Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

DOJ Warned FBI Against Comey’s Email Investigation Update Letter to Congress

DOJ Warned FBI Against Comey’s Email Investigation Update Letter to Congress

“Lynch asked Comey to follow Justice Department policies, but he said that he was obliged to break with them”

https://youtu.be/8RwDcnaJvGA

Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice just can’t seem to leave alone the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton for her private email server and its ramifications for national security.  The “tarmac summit” between Lynch and Bill Clinton was grossly improper, leading FBI agents to suggest the meeting was to broker “an inside deal.”  And now we are learning that “senior Justice officials” warned the FBI against Comey updating Congress regarding an email stash found while investigating Hillary’s top aide Huma Abedin’s disgraced husband Anthony Weiner.

The Washington Post reports:

Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey’s decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

The bureau told Justice Department officials that Comey intended to inform lawmakers of newly discovered emails. These officials told the FBI the department’s position “that we don’t comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be viewed as influencing an election,” said one Justice Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the high-level conversations.

“Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership,” the official said. “It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”

The implication that Comey has gone rogue is repeated by a former Justice official, as well.

WaPo continues:

Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman in the Obama administration, said the FBI rarely releases information about ongoing criminal investigations and does not release information about federal investigations this close to political elections.

“Comey’s behavior in this case from the beginning has been designed to protect his reputation for independence no matter the consequences to the public, to people under investigation or to the FBI’s own integrity,” Miller said.

Miller and other former officials pointed to a 2012 Justice Department memo saying that all employees have the responsibility to enforce the law in a “neutral and impartial manner,” which is “particularly important in an election year.”

Miller said he had been involved in cases related to elected officials in which the FBI waited until several days after an election to send subpoenas. “They know that if they even send a subpoena, let alone announce an investigation, that might leak and it might become public and it would unfairly influence the election when voters have no way to interpret the information,” Miller said.

Watch the report:

The outcry is not only that Comey has gone rogue, but that his action may influence an election. The DOJ, apparently, has gone to great lengths to not influence elections by withholding, even hiding, vital information from voters, information that may influence their vote (thus, as far as I can tell, thereby influencing elections).

The New Yorker provides an overview of how DOJ policy in this regard has been shaped.

Traditionally, the Justice Department has advised prosecutors and law enforcement to avoid any appearance of meddling in the outcome of elections, even if it means holding off on pressing cases. One former senior official recalled that Janet Reno, the Attorney General under Bill Clinton, “completely shut down” the prosecution of a politically sensitive criminal target prior to an election. “She was adamant—anything that could influence the election had to go dark,” the former official said.

Four years ago, then Attorney General Eric Holder formalized this practice in a memo to all Justice Department employees. The memo warned that, when handling political cases, officials “must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality, and nonpartisanship.” To guard against unfair conduct, Holder wrote, employees facing questions about “the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election” should consult with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division.

The New Yorker also reports that it was Lynch herself who asked Comey not to update Congress on the additional emails.

According to the Administration official, Lynch asked Comey to follow Justice Department policies, but he said that he was obliged to break with them because he had promised to inform members of Congress if there were further developments in the case. He also felt that the impending election created a compelling need to inform the public, despite the tradition of acting with added discretion around elections. The Administration official said that Lynch and Justice Department officials are studying the situation, which he called unprecedented.

Given how careful Comey was in his language both to Congress and to FBI employees, it seems that he felt torn about his decision given how little he knows about the discovered emails and his belief that he had a duty to update Congress.

The New Yorker continues:

In a letter to F.B.I. employees sent soon after the letter to Congress, Comey tried to explain his unusual decisions. In the letter, which was obtained by the Washington Post, he acknowledged, “Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.  In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season,” he noted, “there is significant risk of being misunderstood.”

“I don’t really blame Comey,” another former Justice Department official said. “But it’s troubling.” This official thought that Comey “didn’t want to look tainted. This new information comes to him, and he’s afraid if he doesn’t make it public until after the election he’ll be impeached. People will say he lied to Congress. But in the end he did the self-protective thing. Was it the right thing? Put it this way: it isn’t what previous Administrations have done.”

For her part, Hillary seems unconcerned about this new turn in the on-going email/server scandal having any influence on the election.

Real Clear Politics reports on a presser she held yesterday in which she declared that the email scandal was “already factored into what people think and now they are choosing a president.”

