot. Then again, maybe not. No one actually knows.

It’s kind of like this whole investigation: There are a lot of questions, even more speculation and hardly any answers.

There hasn’t been enough time to conduct a reliable poll that would indicate how the announcement affects the election. Even polling conducted over the weekend could turn out to be moot, as we learn more about what prompted Comey to reopen an investigation related to Clinton’s emails.

No one has been able to definitively say what Comey’s actions are about ― or if the case ever really closed. It’s so far unknown whether the FBI is looking at anything new, or how Republicans and Democrats will be able to define the matter over the next nine days.

That’s not to mention that many states have already begun voting. Many voters have already cast ballots. Many more will as the incident unfolds.

The earliest indications, however, are that the news isn’t stopping Democrats from getting to the polls. About 7,000 more Democrats participated in early voting on Saturday in North Carolina than did on that day in 2012. Nevada early voting looksremarkably similar to 2012 numbers.

The cable news conventional wisdom has been that Republicans who were unsure about Trump might be more motivated to go out ― either to vote against Clinton, or to vote for Republicans down-ballot as a check against Clinton.

That’s the line from Republicans, at least.

“It’s too soon to have any data,” one national GOP operative told The Huffington Post, “but I do believe this will have an impact, especially with the Republican voters who were on the fence for turning out.”

But again, it’s all conjecture.

“Honestly, it’s a little early to tell,” said a GOP official doing field work. “Real people don’t follow day-to-day as closely as we do. Maybe it ultimately stalls Clinton’s afterburners. But it doesn’t change the fact that her field team is flying circles around the RNC.”

In short, even Republicans don’t think this substantively affects the presidential race ― not when Trump doesn’t have a real get-out-the-vote operation.

Democrats seem to think Clinton’s email issues really haven’t been moving voters anyway.

“People that were going to make decisions based on the Clinton emails already did that,” said a Democratic strategist.

A Democratic Senate operative noted that, in mid-September, when Clinton’s own poll numbers were sagging, “our races remained stable (despite the breathless insistence of the national media otherwise).”

“If she takes a hit now, our races can stay steady again,” the operative predicted.

And that’s assuming Clinton does take a hit.

As that same operative noted, no one knows what’s really going on with this FBI investigation. “It is looking like a lot of smoke with no fire,” the person said. “It’s also not clear that people will take this as ‘new’ information. They’ve always know there is a thing with the emails.”

Much of the reaction, of course, will depend on what we learn in the coming days from the FBI ― if we learn anything at all.

As John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, suggested on Sunday, if this is about reviewing Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s emails, the FBI already did that.

But this isn’t exactly how Clinton or other Democrats wanted to end the 2016 campaign.

RENEGADE FED COULD SWING ELECTIONS

FBI Director James Comey has thrown this presidential election into a royal clusterfuck.

 

[skye]

Comey is damaging democracy because he is doing his job?


The problem with the left is that they are too used to corruption.


Disgusting!

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 and is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Larry Thompson served as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and signed a letter from a group of former Justice Department officials in Republican administrations calling for Donald Trump’s defeat.

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

More: James Comey is damaging our democracy

Comey has much to answer for.

He's doing his job, how is that damaging your Democracy? Also Anthony Weiner has handed his laptop to the FBI now, so they can have full access to what is on it.

An American friend sent me some stuff overnight, which I read this morning. From this it seems that a lot of other people in the FBI were annoyed at Comey for not Indicting Hillary earlier this year, they thought she should have been Indicted, so they've urged Comey to continue the investigation and they can because they have Anthony Weiner's laptop with another 15,000 emails on.

Also what if Hillary's server was hacked before she deleted the other 30,000 emails? That would mean that people out there have a copy of all 30,000 emails.

So Weiner just handed over his laptop. Funny they didn't confiscate it earlier.

Maybe you should phone the FBI and interview them or something.

 

[bripat9643]

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 and is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Larry Thompson served as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and signed a letter from a group of former Justice Department officials in Republican administrations calling for Donald Trump’s defeat.

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them. They enjoy a credibility established by generations of honorable public servants, and they owe a solemn obligation to maintain that credibility. They are not to arrogate to themselves the choices made by the Justice Department and honored over the years.

As part of that obligation, they must recognize that the department is an institution, not a person. As its temporary custodians, they must neither seek the spotlight for their own advancement nor avoid accountability for the hard decisions they inevitably face. Justice allows neither for self-aggrandizing crusaders on high horses nor for passive bureaucrats wielding rubber stamps from the shadows. It demands both humility and responsibility.

As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

More: James Comey is damaging our democracy

Comey has much to answer for. He should never have placed his thumb on the political scale - and now I don't know how he's going to get it off before the election.

So you would prefer that we elect a criminal to office and allow her to pardon herself after she is indicted?

It takes a special kind of gullibility to be a Democrat!

 

[bripat9643]

From the OP:

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

How does it damage our democracy? Where was your concern about our democracy when Hillary was selling her office for personal gain?

 

[Lastamender]

Just as long as the the Republic survives, we can handle one more bump.