# Clinton v Trump - The Stretch Run Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 30, 2016, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277 "2016-09-30T11:21:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 210
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4185 "2016-10-31T04:25:16Z")
That was my point. 11th hour revelations have happened before other elections. What Comey did isn’t unprecedented. How it effects the election is hard to gauge. We certainly don’t know yet if this will hurt Clinton very much. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4186 "2016-10-31T04:41:18Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > That was my point. 11th hour revelations have happened before other elections. What Comey did isn’t unprecedented. It certainly is unprecedented for an FBI director or other high-level law-enforcement official to pull this sort of lame-ass stunt, especially in the face of opposition by the attorney general and assistant AG. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4187 "2016-10-31T04:54:22Z")
The notion that Comey deliberately torpedoed his career as FBI director so he can become a right-wing talking head doesn’t make any sense. Sure, some people are addicted to appearing on camera, and there’s a living to be made as part of the right-wing media industrial complex. And lots of these right-wing bloviators are pretty nearly pure scam artists, who only care about money and fame, and it turns out that being a right-wing talking head is a reliable path to both. Except only a pathological fame-whore would trade the very real raw power of the position of FBI director for the ephemeral career of a right-wing media personality. Seriously, who would do this? Yeah, you’ve got your Newt Gingriches and your Rudy Gulianis. Except they’ve been booted out of elected office and any hope of real, actual power, and so right-wing media is all they have left. Director of the FBI means you’re actually accomplishing shit. You’re making real decisions, you’re putting real people behind bars. You’ve got real power there. And even if you’re really a venal partisan gasbag, you can do so much with that position, compared to getting a 5 minute spot on Fox News every couple of weeks. It just doesn’t add up. How he’s going to spend the next 4 years as FBI director is another question, given that Trump loathes him for not indicting Hillary, and Hillary loathes him for investigating her in the first place, not to mention this latest cherry on the top of the sundae. No matter what he’s going to find that he doesn’t have the confidence of the President. I know the FBI director is supposed to be a non-partisan post, but how can you do your job when the next president, whoever that will be, is openly contemptuous of you? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4188 "2016-10-31T05:15:24Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The notion that Comey deliberately torpedoed his career as FBI director so he can become a right-wing talking head doesn’t make any sense. No, it doesn’t, and so in situations like this I always refer to a variant of Occam’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” It’s a very handy maxim in untangling these apparent complexities. As you and many others have pointed out, this stunt has put him in a very bad position no matter who wins the election, so it was clearly a bad miscalculation. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4189 "2016-10-31T05:25:57Z")
I am very skeptical that the infamous _October Surprise_ is effective in modern presidential elections. This shit has been dragging on in earnest for somewhere betwixt 17 and 20 months. We just want it to be the fuck over. The people who give a shit about Comey’s announcement will not be swayed off their perches. Everyone else just wants to shamble into the voting booth, bleary-eyed, make a mark somewhere on that screen or card, and go to the grocery store on Wednesday, when shit is on sale. For those on the East Coast, staying up till the networks are cleared to project a winner is too goddam exhausting; they will glance at the paper on the kitchen table, or maybe listen to the car radio on the way to work. Further west, there might be buzzword bingo drinking games in front of the coverage, but _hey, don’t we hare that set of Shrek DVDs that we have seen 431 times? let’s watch that again instead!_ Seriously, this is exhausting. And like that episode of _West Wing_ where they are sitting on Josh’s stoop mourning the millions they spent on the midterms just to end up exactly where they were beforehand, there is a pervasive gloom that stretches from Key West to Nome to Lahaina to Presque Isle, and all points in between, that after all this interminable sound and fury, we will be left with nothing of significance. Comey’s little blort will will amount to a fart in Yellowstone: hardy heard and impossible to smell over everything else. So untwist your knickers, have another glass of whatever that is you are drinking, and pass me some more of Aunt Lois’ special hill-of-beans casserole. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4190 "2016-10-31T05:53:59Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The notion that Comey deliberately torpedoed his career as FBI director so he can become a right-wing talking head doesn’t make any sense. No, it sure doesn’t. There are other explanations though… Like Comey was trying to cover his ass, and did so in a particularly stupid way, by violating the Hatch Act. Or that Comey was promised a large sum of untraceable cash in an offshore account. Or that Comey was told that some VERY compromising information about him would soon be released by Wiki-Russia-Leaks if he did not do this. See: There are a number of explanations. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4191 "2016-10-31T05:56:35Z")