REPORTER: You have 11 days to go. What would you say to a voter who right now will be seeing you and hearing what you’re saying, saying I didn’t trust her before. I don’t trust her anymore right now. And they’re heading to the ballot box tomorrow.

HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I think people a long time ago made up their minds about the e-mails. I think that’s factored in to what people think and now they are choosing a president. So I would urge everybody to get out and vote early in all the states that have early voting because I think Americans want a president who can lead our country and get the economy working for everyone, not just those at the top and who can bring our country together. I offer that I can do that. And I’m very confident that the American people know that and we’re going to continue to discuss what’s at stake in this election because I believe that it’s one of the most consequential elections ever.

Watch:

https://youtu.be/zvyn0-WiWC0?t=1m37s

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Comey is in way over his head. Whitewash the Clinton case and you appear partisan to begin with. You get grilled by Congress. You make commitments that you don’t expect to have to deliver on. Then you have to deliver on them and you seem partisan to the other side as a result.

The man is spineless, obsessed with what other people think of him rather than his objective duty. He needs to write off his career, which is dead anyway, and confess his malfeasance in how the original investigation was conducted, the uncalled for judgment that the case is not prosecutable and reopening the can of worms right before the election.

“Traditionally, the Justice Department has advised prosecutors and law enforcement to avoid any appearance of meddling in the outcome of elections, even if it means holding off on pressing cases. ”
==========

Caspar W. Weinberger and George H.W. Bush would beg to differ.

    PackerBronco: Caspar W. Weinberger

    Weinberger was indicted on June 16, 1992, well before the recommended 60-day window from an election.

      gospace in reply to Zachriel. | October 29, 2016 at 4:21 pm

      Well, the memo doesn’t state it, but we know it means don’t interfere with DEMOCRATS getting elected. Republicans- you’ve got a green light, go ahead, can’t let them get away with anything. Why exactly do you think Trump U. is coming to trial?

        Estragon in reply to gospace. | October 29, 2016 at 4:32 pm

        The Trump U cases are state fraud prosecutions, not federal.

        Ragspierre in reply to gospace. | October 29, 2016 at 4:41 pm

        “Why exactly do you think Trump U. is coming to trial?”

        Because T-rump is a fraudster. Simple as that.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to gospace. | October 29, 2016 at 5:09 pm

        You know what the memo doesn’t state? Then you are wasting your talents. You ought to appear on Penn and Teller Fool Us and read their minds.

        Shouldn’t Comey have waited until he knew if the emails are “significant”?

        As for Trump U, even the name is a lie. It was never a University – not even in the widest possible meaning of the term. As for the date of trial, it is after the election. His lawyers worked very hard to make sure of that.

          No, because this is a special situation. Unlike most FBI investigations, the investigation into Hillary’s email mess was publicly known. Comey publicly closed that investigation, a point used by Hillary’s camp to claim that the FBI had “exonerated” her. By reopening the investigation, the FBI made false its own earlier notice that the investigation was closed. That announcement had an effect on the election. To restart the investigation and keep the fact hidden from voters would maintain the falsehood. So while Hillary’s camp complains that Comey’s actions will affect the election, allowing the previous FBI announcement to stand when it had become false would also have affected the election. Comey really did little more than restore the cloud over Hillary that everyone already knew about before publicly “closing” the case earlier. If the Clinton campaign appreciated and benefited from Comey’s public recommendation to not prosecute Clinton, it is hardly in a position to now complain of another FBI announcement that likewise does little more than to keep the public informed on the status of the investigation.

      ontoson in reply to Zachriel. | October 29, 2016 at 4:42 pm

      “Weinberger was indicted on June 16, 1992, well before the recommended 60-day window from an election.”

      This statement about the first indictment may be accurate or not. But it is false and misleading. The SECOND indictment of Weinberger by Walsh was made 4 days before the election that elected WJ Clinton in 1992. This Zachriel either knows this and is deceiving people who might not know; or he is ignorantly speaking about what he does not know.

        Rick in reply to ontoson. | October 29, 2016 at 8:40 pm

        Maybe if Zack had been under oath he would have told the whole truth.

        ontoson: This statement about the first indictment may be accurate or not.

        June 17, 1992
        Weinberger Faces 5 Counts In Iran-Contra Indictment

        ontoson: The SECOND indictment of Weinberger by Walsh was made 4 days before the election that elected WJ Clinton in 1992.

