2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFBI Director Comey will be giving a statement today at 11am et
And will supposedly take questions afterward.
Maybe the reports are right because it seems almost anticlimactic in a way.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Now that would be interesting...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Thank you in advance.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Btw, he's no angel, certainly, but this is the guy who rushed to AG John Ashcroft's hospital bed to keep W from renewing the infamous warrantless wiretapping program. He's no demon either.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)rusty fender
(3,428 posts)said that Comey will take questions off the air? Never heard of that
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)We will know by 11:30
PJMcK
(21,998 posts)I don't understand your post. Thanks.
Response to PJMcK (Reply #10)
randome This message was self-deleted by its author.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)after all, but then Orlando and other stuff intervened. The FBI said at least 6 months ago that no crime was committed. Way past time to get this out of the way.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)for a sitting president to endorse or be seen in public with Hillary Clinton if he believed there was anything to this extremely well-funded swiftboating campaign?
The simple answer is he would not.
Conspicuously, the president didn't attend Scalia's funeral. There's a BIG CLUE in all this.
riversedge
(70,084 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesnt always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one youre already in.[/center][/font][hr]
DCBob
(24,689 posts)There is a possibility he is just going to tamp down the rumors that have come out recently and then announce the date the report will be complete and released to Lynch.
joshcryer
(62,266 posts)The biggest revelation will be that Clinton was never the target of the investigation and that she was quite low on their radar.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)For a host of reasons.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)We will find out what's up in a few minutes hopefully.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Thanks.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)...another "we'll finish when we finish. Ignore the rumors." statement.
Hopefully I'm wrong. We have a fucking racist fascist that is going to be the GOP nominee. Enough already. If you have something, recommend charges. If not, finish it already.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesnt always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one youre already in.[/center][/font][hr]
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)are going ape-shit crazy... declaring beforehand that it's all rigged for Clinton and if she is cleared... blah blah blah, you can guess.
It's like they are expecting her to be cleared. Haven't seen a single one say oh boy, she is in trouble.
Igel
(35,274 posts)1. Obama wouldn't be campaigning if he had been told there was even a reasonable chance of HRC's being accused of doing something illegal. This claim assumes Obama isn't primarily motivated by party politics and is motivated by integrity or, at worst, personal politics.
2. Obama wouldn't allow the person he was campaigning for to be officially accused of doing something illegal. This claim assumes Obama is primarily motivated by politics, party and personl, and not by integrity.
Which you choose at ths point is entirely based on your assumptions. If you choose (1), even if it came out that there were internal discussions over adjusting the finding to make the Boss happy, you wouldn't be swayed. One would need a signed, notarized document from Obama ordering Comey to make a finding of "no accusation". Even if you choose (1), it remains the case that Comey would have to have balls of titanium steel to make an accusation against HRC--disloyal to former patron, contrary to personal politics, political defamation of his boss; the pressure, even if none was explicitly applied, would still be rather intense. If you choose (2), the FBI's releasing all the documentation wouldn't matter because there could be a claim that not all the documentation was released or that some was faked. Hard to argue against an argument from silence that's not just discussing form and fallacy--"the argument's not valid" is not the same as "the argument is false." And there's always the fall-back "the implicit pressure was enough, so no explicit pressure was needed."
It's an equal opportunity game, sadly.
MineralMan
(146,255 posts)We'll see how it goes then.
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Johnny2X2X
(18,972 posts)No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case!