I’m sure that in practice the FBI director can be fired for any reason, but remember that Bush fired the US attorneys, people who actually did serve only at his pleasure, and it became a huge scandal because it was politically motivated. Obama had a minor shitstorm over the firing of an IG who uncovered corruption with one of Obama’s political allies. Firing the FBI director under the current circumstances could swing the election more than the reopening of the investigation.
In other words, I DARE Obama to do it. If he does it right after the election he and Clinton are both corrupt cowards.
Well, the objections of political appointees in the Justice Department carry zero weight with anyone with an ounce of objectivity. To say that Loretta Lynch has an interest in the victor of the Presidential election would be a massive understatement. Unlike Comey, her impartiality is not well established.
There is nothing to be gained by firing Comey now or in the near future. His long-term career in government may have been cut short by his poor judgment, but that’s a whole other story. What I do think Obama should do is put the screws on him to produce actual facts within, say, 48 hours, and if he doesn’t have any, to plainly say that he doesn’t have any.
He’s done that, it’s just not as big a story. That’s the media’s responsibility, not Comey’s. The re-opening of the case is front page on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. The story that they had no idea what was in the emails because they didn’t have a warrant is an “Exclusive” Yahoo News story uncovered by one journalist.
A quick glance at CNN turns up nothing on this warrant story. That’s either a lack of journalistic responsibility on their part, or that Yahoo News reporter is full of shit.
I’ve seen nothing, no report that suggests that any such request came from Lynch. The reports are of multiple senior level officials (the sort that are likely to be lifers, through different administrations, not transient appointees) advising that his doing such was against longstanding guidelines and was inappropriate.
The more I think about this I see this as covering his ass is a completely different way than others do. He had no choice but come to the determination he did as that was what the facts clearly supported. But he is a Republican and his future career out of office will likely be working for those of that party. Giving the department’s finding publicly (not the usual way) and in the process opining the non-legal, not his task, aside that he thought she was reckless, was not enough. Given this chance to throw a bone to GOP partisans to ingratiate himself? His future out of the directorship career will benefit greatly.
The man I thought he was would have spoken by now. The man who stood up to Bush/Cheney and his cabal of legalistic whores. But he made his announcement yesterday, and yesterday the Republicans started exploiting it for everything they could squeeze. And he said nothing.
Today, I heard both Trump and his spokescreep lie through their teeth. Lie, not spin, not hedge the truth, flat out lie. Trying to steal political power through a classic Rove-style ratfuck. The man I thought he was, the man of integrity and principle, would have been on the phone in one minute flat, he would not let his honor be whored out like that. Not for a minute, not for an hour… and sure as hell, not for a full day!
And still, he says nothing.
Cheese Louise, addy, that horse is fifteen feet tall at the shoulder! You fall off a horse that high, you’ll break every bone in your body!
I like this commentary piece. He seems to know the Clinton modus operandi well.
I’ve watched the Clinton’s since 1978. This pattern is all to familiar.
I haven’t seen anyone else suggest this solution. It will be months before the FBI can provide definitive answers. Huma could resolve many of the questions tomorrow. I wouldn’t gold my breath wait for it to happen. Hillary much rather spin the issue to her advantage. Create as much confusion in the voter’s minds as possible.
It is also what his letter stated. They have not looked at them yet, they are taking steps to be allowed to.
There is no a priori reason to believe that Comey is impartial. He is an interested party.
He has stated that he knew that his little letter would easily be “misunderstood” and yet has not explicitly clarified that his department has not seen any of the emails and makes no implication that they contain anything that would conflict with his department’s existing determination. He (appropriately) refused to answer whether or not the FBI was investigating possible ties of Trump aides with Russia, yet he broke with long established policy and guidelines to state that unseen emails “appear to be pertinent.”
The law is not on the side that he was obligated to tell Congress of a request to look at evidence the Justice department has in order to determine if it is pertinent to a past investigation they have done.
Absolutely true, but Clinton is so opposed to revealing ANYTHING, that it’ll never happen. Her obsession with secrecy is her fatal flaw.
But yeah, it’s all a vast conspiracy to get her. The media, the Obama administration, the Russians, anti-government whistleblowers, all united with one purpose: get the Clintons.
The Nixon comparisons are apt. Extreme paranoia and it’ll only get worse once she’s in the White House. You’ll be lucky to pry minutes of Fisheries department meetings out of that administration.
He has a record, and he has not sought elective office. He has no known close political allies among elected officials. He rose through the ranks entirely on merit, and this isn’t the first administration he’s crossed.
But the facts are on his side if the Clinton case is officially reopened. Given that the public was made aware of the case in the first place and then informed that it had been closed, he couldn’t very well keep it a secret that it was re-opened.
If he was trying to get Clinton, he would have recommended prosecution. Game over. It’s possible that people under him are trying to get Clinton, but Comey himself already could have ended her Presidential hopes and declined to do so.
Why though? I’m sure he’s got plenty of contacts that would still take his call without helping Trump win. Why zhould we assume this is about him desperately currying favour from the GOP to secure his next job? Is he that unhireable without it?
Eta: whoa, lotta posts jumped in there. This was in response to DSeid’s post 4102.
Can you recount for us all the emails you sent and received in 2009-2012? If you can’t, I’m not sure how Abedin could, especially since if she did use the particular computer in question for work, it would also potentially include emails from her private consulting work she did when she worked part-time at the State Dept.
There is nothing but confusion here given Comey’s vague letter and the fact that they are saying they haven’t even read the emails themselves yet while they wait for a warrant. The people who are really using this to their advantage is Trump and the Republicans who are acting like this total unknown is a smoking gun that shows that Hillary conspired with North Korea, the Taliban, the Devil, and Hugo Chavez to give nukes to terrorists while simultaneously confiscating all of the guns in the U.S.
Chances are, if you were sending an email about an official matter that you REALLY hope never sees the light of day, that you’ll remember that.
But I see your point. If Abedin honestly hasn’t done anything wrong, most of her answers will be “I don’t recall.” which never looks good even when it’s innocent.
If Abedin was hiding emails intentionally, it doesn’t make sense that she would still keep them on a personal computer and not delete them. But as the investigation so far and Comey’s own remarks have made clear, Hillary and her top aides did not think they were doing anything wrong and there was no evidence of deliberate mishandling of classified materials or information. So given this, no, Abedin would have no particular reason to remember any arbitrary collection of emails from several years ago.
Yes. If new evidence was found that brought the previous determination into question and thus the case was officially reopened then his informing Congress would have probably been appropriate. But not stating something that you, by your public admission, knew would be misunderstood as meaning that, when all you are doing is asking permission to look at evidence held by another department to determine if it is pertinent to your past determination.
This smokebomb is not about helping Trump win, he’s too far gone for that, but impacting turnout to have impact on close downticket races.
Why? Perceived by GOP partisans as giving Clinton a pass on the e-mails (despite his unprofessional comments about his thinking she was reckless) he cannot risk having this spun that same direction.