        While Weinberger was already under indictment (He was eventually granted a presidential pardon before trial), it arguably had a political effect on the election, which is one reason a rule concerning elections was developed. At the time, the rule was to proceed when the action reaches maturation without regard to politics.

      ontoson in reply to Zachriel. | October 29, 2016 at 4:43 pm

      “Weinberger was indicted on June 16, 1992, well before the recommended 60-day window from an election.”

      This statement about the first indictment may be accurate or not. But it is false and misleading. The SECOND indictment of Weinberger by Walsh was made 4 days before the election that elected WJ Clinton in 1992. This Zachriel either knows this and is deceiving people who might not know; or he is ignorantly speaking about what he does not know.

      Publius Redux in reply to Zachriel. | October 29, 2016 at 4:49 pm

      Nice try Zach (obviously a Soros troll) but Cap Weinberger had a second indictment filed against him, vey publicly, by the “objective” Special Prosecutor, appointed by a Democrat Congress, 4 days before the election ~ so there could be no way Bush could prevent negative implications from affecting the election. After the election it was tossed out of court. It was one of the most obviously and disgustingly partisan dirty trick, banana republic tactics the country has ever seen. In other words, par for the course for the criminal enterprise known as the Democrat party which has been corrupt and fascistic for many decades now. Hillary Clinton is part and parcel of that criminal enterprise. Her private email fiasco was created, by her, so she could hide her selling access to the State Department through the “Clinton Foundation” which collected $$ from disgusting third world dictators and crony insiders in return for access to the SOS and sweetheart deals with the US government. The money then went to the “Foundation” which, even looking at it, shall we say, charitably, collected hundreds of millions of dollars and gave pretty much all of it to the Clinton family (90% went to the Clintons only 10% went to charity). She has no one to blame for this except her corrupt and immoral self.

      The Clintons and all Democrats are corrupt and disgusting and are being abetted by their propaganda arm: the media. Want to drain the swamp that is DC? Want to stop the corruption? Want to stop the abomination that is Obamacare? Want to ensure that American citizens (of all colors races and creeds) come first before foreign nationals? Want to protect our country from radical Islamic terrorists? Want to make sure the law applies equally to all, not one way for crony insiders another for you? Want to end the horrible Obama/Democrat economy so you can retire and your kids can find jobs?

      Then vote Trump/Pence 2016!

        Publius Redux: Special Prosecutor, appointed by a Democrat Congress

        The Special Prosecutor was appointed by a judicial panel, by the request of Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese. Walsh was deputy attorney general in the Eisenhower Administration.

      kessman in reply to Zachriel. | October 30, 2016 at 12:47 pm

      It seems AG Reno developed the verbal precident that was then written by AG Holder in 2012. It was not a binding but a recommendation. But of course the current Press and DOJ has refered to this as a stringent LONG STANDING POLICY. Typical double talk for Dems!

“Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey’s decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions.”

Which appears to be entirely true, which also explains his letter to his own agency, explaining his actions.

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | October 29, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Comey was damned either way, having testified under oath that the review was completed. If he follows recent protocol & keeps quiet, he is accused of covering up or worse, lying to Congress. Updating Congress as he did, the accusations flow the other way. No-win situation.

    It was entirely predictable that morons like Chaffetz would attempt to portray the update as something it is not, but I doubt it will have the dire effect the talking heads are claiming. Is there anyone considering voting for Hillary who is unaware of her long history of corruption?

    Why do I not give a shot about what obama’s “justice” department says should be done or not done?

Further proof of the deep contempt towards the American public, the American voters and their elected representatives, that has become the norm within Washington and within the federal bureaucratic machine.
This people are dead sure that they have the right to hide information from us, in order to not “influence the elections” in a way that’s unfavorable to a certain candidate.
It’s time to shake up Washington, “drain the swamp” like “the other” candidate says.

As Halloween approaches, the ghost of Cap Weinberger returns to haunt the Democrats.

Trick or Treat, Hill, baby!!!

For her part, Hillary seems unconcerned about this new turn…

I will have to disagree.
She looked concerned when she gave the presser. She did not have her usual arrogance and cockiness. She is guilty, and she must be really worried about what stupidity “The Wiener” may have done this time.
I am pretty sure the whole Clinton apparatus is now running in panic mode, and will continue to do so until this thing clears up. IF this is a thing at all. I would not be surprised to find out that it’s just more kabuki theater.

