Comey was put in an impossible position of trying to appear impartial during an extraordinary time when a political party was leaning on his agency for a legal outcome to undermine an opposing presidential candidate. It did not help the optics of his agency to have former president and possible future first husband, Bill Clinton, meeting privately on a plane with the attorney general responsible for overseeing that particular criminal investigation. That was the result of Clintonian arrogance.
Also, speaking as someone who voted Hillary Clinton, let’s be clear about something else: she used the private email server against the explicit advice of security professionals within the state department. Who did she think she was to ignore that advice?
So yes, I agree Comey made mistakes in judgment, but let’s put the blame where it belongs, starting with the partisans who have increasingly shown a willingness to use the justice department and the legal system in an attempt to sabotage the political process. And let’s also acknowledge that Hillary and her husband bear some of that responsibility as well.
If we’re going to blame Comey for one thing, it would be that he failed to put a lid on some of the partisans within his agency. I don’t have proof, but some of the reports I’ve read over the past year and change indicate that the New York field office in particular had career agents who had it out for the Clintons and perhaps in some cases were whispering to partisans outside of their office. Whether those allegations are true or not I don’t know, but it’s clear that some agents were actively partisan, had an axe to grind with the Clintons, and probably wanted Hillary to lose. I hope they’re happy with the results now.
Not disagreeing with this, but the fact remains that she was advised not to set up her email server in this way and she did. At minimum, she should have realized that this was inappropriate and potentially exposing state secrets to those who might be able to infiltrate her email.
What she didn’t realize is that the Republican party would exercise its increasing tendency to prosecute someone just because they can, not caring about whether they should. That’s the position that Loretta Lynch and James Comey found themselves in - being forced, for the sake of not appearing biased, to investigate behavior that might have technically, obliquely violated the letter of the law even if it was clear early on that her behavior didn’t violate the spirit of said law. So as I said, I blame the radical right wing for that.
But that doesn’t change the fact that Hillary basically handed her critics political gunpowder.
AND… his bullshit interference HELPED the orange fuckstick get elected. So, fuck him too. I only want him to be useful in hanging Trump and Trump’s cronies. After that, he can go to hell.
Didn’t you see Fotheringay-Phipps’s recent posts in the Mueller investigation thread? I mean, sure, Loretta Lynch was Attorney General, but not all the time. During the meeting with Bill Clinton they were just old friends with busy schedules catching up for a bit.
email is not secure, it doesnt matter if it us a public, private, or govt server that stores it. If it crosses the Internet and it isn’t encrypted you might as well post it on a billboard. Hillary want sending emails about nuclear launch codes or state secrets, it was just stuff like her schedules for the next week.
It’s all nonsense. If it wasn’t the emails it would have been something else. Fox News and the Russians would have fanned the flames just as hard.
Trump hands more ammunition to his opponents in one week than Hillary did in her whole career. It’s the propoganda machine and the credulous morons that makes the difference.
Someone made a good point a while ago, which is that an enormous number of the actions people took before the 2016 election make the most sense if you remember that everyone knew that Hillary was going to win. Formerly-respected-pollster Sam Wang from Princeton had her at 99% to win.
So if Hillary was definitely going to win, Comey’s actions announcing the new evidence in the email investigation (I assume that’s what you’re talking about) make perfect sense as bureaucratic ass-covering in the presumed upcoming Clinton administration, when he wants to protect himself and the FBI from precisely this sort of charge, but from the other side. (“Wait, you found new evidence shortly before the election? Evidence that reflected badly on Clinton? Why did you not publicly announce that? The people have the right to know!?”)
I mean, having seen the level of ridiculous Fox-News-aided mockery and attack the Republicans are capable of, would you want to subject yourself to it?
That one decision by James Comey is probably the clearest single isolated turning point, ie, the one thing it would be easiest to change if you were trying to go back in time and avert this catastrophe. But in the overall context, it’s just one of a bunch of things that had to all come together to result in this clusterfuck. And fundamentally, WAY more blame has to be laid on Hillary Clinton and the terrible campaign she ran than on James Comey.
I disagree. If a bureaucrat like Comey really believed that a Clinton win was inevitable the last thing he would do to cover himself would be making a political attack on the incoming President. That’s painting a target on your back.
I think it’s a lot more plausible that this was an October Surprise; a political attack made at the moment when it would have the biggest impact on the outcome of the election. Comey didn’t release the report because he thought a Clinton win was certain. He did it for the opposite reason; he thought he could sway the election to Trump.
Comey then discovered what associating himself with Trump meant. Rather than rewarding Comey for his help, Trump apparently expected Comey to go much further for him, most likely past the point of legality. Comey refused and was replaced.
One could argue that prior to Trump, the FBI was pretty much bulletproof. Certainly a Democrat would never get away with trashing the Bureau the way Trump and his quislings have.
The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech. I am under the impression that since the First Amendment is meant to ‘to petition the Government for a redress of grievances’, and since there are ‘whistleblower’ protections, the non-disclosure agreements thus violate the Constitution. Since Loser Donnie is a government employee (or in his mind, he is the government), it seems to me that the staffers can say what they want within the bounds of security.