Hatch Act? Let’s not be crazy now. Did that nutcase Reid suggest that or something? ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4192 "2016-10-31T06:00:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Slight difference. Those guys really _were_ guilty. Well, matters to _me_. Well, most of them weren’t _proven_ guilty. [Because Bush The Smarter used the powers of his lame-duck presidency.](http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html) > [@](#): > > Six years after the arms-for-hostages scandal began to cast a shadow that would darken two Administrations, President Bush today granted full pardons to six former officials in Ronald Reagan’s Administration, including former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger. > > Mr. Weinberger was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels, a case that was expected to focus on Mr. Weinberger’s private notes that contain references to Mr. Bush’s endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran… > > Mr. Walsh (Independent Prosecutor) bitterly condemned the President’s action, charging that “the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.” > > Mr. Walsh directed his heaviest fire at Mr. Bush over the pardon of Mr. Weinberger, whose trial would have given the prosecutor a last chance to explore the role in the affair of senior Reagan officials, including Mr. Bush’s actions as Vice President. So, Bush hadn’t been indicted. Yet. So his pardons also saved his own ass. I looked this up after pardons were mentioned in another thread–that petered out. But it’s a shining Great Moment in Republican-ness. Hey, the preceding century had the Gettysburg Address… ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4193 "2016-10-31T06:21:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Hatch Act? Let’s not be crazy now. Did that nutcase Reid suggest that or something? Multiple people have suggested it. I previously cited an article on Dan Abrams’ [LawNewz.com](http://LawNewz.com) about Richard Painter, former Bush admin lawyer and lawyer-ethics specialist, who has condemned Comey for violating the Hatch Act. Painter has made formal complaints against Comey to both the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. > **[Former Bush Ethics Lawyer Files Complaint Accusing FBI Director of Violating...](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/former-bush-ethics-lawyer-files-complaint-accusing-fbi-director-of-violating-hatch-act/)** > > The former chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House (and now Hillary Clinton supporter) has filed an ethics complaint against FBI Director James Comey over the letter he sent to lawmakers on Friday. > [@LawNewz article](#): > > “I write to request investigation of apparent violations of the Hatch Act by the Director and perhaps other officials in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in connection with highly unusual public statements while voting is underway about the status of an investigation concerning a political candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” Painter wrote in his complaint. “I also request that the Office of Government Ethics ask the FBI to conduct an internal investigation of whether there has been misuse of official position, 5 CFR 2635.702.” > > In the complaint, Painter acknowledged that its is unclear “whether the Director of the FBI personally wanted to influence the outcome of the election” based on his actions with respect to the Clinton email investigation, including sending the letter to lawmakers on Friday. However, Painter argues specific intent is not required because “the Hatch Act and ethics rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is not another good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election. It seems pretty cut and dry, from Painter’s argument, any way. Comey’s intent doesn’t matter if there was good reason for him to write that letter, and given that Comey hadn’t even read the actual emails yet, there was no immediate pressing need to blab about it in contrast to normal law enforcement practices of not talking about investigations. It’s clear from the crowing of Trump and others that Republicans immediately took Comey’s actions as a confirmation of all their wildest hopes. Plus, if Chaffetz or someone was breathing down Comey’s neck to release the news and damage Clinton’s chances, that just makes the Hatch Act violation more clear. Comey’s going to have to work extra hard to explain to the FBI-version of internal affairs just what the great big rush was all about. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4194 "2016-10-31T06:48:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Hatch Act? Let’s not be crazy now. Did that nutcase Reid suggest that or something? So, you’re not following this issue very closely, are you? I’ve seen it mentioned since the day this nonsense got leaked by Chaffetz. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4195 "2016-10-31T06:55:06Z")
That would look extremely sketchy, to broadly interpret the Hatch Act to get a Clinton political adversary, while narrowly interpreting the applicable laws to exonerate Clinton herself. You don’t get to do that. Find an example of a Hatch Act prosecution that affected official duties of the defendant where the defendant had no intent to influence an election. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4196 "2016-10-31T06:57:36Z")
Comey may have saved this country from some very disturbing post election events. Trump has been screaming rigged election for weeks. The best way to validate that (for his supporters) is to discover the FBI was secretly investigating new evidence. That could be the match in a barn full of TNT. I’m thankful the truth came out. No cover ups. Hillary may win by a few less points and that’s good enough. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4197 "2016-10-31T07:02:29Z")
Also, how is concealing this information not attempting to influence an election? But seriously, there’s no need for liberals to jump into the fever swamps too. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4198 "2016-10-31T07:02:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That would look extremely sketchy, to broadly interpret the Hatch Act to get a Clinton political adversary, while narrowly interpreting the applicable laws to exonerate Clinton herself. > > You don’t get to do that. Find an example of a Hatch Act prosecution that affected official duties of the defendant where the defendant had no intent to influence an election. Richard Painter, an actual lawyer for the Bush administration, explained why he believes that Comey violated the Hatch Act. Your characterization of his argument is just a bunch of handwaving. I quoted his argument there in my citation. Why don’t you explain why Painter is wrong? (I mean, I know you don’t because you can’t, but you might at least pretend to try.) ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4199 "2016-10-31T07:08:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Also, how is concealing this information not attempting to influence an election? > > But seriously, there’s no need for liberals to jump into the fever swamps too. The “information” in this case is that the FBI has found a bunch of emails but doesn’t know what they say or what their significance is. Expecting the Director of the FBI to follow the standard DOJ and law enforcement practice of not blabbing about “evidence” that hasn’t even been assessed yet is not concealing anything. Here, for your edification, is an open letter from dozens of prosecutors and DOJ officials, past and present, explaining why Comey’s letter was a serious breach of protocol: [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/10/30/open-letter-from-former-federal-prosecutors-and-high-ranking-officials-of-the-u-s-department-of-justice/](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/10/30/open-letter-from-former-federal-prosecutors-and-high-ranking-officials-of-the-u-s-department-of-justice/) > [@Open letter to Director Comey](#): > > As former federal prosecutors and high-ranking officials of the U.S. Department of Justice, we know that the impartiality and nonpartisanship of the United States justice system makes it exceptional throughout the world. To maintain fairness and neutrality, federal law enforcement officials must exercise discipline whenever they make public statements in connection with an ongoing investigation. Often, evidence uncovered during the course of an investigative inquiry is incomplete, misleading or even incorrect, and releasing such information before all of the facts are known and tested in a court of law can unfairly prejudice individuals and undermine the public’s faith in the integrity of our legal process. > > For this reason, Justice Department officials are instructed to refrain from commenting publicly on the existence, let alone the substance, of pending investigative matters, except in exceptional circumstances and with explicit approval from the Department of Justice officials responsible for ultimate supervision of the matter. They are also instructed to exercise heightened restraint near the time of a primary or general election because, as official guidance from the Department instructs, public comment on a pending investigative matter may affect the electoral process and create the appearance of political interference in the fair administration of justice. The letter and its signatories is posted in full at that link. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4200 "2016-10-31T07:50:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Two weeks to go. Anyone think the media’ll try to make this a horse race one last time? > “TRUMP SURGES TO WITHIN 2 POINTS OF CLINTON” > > “TRUMP: LAST-MINUTE LEAD IN SWING STATES” > > etc. etc. Guess they [are](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639)after all… ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4201 "2016-10-31T07:51:11Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Multiple people have suggested it. I previously cited an article on Dan Abrams’ [LawNewz.com](http://LawNewz.com) about Richard Painter, former Bush admin lawyer and lawyer-ethics specialist, who has condemned Comey for violating the Hatch Act. Painter has made formal complaints against Comey to both the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. > > [Former Bush Ethics Lawyer Files Complaint Accusing FBI Director of Violating Hatch Act | Law & Crime](http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/former-bush-ethics-lawyer-files-complaint-accusing-fbi-director-of-violating-hatch-act/) > > It seems pretty cut and dry, from Painter’s argument, any way. Comey’s intent doesn’t matter if there was good reason for him to write that letter, and given that Comey hadn’t even read the actual emails yet, there was no immediate pressing need to blab about it in contrast to normal law enforcement practices of not talking about investigations. It’s clear from the crowing of Trump and others that Republicans immediately took Comey’s actions as a confirmation of all their wildest hopes. Plus, if Chaffetz or someone was breathing down Comey’s neck to release the news and damage Clinton’s chances, that just makes the Hatch Act violation more clear. > > Comey’s going to have to work extra hard to explain to the FBI-version of internal affairs just what the great big rush was all about. Intent matters now? ---
**Author:** ![Sputnikkk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Sputnikkk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sputnikkk)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4202 "2016-10-31T09:07:05Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > The weirdest part of the Comey release for me is that [_Jeanine Pirro_](http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/30/judge-jeanine-pirro-opening-statement-jim-comey-announcement-fbi-hillary-clinton-disgrace) has come out on Clinton’s side in this against the FBI. > > **Jeanine Pirro**. > > What is this I can’t even That is really weird! The New World Order puppet master aliens are controlling Judge Jeanine! I’m putting my tin foil hat back on. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4203 "2016-10-31T09:41:54Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Richard Painter, an actual lawyer for the Bush administration, explained why he believes that Comey violated the Hatch Act. Your characterization of his argument is just a bunch of handwaving. I quoted his argument there in my citation. Why don’t you explain why Painter is wrong? > > (I mean, I know you don’t because you can’t, but you might at least pretend to try.) Painter is asking for an investigation, which much like the Clinton email investigation, would have a hard time finding evidence of anyone’s intent to do anything of the sort. But sure, I’m fine with an investigation, unlike Democrats I don’t think investigations are a waste of time just because it’s my guy being investigated. But let’s call this what it is: fishing. They would need to find that a) someone below Comey wanted to influence the election, and b) that Comey acted because of this pressure. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277/4204 "2016-10-31T10:03:59Z")
I’d note that the easiest, bulletproof way for Comey to influence the election would have simply been to recommend charges against Clinton. You guys might want to stick to your story about whether Comey can be trusted or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277.md?page=209) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-v-trump-the-stretch-run-thread/767277.md?page=211)