    It’s just interesting to compare her “they’ve already decided about the emails” line to the shock, terror, and outrage coming from Democrats . . . particularly since the line against Comey is now that he violated Justice policy on influencing elections. 😉

    That bad policy-violator! Look at him!!! (not at Hillary, pretty please with sugar on top)

      snopercod in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 29, 2016 at 4:08 pm

      What do you think the odds are that Lynch will fire Comey? Call me evil, but I would LOVE to see that.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 29, 2016 at 6:57 pm

      Reopening the investigation made Comey’s earlier pronouncements false. This false pronouncement had and effect on the election – it bouyed Clinton and her supporters used it to (falesly) claim she had been “exonerated.” Comey hasn’t done anything except correct the record. Did affect the election? Yes, but in no different way than he affected the election with his previous announcement. If he’s to affect the election, it should be with the truth – the investigation is open.

Damned if you do and damned don’t. Comey can’t win. If he didn’t release the information he would have been criticized for withholding information. That with the probability that it was going to be leaked anyway. I would say that he probably made the right call. Also, all these transparency arguments made by Democrats.

As for Hillary calling for a release of the information. The information went through her server, why doesn’t she release it instead of relying on Comey?

    amatuerwrangler in reply to RodFC. | October 30, 2016 at 12:08 am

    Hell-ary does not know what, if anything has been found. For her to release it “in the blind” exposes her to releasing things from her server that no one at FBI or wikileaks has seen yet… She needs to goad Comey into showing his cards first.

    And if she does have a full copy of the HD from her server and reveals that fact, then she has some serious explaining to do since she has already said that it did not exist, or had already been disclosed, etc — depending on which version of what she calls truth you might subscribe to.

    At this point she is stuck, other than making lots of noise.

“Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman in the Obama administration, said the FBI rarely releases information about ongoing criminal investigations and does not release information about federal investigations this close to political elections.”

Comey already explained the reason he went to Congress was because he had told to them that the investigation was closed. And now he had to reopen it.

Matthew Miller, whoever he once was, just outed himself as a Clinton shill. He’s running interference for her. I wonder how many like him infest the federal agencies?

This is why we need term limits for all federal *employees*. Its the only way to root out the rot. We could elect another Reagan and it wouldn’t change a thing, because its the bureaucrats that are really running the show.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | October 29, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    More of that magic thinking you indulge in so often.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | October 29, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Oh. OK. Why don’t some of you down-thumbing idiots define the mechanism for “term limiting” federal employees.

    Legally.

    Go ahead. I’ll point and laugh at you.

      Valerie in reply to Ragspierre. | October 29, 2016 at 8:03 pm

      Or, you could consider dialing back on the semantically null insults.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | October 29, 2016 at 10:40 pm

      It seems pretty easy to me. A simple statute should do it.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 30, 2016 at 10:46 am

      There are several reasons that simple (stupid) answer is WRONG.

      First being that you are talking about civil service, which would require a revolution to change.

      How would a time-limit restriction on employment pass muster under civil service in the courts? It wouldn’t.

      Next, there are the economic considerations. These ramify from “How do you attract anyone to work for five years (say)?” to what’s the effect on housing in the areas around DC to the cost of recruiting and turn-over.

      If you limit a work-force to people willing to be cut off after five years, you are selecting for people who will work for reasons other than those we normally associate with employment. You incentivize the most politically motivated, IOW. We suffer too much from that now. You’d essentially be staffing DC agencies with a pure batch of political activists.

      But, hey, carry on with your exercise in magic thinking.

        “First being that you are talking about civil service, which would require a revolution to change.”

        First shots about to be fired (Nov 8)

        “How would a time-limit restriction on employment pass muster under civil service in the courts? It wouldn’t.”

        I see no reason why a statute passed by congress and signed into law would be declared unconstitutional. Perhaps you are correct, but just sayin “It wouldn’t” doesn’t help much.

        “Next, there are the economic considerations. These ramify from “How do you attract anyone to work for five years (say)?” to what’s the effect on housing in the areas around DC to the cost of recruiting and turn-over.”

        That wasn’t the question.

