Let them. Felons can’t vote (well, most of them, anyway).
Josh Marshall nicely sums up the ridiculousness of the notion that the FBI was trying to sabotage Trump’s campaign:
The expectation was that Clinton would win, and all the trump stuff wouldn’t really be relevant. Russia tried to collude with a candidate to throw the election, and failed.
At the same time, the intelligence agencies didn’t want to appear to be favoring a candidate over the other, and they knew that if they released anything about their investigations at the time about trump, they would be accused of interfering. At the same time, if Comey had found actual incriminating evidence on the infamous laptop, and did not inform congress ahead of time that they were reopening the investigation, that also would have been seen as acting on bias towards Clinton. I saw that letter as a CYA move on Comey’s part, not a political one. Also, that was a letter to congress, not to the public. I don’t really see how it is Comey’s fault that congress decided to publicize it.
The thinking, IMHO, was that Clinton would win, the russians would be held at bay at least one more election cycle. There would be no reason to go after trump.
In the end, the effect was that they “favored” trump over Clinton. Not with intent, but that was the results of their actions, their intent was to cover their asses and remain impartial. The irony is that now they are being accused of favoring Clinton, even though everything they did ended up being beneficial to trump at the cost of Clinton.
I’m not familiar with what Hannity’s up to, but I certainly agree with you about Trump, wherever he gets it from.
I guess I’m not really thinking of Trump or his fans in all this. I’m thinking of what I consider the Republican and conservative leadership, e.g. Ryan, Gowdy etc. What people like this have been saying is that it raises potentially serious issues about how the FBI may have been politicized but in no way impacts the Mueller investigation.
The loony fringe of the Republican party is more rabid, but then so is the loony fringe of the D party. But you’re right in that in this case the loony fringe includes the POTUS. Agreed.
The election of Trump is a unique event. I don’t think any prior presidents came close to his level of buffoonery and idiocy. Certainly it’s not a badge of honor for the Republican Party that a guy like that got elected on their ticket. Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s accurate to extrapolate from his mentality to all Republicans.
I don’t think that’s a valid argument. Two points:
-
I think Clinton was a victim of happenstance more than anything else. The main reason that announcement happened at the end of the campaign was because the FBI had previously made a big show of announcing that the investigation was over and she would not be charged. Having closed the investigation, and testified to Congress about it, the reopening of the investigation took on a greater significance than it would have had had the initial announcement never been made. But the initial announcement was widely seen as very helpful to Clinton (& it outraged Republican partisans). So essentially they did something which helped her, but this rebounded when things changed, and timing was not in her favor. (Also, it’s recently been revealed that one reason for the last minute timing was that McCabe - he being the guy whose wife got big campaign bucks from Clinton associates - apparently kept a lid on the Weiner info for 3 weeks before it finally got investigated.)
-
More important, the type of announcement that the FBI made in the case of Clinton was unusual in its own right, but it’s nothing like the Trump announcement guys like Reid were asking for. In the case of Clinton, the announcements were “we closed the investigation” and “we reopened the investigation” (followed by “we reclosed the investigation”). In the case of Trump, the announcement would have been “hey, here’s some information we just got in - we haven’t had a chance to look into it yet, but looks bad for Trump”. That type of announcement - filling in the public about specific information that the FBI was investigating - would be completely unprecedented, and not remotely comparable to simply announcing the results of a completed investigation. That the FBI didn’t announce it doesn’t say anything at all.
Those aren’t counterpoints at all. You can think the FBI did or did not give Clinton fair treatment but the fact remains that they were sitting on some very damaging info on Trump and no one leaked it. Therefore it’s pretty difficult to think the FBI has been “out to get Trump”.
Summary: The FBI helped Clinton by harming her right before the election, and harmed Trump by making it easy for him to win the Election?
The modern GOP is really through the looking glass aren’t they? How do you have a debate when one side sees everything as opposite from objective reality?
What CarnalK said.
Leaving aside the question of whether you can prove “they didn’t do this to harm Trump so they must have not done that either”, I don’t think your assumption holds altogether.
You don’t know whether anyone at the FBI leaked it or not. It’s now pretty well known that the media had widespread access to that information as it is. You don’t know whether some of that might have come via FBI leaks, but it’s irrelevant since the media had it anyway (meaning, if they didn’t leak it, it’s possible this was because there was no point since it was already out there).
[ETA: I should note that the fact that the FBI was investigating the Trump people was widely reported before the election, so it’s not like no one there was leaking anything.]
The only thing you know is that the FBI didn’t make a public announcement about it, but that’s something the FBI never does.
It’s interesting the difference in opinion of law enforcement that conservatives have depending on who is being targeted. Trump: horribly biased and must be purged! A young black man gunned down in suspicious circumstances: we must never question the authorities. Funny how their feelings change so drastically when it’s one of their own under investigation.
I seem to recall an exception to this…
I don’t. See my prior post on this subject.
Fella named Comey, you might have heard of him. Something about e-mails.
Well technically he gave it to the Republicans in congress. I’m sure he had no idea that they would make that info public :rolleyes:
The FBI didn’t acknowledge the investigation before it was closed?
OK, but that’s still not remotely the same thing as “hey here’s some damaging info that we just got hold of”.
That is pretty much exactly what the letter that Comey sent to congress said.
OK, but it is a public announcement confirming an ongoing investigation from the FBI, which you claimed is something they never do.
See, that’s an actual counterargument to what you were addressing. The closest I can find as a cite for you, since you apparently eschew such things, is:
Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia from Oct 31,2016
I said it was “unusual in its own right”. I was referring to the Comey announcement, and I said that based on reporting at the time. I don’t know how common the type of discussion that you linked is, or why he would have made an exception in that case.