CNN story on the nation’s two flawed candidates. Very tough analysis of this terrible election.
The problem with that sensationalistic analysis has already been discussed before. True, Hillary is absolutely a flawed candidate with a low lever of trustworthiness. But she is all those bad things within normal parameters of normal politicians. Trump is a raving lunatic, a complete psychopath who either sues and/or is sued by virtually everyone he comes in contact with, and who is monumentally incompetent and ignorant of how the government and the world works, and who constantly bloviates complete lies.
CNN does a disservice to its audience by pretending to do a balanced analysis of supposed equivalents, in exactly the same way that media do a disservice to their audience and abdicate their fundamental responsibility to truth when they do one of their “analyses” that essentially put climate scientists and global warming denier lunatics on purportedly equivalent opposite sides of a manufactured “debate” where in reality there is no debate at all.
That’s not the important thing to remember. The important thing is that both sides do it. CNN is performing an important duty in reminding us of that fact. That both sides do it.
I must admit, Comey is either a fucking genius, or he listens well to some really smart people on his staff. There are many facets to his move, Mr. Spock could not have made a better play in Vulcan Poker.
[ul]
[li]that he is a Republican does not necessarily translate to genuine support for trump, as we have seen[/li][li]nothing ever sticks to the Clintons; the RWers have thrown scores of full porta-potties at both of them to no effect – he knows this[/li][li]I’m not going to do it, I’m not, I’m not Hi Opal … I’m not – arrgh[/li][/ul]
I visited a link to The Hill upthread: that is one shouty, red-faced site. By releasing this statement, Comey has riled up Trump’s fringey base. The stirred-up-er they are, the easier they are to sight and pick off. As head of the FLEA, having the wackos more visible makes his agency’s job that much easier.
And having them riled up raises the possibility of rioty stuff, sedition and insurrection. Obama and Clinton (because, this thing will not slow her down too terribly much) will have to deal with the moron apocalypse, most likely with some significant force. This will cost her some real political capital, which will work to Comey and the Rs’ advantage.
It is good strategy. The FBI will gain importance as the fight to keep the country safe. Meanwhile, the president will be embattled in a wholly different way. The Rs will not be forced to hound her every step, and she will not be able to pursue a meaningful agenda. Perhaps it will be the beginning of the end for the Republican Party, but I am not entirely convinced that Comey would be averse to that. Almost certainly, a new party to balance the Democrats will arise.
tl;dr: that was one cunning stunt.
That is not true. The FBI director can only be fired for cause:
The very FBI is now against the Democrats! Or perhaps this is yet another example of Obama’s administration going rogue on him?
I mean, much like everything else, he didn’t even know about Clinton’s email account until he read about it in the paper. Actually, he had to walk that back when it was found that they’d exchanged emails, but it was still truthy!
You’re still beating that worn out old drum?
Having it explained the last 10 times wasn’t enough?
WTF? I just saw a Trump ad on TV. He’s spending money in CA? WTF??? Is he crazy? (Don’t answer that.)
It is understood that Democratic partisans will accept any reasonable-sounding explanation from their heroes, even if it fails under deeper scrutiny.
Republicans, however, will be assumed guilty.
I don’t make excuses for Democrats, I look for facts.
Was it on Fox during the Series? That was a national buy.
By the way, Obama knew about her email account. What he didn’t know was it was on her private server.
Rather ridiculous to expect him to search her home in New York. Or anywhere else.
Probably won’t go down that way.
Hard to say, but it looks like that is what he is aiming for. He is making a play, and he is the head of the FBI. I cannot imagine that he is a stupid guy prone to make stupid moves. He knows where to find the long-game specialists for advice.
That doesn’t explain what constitutes “cause” for the purposes of dismissing the FBI Director. Is “cause” just whatever POTUS says it is in the same that that “other high crimes & misdemeanors” is whatever Congress says it is at the time?
It’s never been litigated IIRC, but it can’t just be at the whim of, er, at the pleasure of the President.
Is there a law that says that the President can’t fire the FBI director? The war hawk Congress during the Civil War tried to pass laws preventing Lincoln from firing his Cabinet, but I thought the Supreme Court ruled that that was unconstitutional.
There doesn’t appear to be any legal limitation or condition on the president’s ability to remove the FBI director. Initially, the AG selected and appointed the FBI director, but this was changed in the mid-70’s following Hoover’s death. The law changing the process reads:
[QUOTE=Public Law 94-503, Sec. 203]
“SEC. 203. Section 1101 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended by inserting “(a)” immediately after “SEC. 1101.” and by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: (b) Effective with respect to any individual appointment by the Effective date. President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, after June 1,1973, the term of service of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall be ten years. A Director may not serve more than one ten-year term. The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of section 8335 of title 5, United States Code, shall apply to any individual appointed under this section.”.
[/QUOTE]
A report by the Congressional Research Service prepared before Comey was nominated seems to confirm this lack of limitation or condition on the president’s power:
[QUOTE=Last two sentences of the first paragraph in the Summary]
There are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI Director. One Director has been removed by the President since 1972.
[/QUOTE]
The only previously removed FBI director was William Sessions who was removed by President Clinton in 1993, shortly after assuming office, due to allegations that he improperly used federal funds to install security at his house and used federal planes for personal visits with his daughter.
On the subject of equivalence, “both sides are bad”, etc. Bill Maher summed it up well on last night’s show, quoted here verbatim:
I’m impressed by how true this is. I often listen to impressively detailed analyses by random posters and radio callers about the precise capabilities and deficiencies of various players on different sports teams, and the fine points of the strengths and weaknesses of the coaches/managers/GMs etc.
But the people who are running the country? Meh, who cares – they’re all the same! :rolleyes:
So the issue now at hand is if Comey’s ignoring standard protocols and the guidance of the Justice department by stating at this time that emails which he and his staff have, by his own letter, not yet reviewed, “appear to be pertinent”, thereby actively inserting himself into the election process as a political actor, counts as “cause.”