        “If you limit a work-force to people willing to be cut off after five years, you are selecting for people who will work for reasons other than those we normally associate with employment. You incentivize the most politically motivated, IOW. We suffer too much from that now. You’d essentially be staffing DC agencies with a pure batch of political activists.”

        Worthy of consideration.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that the agents in charge of the Weiner investigation found something so utterly blatant that it guarantees Clinton will be tried and convicted.

They told Comey he could either publicly re-open the case himself or they would go public with it anyway.

    RodFC in reply to Olinser. | October 29, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    No. The NYPD have it. Comey doesn’t control it and the NYPD hate Hillary. ( Can you say BLM? ) Plus the US Attorney for NY (?) also has control.

OnlyRightDissentAllowed | October 29, 2016 at 5:20 pm

What exactly were “its ramifications for national security”? If there were any such ramifications, why are you still speculating. Wouldn’t we know by now? It is not as if there hasn’t been years of investigation by partisan committees. What were the security breeches?

BTW, Clinton used an entirely different system for material that was classified at the time. Yes, a few emails were retroactively classified. Wouldn’t we all like to have the benefit of hindsight. I’ll bet that with the benefit of hindsight you guys would have picked a different candidate.

    Wow, there is so much incorrect, ill-informed, and just downright wrong about this comment that I don’t even know where to begin.

    During his first speech about how Hillary had violated the law in a number of ways, sent numerous emails marked classified (at the time they were sent), and basically used incredibly bad judgment in setting up a private email server (housed, one might add, in some guy’s bathroom), Comey made it pretty clear that the FBI had indeed found evidence of wrong-doing, including law-breaking. What he rested on, however, was “intent.” That, in case you missed it, is what angered so many on the right (and not a few on the left).

    Hillary did not, ever, use an entirely different system for classified email, unless you mean that which she viewed on site. She said herself that her sole goal in setting up the server was to have one device for personal and State emails. So much easier, a time-saver, really. And far less confusing. Remember her saying that? Or do you think only servers and not devices can be hacked? You can’t think that.

    As to wishing we had selected a different candidate, good Lord, yes! But we have what we have, and he looks better to me every day that I look at and listen to Hillary.

      Fuzzy Slippers: sent numerous emails marked classified (at the time they were sent)

      There were no emails that were properly marked classified. Three had portion markings, but two of those were improperly marked. Most of the classified information was confidential, the lowest level of classification, and relatively innocuous, such as discussions of things that can be found in the newspapers. However, there apparently were a few items that Clinton should have known were classified, and should not been discussed using email.

      http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

          Fuzzy Slippers: sent numerous emails marked classified (at the time they were sent)

          Comey (from your link): Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.

          Comey (from Congressional testimony): There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

          The State Department later said that two of those documents were inadvertently marked.

          Oh good grief, “very small number”/”small number”/”three”/”numerous” . . . I was paraphrasing from memory something that Comey said months ago. Mishandling one piece of classified information (including via email), just one, is a punishable offense. Take your time researching that one; I’m in no rush to hear back from you on this.

          Fuzzy Slippers: Oh good grief, “very small number”/”small number”/”three”/”numerous”

          It’s okay to be wrong.

          Fuzzy Slippers: Mishandling one piece of classified information (including via email), just one, is a punishable offense.

          Unless there’s intent, the usual action is administrative.

          So true. Hey, would you mind looking up the definitions of some related words for me? Few, many, several, copious, handful, iota, meager, gazillions, plentiful, and ubiquitous.

          numerous, existing in large numbers

          antonym, few

          None of the emails were properly marked as classified. Three had portion markings, two of which were improperly marked.

          “The State Department later said that two of those documents were inadvertently marked.”

          Well, that is certainly an unbiased source. Almost as good as “factcheck” the lefts favorite lie as the truth group.

          Shrillary is a crook, a liar, and broke the law, numerous times. It was intentional.

          She is going to jail.

          Barry: Well, that is certainly an unbiased source.

          Actually, the State Department is the authoritative source regarding the classification of their own materials.

          “Actually, the State Department is the authoritative source regarding the classification of their own materials.”

          Spoken like the true commie. “We’ll tell you what to think”

          “We have always been at war with Eastasia.”

          Barry: Spoken like the true commie.

          Huh? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution.

          There is no “secrecy act” in the U.S., but national defense information is protected by various statutes, including the Espionage Act, and by judicial review. The government classifies information by executive order, and through delegated authority. Whether classified information pertains to national defense or not can only be determined at trial.

    “I’ll bet that with the benefit of hindsight you guys would have picked a different candidate.”

    Doubtful. Every other candidate would have caved and sold us out. As Glenn Reynolds said “Trump is the symptom, poor GOP leadership is the disease”.

    If the GOP had been doing its job instead of betraying its base, Trump wouldn’t have broken 9% in the polls. We simply no longer trust the GOP leadership. Ace has a good theory about how its all Failure Theater, like when the GOP Senate abrogated its treaty powers to greenlight the Iran deal. They flipped what would have been a 2/3rds needed to approve into a 2/3rds needed to override a n Obama veto. Then they used that as a campaign fundraising issue: “Gosh golly we tried to stop Obama but we simply didn’t have the votes. But send me back to Congress and maybe next time…”

    Short version, the GOPe is Lucy to our Charlie Brown. And we are tired of falling for all their broken promises.

    Its why Rags is so despised here – he’s an Establishment lackey who gaslights us and has contempt for “those” people in the party who were loyal and held their nose to vote for RINOs like the Moderate “Maverick” McCain and weaklings like Mittens. And when we finally get a candidate willing to fight, people like Rags ditch all that “party unity” crap they never meant, become NeverTrump crybabies and slime us as deplorables the same way they slimed the more civil and respectful Tea Party.

    This election is about the base vs the elites in power. Your own Left had a similar issue with Bernie Sanders. But he didn’t even make it through the primaries. The only reason Trump did is because he showed he is willing to fight, not cave the first time someone on MSNBC calls him mean names.

    Here’s a good article explaining where my people are coming from. If you can put aside your tribal bias for a bit, you may find that it dovetails with what you have experienced on the Left with the Clinton Machine.

    http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/after-the-republic/

      Milhouse in reply to Fen. | October 29, 2016 at 10:48 pm

      You have no idea what you are talking about. Stopping the Iran deal always needed 2/3 in each house. 0bama had no need to make it a treaty; everything it required of him was in his power to do without anyone’s consent, so the only way to stop him was to pass a law forbidding him to do those things, which would need 2/3 in each house to override his veto. Corker managed to wring a concession out of him, that when he signed it he wouldn’t implement it immediately, but would give Congress a chance to put together those 2/3 votes against it. They got the chance, but couldn’t get the votes.

      Anyone who tells you that the senate could have stopped it simply by calling it a treaty is lying to you. Even if the senate could vote on a treaty that has not been submitted for consent, such a vote would have no effect. The senate would inform 0bama that it doesn’t consent to the deal he’s made, and he would inform the senate that that was very nice, but since he didn’t need its consent he would go ahead with it anyway.

Did not Lynch already violate the “election interference” policy last Tuesday with NO evidence?

NY Post: “Washington-based federal prosecutors plan to aggressively pursue charges against NYPD cop Daniel Pantaleo for the chokehold death of Eric Garner on Staten Island, a law enforcement source told The Post on Tuesday.

“It’s going to happen sooner than later,” the source said of an indictment. “Washington wants to indict him.”

Was Comey frustrated with Lynch’s actions so he decided to neutralize it based on actual evidence?

    Milhouse in reply to TX-rifraph. | October 29, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    How does that affect the election? Pantaleo is not a candidate for any office. If he were then this announcement would not have been made.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | October 29, 2016 at 11:49 pm

      “How does that affect the election?”

      Naive. Of course it is meant to effect the election(s). That is precisely why it is done.

the other rob | October 29, 2016 at 6:55 pm

“(thus, as far as I can tell, thereby influencing elections).”

An astute observation. Very well played!

Since the world and his wife are offering speculation as to what the bombshell might be, I’ll chime in with my 2D (that’s like two cents, but in old money. Which would make it worth more, come to think of it).

In my Top 3, in ascending order of damage to the Clinton machine (though not necessarily probability) we have:

(3) Emails that provide compelling evidence of perjury and/or interference with an investigation.

(2) Evidence that Wiener got ahold of classified information from Abadin and disseminated it in an attempt to impress some chick he was hitting on.

(1) Evidence that Abedin was passing classified information to our foreign enemies.

Of course, it could be something else entirely. The problem with these people is, every time you think you’ve plumbed the depths of what they might stoop to, reality smacks you in the face with something worse.

    rokiloki in reply to the other rob. | October 29, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    Abedin would have passed the information to the Muslim Brotherhood, if anyone. Unfortunately, our current administration, and Hillary’s if she wins, don’t consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be an enemy.

Here’s a reality check (seems to me)…

IF reports are true that there are thousands of emails in this cache…

there’s no way in hell that there will be any determination before election day.

    You’re flailing. As proof you are wrong, we only have to look at all the other caches of hacked emails that were released. It wasn’t 48 hours before evidence of DNC colluding to rig their primary against Sanders was out all over the internet.

    Or the last wikileaks of Hillary Clinton sliming jews.

      Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | October 30, 2016 at 12:23 am

      Say, nutbag…

      Riddle me this…How is an FBI investigation different than a bunch of jounos and bloggers tearing into a Wiki dump?

      But the proof will be in the pudding. My bet is as above.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | October 29, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    Indeed. This whole announcement is a charade. Back when the investigation could have produced a pre-election indictment, he shut it down; then he let the internal pressure build up, and to stave off an FBI revolt he “reopened” it now, when it’s too late for an indictment. Once the election is safely over 0bama will pardon Clinton, thus permanently shutting down all investigations.

Comey saw something in those emails that terrified him. Even more than Clinton.

He should have told Lynch that letting a traitor off was also against department policy, but she didn’t complain when he let Hillary off the hook back in July.

Henry Hawkins | October 29, 2016 at 7:41 pm

Congress is the direct representative of the people (for better or worse). Comey, in July and possibly again before November 8th, has outlined via press conference the many screwups of Hillary Clinton and has informed congressional chairmen. If he again tells the people what they’ve found inside the Weiner/Abedin devices, he’ll have about the most he can do without recommending prosecution. Sans a smoking gun game-changing revelation, I don’t think many people already supporting Clinton will change their minds. Just as one side supports Trump only to stop Clinton, many on the other side support Clinton only to stop Trump. This won’t change their vote.

I suspect she’ll lose a few indies and a few soft supporters, but nothing crippling. She was already in ‘polling’ decline before Comey’s letter came out on Friday (for what polling is worth).

With ten days still to go, there’s time for at least another dozen October surprises the way this cycle is going. Whoever’s been sitting on something really juicy will deploy it very soon, either side.

… said the FBI rarely releases information about ongoing criminal investigations and does not release information about federal investigations this close to political elections.

Well then, it’s a good thing Comey didn’t release any information about the federal investigation. All he did was notify Congress that an investigation is in progress; even better, that it’s an old investigation which is still in progress.

As for why it’s happening close to a political election, the complaint should be directed at Team Hillary. They can’t obstruct, obfuscate, and delay an investigation for months on end, and then complain that the process is taking too long. They knew right from the start when the election would be held; that’s perhaps the only immutable factor in American politics—the election schedule. If they wanted the investigation wrapped up sooner, they could have strained themselves to be just a wee bit more cooperative.

Well, this is why the FBI Director is appointed to a 10 year term, and cannot be removed by the Atty General. To make him a bit more immune from political pressure – which is obviously what the AG was attempting.

One additional thing to keep in mind here when discussing political pressure by the President and his AG is that it was documented a week or two ago that not only was Obama communicating with Crooked Hillary by email, but that her people believed that he should have known that she was communicating classified information with him via a non-State.gov email address, and, thus, insecurely.

Which is why it is important that the FBI Director retain at least some independence from political interference.

The whole thing is moot if #NeverTrump gets elected. The rational for Ford’s pardon of Nixon will come into play, the people will have spoken, and BO will ‘spare the country’ the agony of an investigation.

If this DoJ policy were honestly obeyed, we would expect to see announcements of completed investigations and indictments soon after an election is complete. I see no evidence of this happening, it would be big news if a candidate for any public office was indicted by DoJ right after winning an election. I can only conclude that the real purpose of the policy is to gather and then bury evidence of (Democrat) candidate malfeasance.

As for the fraud trial against Trump U, I should point out it’s obviously politically motivated. Your Trump U education didn’t make you millions of dollars? So what? You can pay 6 figures to Yale or Harvard and they won’t guarantee your success either, yet I don’t see any lawsuits against them.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend