Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:51 AM

RBInMaine (13,570 posts)

Comey has royally screwed up! He should be standing at attention in Lynch's office. Check this out:

Los Angeles Times confirms FBI Director is lying: latest emails “were not to or from” Hillary Clinton

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fbi-directors-fraud-exposed-as-latest-emails-were-not-to-or-from-hillary-clinton/26440/

93 replies, 8792 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

92 replies	Author	Time	Post
Comey has royally screwed up! He should be standing at attention in Lynch's office. Check this out: (Original post)	RBInMaine	Oct 2016	OP
no surprise there...	chillfactor	Oct 2016	#1
The truth is exposed, Comey keeps flailing, he'll keep sinking deeper into a quagmire of shit.	NBachers	Oct 2016	#2
Comey-Stain IS the "quagmire of shit"!	InAbLuEsTaTe	Oct 2016	#77
Couldn't happen to a nicer liar	DemonGoddess	Oct 2016	#3
Why hasn't that asshole been fired?	vlyons	Oct 2016	#4
minimum...he should be asked for his resignation....	beachbum bob	Oct 2016	#9
Lynch needs to be ordering Comey to get in front of the cameras and clean up his silly mess.	RBInMaine	Oct 2016	#10
or else "you're fired", which he should be anyway	wordpix	Oct 2016	#29
I was thinking the same thing.	PunksMom	Oct 2016	#81
Post removed	Post removed	Oct 2016	#5
What kind of logic is this?	Hav	Oct 2016	#6
He wasn't exactly praised. He was condemned. He had nothing to charge her with.	misterhighwasted	Oct 2016	#7
Fuck that	Cosmocat	Oct 2016	#14
His presser was a clusterfuck. I was never thrilled with him.	boston bean	Oct 2016	#16
Nobody HERE was praising him.	Chemisse	Oct 2016	#18
Go ahead, let it all hang out. nt	JTFrog	Oct 2016	#21
Praised by whom? Surely you're not pulling this out of your ass.... nt	Guy Whitey Corngood	Oct 2016	#22
there was no "screw-up" invovled.	beachbum bob	Oct 2016	#8
Exactly! He needs to be prosecuted!!!!	AgadorSparticus	Oct 2016	#68
Comey never said the email were or weren't.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#11
Maybe he didn't intentionally lie, but he has truly and royally fucked up. Totally botched this.	RBInMaine	Oct 2016	#12
That's fine. There's a lot to point out and argue about him, at best, screwing up.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#13
WTF?	Cosmocat	Oct 2016	#15
If they were not sent from Clinton's server, which was a major part of the subject	uponit7771	Oct 2016	#20
Your first paragraph is a reasonable argument.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#23
More bullshit! Making excuses for Comney that you know are lies? He doesn't know the email headers.	bettyellen	Oct 2016	#41
I made a logical argument based on what information we have.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#42
Bullshit- he has NOT seen the emails, their headers, nothing. You're making shit up to defend Comey.	bettyellen	Oct 2016	#43
I'm sure he'll be able to back up why he thinks it's pertinent...	Wilms	Oct 2016	#44
You're defending him based on a lie that they saw headers. Why carry Trumps water?	bettyellen	Oct 2016	#45
You are the one not telling the truth.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#46
Comey did not see "subject line" headers or anything - why lie to cover for him? Why carry water for	bettyellen	Oct 2016	#47
Do you have a link to support that?	Wilms	Oct 2016	#48
Comey also sent a letter to the FBI	mercuryblues	Oct 2016	#53
Oh. I see.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#56
Yes, you should	mercuryblues	Oct 2016	#58
But you're stretching.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#59
the 3rd party	mercuryblues	Oct 2016	#61
I put forth a basic idea.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#62
They were not involved	mercuryblues	Oct 2016	#64
I guess it really is that hard.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#65
Weiner was/is married to Abedin. Abedin is an aide to Clinton. Guilt by association.	duffyduff	Oct 2016	#55
+1	uponit7771	Oct 2016	#60
Comey said they had a bearing on the Clinton case they don't	Demsrule86	Oct 2016	#26
Oh. "they don't" have "bearing on the Clinton case".	Wilms	Oct 2016	#28
Definitely...	Demsrule86	Oct 2016	#35
Just trying to keep it real.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#37
It actually would- to be directly related to Clinton- but keep on trucking...	bettyellen	Oct 2016	#38
Are you agreeing that it could "be directly related to Clinton"??	Wilms	Oct 2016	#39
No matter how you Comey and Trump try to spin this- if there is no direct connection to her server	bettyellen	Oct 2016	#40
No matter your protest, I have put forward a rational set of ideas.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#63
Ideas excusing Combey based on a fabrication? He never saw the emails and has no idea....	bettyellen	Oct 2016	#66
OK. I give up.	Wilms	Oct 2016	#67
K&R	smirkymonkey	Oct 2016	#17
The pressure HAS to be kept on Comey, Democrats have done a great job since this broke on Friday,	OnDoutside	Oct 2016	#19
main issue is, what on the computer relates to the closed investigation that Congress	wordpix	Oct 2016	#30
Whether there is or not is actually not as important right now because we won't know one way	OnDoutside	Oct 2016	#49
Yes exactly! There is nothing else more important at this point.	anamandujano	Oct 2016	#31
Comey couldn't care less if the emails were between Huma and Amazon	dalton99	Oct 2016	#24
It is also clear that Comey colluded with Chavez	Demsrule86	Oct 2016	#25
Chaffetz is the weasel in the mix. Investigate their emails	misterhighwasted	Oct 2016	#27
^^Yep!^^	PearliePoo2	Oct 2016	#34
that's a good point but the sheeple will not "get it" if Chaffetz is	wordpix	Oct 2016	#32
Yes! I think it was Jennifer Granholm on MSNBC that brought this little tidbit up!	PearliePoo2	Oct 2016	#33
Jennifer Granholm fan here also. If she's publicly bringing in Chaffetz	misterhighwasted	Oct 2016	#36
+1 Yep, it's an excellent attack point, and probably factually true as well, which makes it even	OnDoutside	Oct 2016	#50
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Oct 2016	#51
I disagree	Jarqui	Oct 2016	#52
I disagree	DLCWIdem	Oct 2016	#69
He may be as you say "wilfully insubordinate and reckless"	Jarqui	Oct 2016	#70
Irregardless what part of the country thought	DLCWIdem	Oct 2016	#71
Lynch recused herself after meeting Bill on the tarmac	Jarqui	Oct 2016	#72
You are watching too much Faux news.	DLCWIdem	Oct 2016	#74
I don't have cable and cannot watch FOX news. Nor do I commonly visit their site.	Jarqui	Oct 2016	#75
I am sorry if you thought I was attacking you for	DLCWIdem	Oct 2016	#82
Evidently, so is Barack Obama	Jarqui	Oct 2016	#84
What about we won't defend or criticize leads you	DLCWIdem	Oct 2016	#85
No it is absolutely not merely "a statement of neutrality".	Jarqui	Oct 2016	#86
Apparently I am not the only one reading into that	DLCWIdem	Oct 2016	#87
First of all,	Jarqui	Oct 2016	#88
Again I was alluding to your comment that Comey	DLCWIdem	Oct 2016	#89
I didn't say for example there was a " (treasure) trove in the e-mails"	Jarqui	Oct 2016	#91
By the way	DLCWIdem	Oct 2016	#90
And somewhere in my posts today is my disgust with Comey that he	Jarqui	Oct 2016	#93
Of course not.	duffyduff	Oct 2016	#54
Good grief! They don't make October surprises the way they used to.	McCamy Taylor	Oct 2016	#57
And a former ethics lawyer under GW is filing a	burrowowl	Oct 2016	#73
He should be fired	liberal N proud	Oct 2016	#76
Post removed	Post removed	Oct 2016	#78
Fuck off, troll.	roamer65	Oct 2016	#79
unfortunately it is semantics	Grey Lemercier	Oct 2016	#80
Comey's letter said "in the middle of the election season", NO, it's the END of the election season!	OnDoutside	Oct 2016	#92

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:56 AM

chillfactor (7,144 posts)

1. no surprise there...

we all knew, at least those of us with a functioning brain, that comey was a lying asshole.

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 05:10 AM

NBachers (15,755 posts)

2. The truth is exposed, Comey keeps flailing, he'll keep sinking deeper into a quagmire of shit.

Reply to this post

Response to NBachers (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:21 AM

InAbLuEsTaTe (23,849 posts)

77. Comey-Stain IS the "quagmire of shit"!

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 05:18 AM

DemonGoddess (4,640 posts)

3. Couldn't happen to a nicer liar

I think we just need to watch the rope play out on this one, because it WILL.

Reply to this post

Response to DemonGoddess (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 05:45 AM

vlyons (9,493 posts)

4. Why hasn't that asshole been fired?

Our Justice Dept stinks to high heaven. Why hasn't Lynch fired his ass? Or is that the President's job?

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 06:47 AM

beachbum bob (10,437 posts)

9. minimum...he should be asked for his resignation....

and the argument should be made by OBAMA and emphasized he used his position of power for partisan purposes...ignored the DOJ and proceeded with malice and intent

OBAMA needs to stand up on this,,,,but not FIRE him

Lynch needs to be on all the Sunday talk shows today crucifying Comey

Reply to this post

Response to beachbum bob (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 06:50 AM

RBInMaine (13,570 posts)

10. Lynch needs to be ordering Comey to get in front of the cameras and clean up his silly mess.

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:46 PM

wordpix (18,652 posts)

29. or else "you're fired", which he should be anyway

TRAITOR

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 09:12 AM

PunksMom (440 posts)

81. I was thinking the same thing.

First & foremost, some type of retraction should be put out in Hillary's defense. This was definitely done to sway the election in
the GOP's favor. No one can convince me otherwise.

Reply to this post

Response to DemonGoddess (Reply #3)

Post removed

Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 06:16 AM

Hav (5,967 posts)

6. What kind of logic is this?

So an action you get praise for will eliminate the possibility that you lie months later?

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 06:17 AM

misterhighwasted (9,148 posts)

7. He wasn't exactly praised. He was condemned. He had nothing to charge her with.

He is a liar.

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 07:39 AM

Cosmocat (14,317 posts)

14. Fuck that

I called him for the scumbag, partisan POS he was after he pulled the press conference stunt.

But, this is liberal vs conservative.

The republican MO when someone is actually DOING THEIR JOB and one of theirs is being called out for actually doing something wrong is to go after them and destroy them.

This asshole has for the second time abused his position to tip the scales of this election and while there is some push back now, you still have half the dems doing this mealy mouthed, "gee, he is in a tough spot" bullshit.

EVERY dem should be evicerating this scumbag.

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 07:46 AM

boston bean (35,347 posts)

16. His presser was a clusterfuck. I was never thrilled with him.

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 08:22 AM

Chemisse (30,549 posts)

18. Nobody HERE was praising him.

Are you in the right place?

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 08:43 AM

JTFrog (14,274 posts)

21. Go ahead, let it all hang out. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 08:44 AM

Guy Whitey Corngood (25,870 posts)

22. Praised by whom? Surely you're not pulling this out of your ass.... nt

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 06:44 AM

beachbum bob (10,437 posts)

8. there was no "screw-up" invovled.

Its was a planned and executed to kneecap a US presidential candidate campaign and her election efforts.......very few media outlets are calling it out for what it is......yet

Reply to this post

Response to beachbum bob (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 08:41 PM

AgadorSparticus (7,963 posts)

68. Exactly! He needs to be prosecuted!!!!

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 07:15 AM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

11. Comey never said the email were or weren't.

This is a dumb talking point, care of the usual source; Daily News Bin.

Is banned DUer SpamDan running that site? It's a lot like that vacuous style of his that makes us uninformed...at best.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 07:22 AM

RBInMaine (13,570 posts)

12. Maybe he didn't intentionally lie, but he has truly and royally fucked up. Totally botched this.

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Reply #12)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 07:25 AM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

13. That's fine. There's a lot to point out and argue about him, at best, screwing up.

But this? It's embarrassing.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 07:42 AM

Cosmocat (14,317 posts)

15. WTF?

Of course he didn't say, because the POS KNEW THEY WEREN'T.

THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT.

This is a complete non issue relative to Hillary Clinton and this scumbag floated this out to allow Rs to run around screaming absolutely bullshit for our worthless ass media to gleefully propogate.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 08:41 AM

uponit7771 (88,626 posts)

20. If they were not sent from Clinton's server, which was a major part of the subject

... of the FBI investigation, then there was LITTLE to NOT justification to break generations of precedence and at the LEAST bumping up against law and ethics to come out with ANYTHING ... RIGHT NOW.

If they were NOT from the sever then there was no reason to go back to ANYTHING related to that investigation into Clinton or even say her name in relation to weiner !!!

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #20)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:15 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

23. Your first paragraph is a reasonable argument.

As I stated above, Comey's action is a pretty questionable.

Your second paragraph is a leap of logic, however. However unlikely, it's possible, for instance, that they see a subject line in an email on Abedin's shared acct (with Wiener) that could be "pertinent".

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #23)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 02:05 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

41. More bullshit! Making excuses for Comney that you know are lies? He doesn't know the email headers.

At this point you are carrying water for Dinald Trump and the GOP. You know you are.

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #41)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 02:09 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

42. I made a logical argument based on what information we have.

However unlikely, it's possible, for instance, that they see a subject line in an email on Abedin's shared acct (with Wiener) that could be "pertinent".

You can address that and quit the name-calling.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #42)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 02:11 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

43. Bullshit- he has NOT seen the emails, their headers, nothing. You're making shit up to defend Comey.

Nothing new, but not letting it slide.

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #43)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 02:18 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

44. I'm sure he'll be able to back up why he thinks it's pertinent...

...even if he has some 'splainin' to do as to why he wrote Congress.

You saying, "bullshit", is not a winning argument. Even if you are yelling it.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #44)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 02:20 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

45. You're defending him based on a lie that they saw headers. Why carry Trumps water?

That must be why you're trying to run off on a tangent. Busted again.

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #45)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 02:25 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

46. You are the one not telling the truth.

Did I say they saw "headers"? No.

Here is what I said, Betty.

However unlikely, it's possible, for instance, that they see a subject line in an email on Abedin's shared acct (with Wiener) that could be "pertinent".

If that logic is faulty, feel free to make that case.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #46)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 02:39 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

47. Comey did not see "subject line" headers or anything - why lie to cover for him? Why carry water for

Trump yet again? This is far from the first time.

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #47)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 02:41 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

48. Do you have a link to support that?

If so, it's a credible rejoinder.

Otherwise, all you got are rule-breaking references to a DUer.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #48)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 03:58 PM

mercuryblues (13,141 posts)

53. Comey also sent a letter to the FBI

He stated he was briefed on the emails, which means he has not seen them. He goes on to say that he doesn't even have them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/28/read-the-letter-comey-sent-to-fbi-employees-explaining-his-controversial-decision-on-the-clinton-email-investigation/?utm_term=.e3727b4b1b4f

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.
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, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

At the time Comey wrote the letter, “he had no idea what was in the content of the emails,” one of the officials said, referring to recently discovered emails that were found on the laptop of disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Weiner is under investigation for allegedly sending illicit text messages to a 15-year-old girl.
As of Saturday night, the FBI was still in talks with the Justice Department about obtaining a warrant that would allow agency officials to read any of the newly discovered Abedin emails, and therefore was still in the dark about whether they include any classified material that the bureau has not already seen

Reply to this post

Response to mercuryblues (Reply #53)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:08 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

56. Oh. I see.

So his agents have told him as much. And because he hasn't seen it with his own eyes I should discount him saying there's a potential relation?

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #56)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:37 PM

mercuryblues (13,141 posts)

58. Yes, you should

Comey is merely publically speculating that the emails may be relevant. He has not seen them. He doesn't even have them in his possession. A 3rd party informed him of these emails.

For all Comey knows they could contain Huma asking Weiner to pick up milk on his way home.

Reply to this post

Response to mercuryblues (Reply #58)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:49 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

59. But you're stretching.

For one, the "third party" is the FBI. And if a subject line says pick up a quart a milk, that's one thing. If it says, "Notes about the email thing", well, that's another.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #59)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:58 PM

mercuryblues (13,141 posts)

61. the 3rd party

may be FBI, but they weren't involved in the investigation.

Comey publically speculated on something he has not seen, nor have in his possession. It was extremely reckless of him to do so.

Reply to this post

Response to mercuryblues (Reply #61)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 05:02 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

62. I put forth a basic idea.

And never mind the "may be FBI" bleeting.

If the agents saw and reported subject lines that potentially relate to the email issue, that would be why Comey said "may be pertinent".

This really isn't that hard. It just hurts. Being real doesn't always include being happy.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #62)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 05:20 PM

mercuryblues (13,141 posts)

64. They were not involved

in the email investigation, so what they think might be relevant may not have any bearing. Comey has not seen them and doesn't have them in his possession. He has no clue what they are about. They aren't even Clinton's emails, which is what the investigation was about. Apparently someone else's emails, that Comey hasn't seen or have in his possession, appear to be relevant. Based on someone else's opinion.

Reply to this post

Response to mercuryblues (Reply #64)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 05:22 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

65. I guess it really is that hard.

Okee-doke

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #20)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:07 PM

duffyduff (3,251 posts)

55. Weiner was/is married to Abedin. Abedin is an aide to Clinton. Guilt by association.

Never mind there is no "there" there.

Reply to this post

Response to duffyduff (Reply #55)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:51 PM

uponit7771 (88,626 posts)

60. +1

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:39 PM

Demsrule86 (65,544 posts)

26. Comey said they had a bearing on the Clinton case they don't

As he probably has guessed since he released this letter before looking at them...most likely because if he looked at the emails he would see...they have no bearing on the investigation or they are duplicates...he didn't look because he wanted to send the letter to influence the election no matter what...it is a dirty trick and I sincerely hope he goes down. We need the FBI to be above politics...he also totally has f'd up a number of investigations...the latest one being the Bundy acquittal. I knew back in the summer when he attacked Hillary Clinton that he was no damn good. Obama needs to fire him the day after the election.

Reply to this post

Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #26)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:44 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

28. Oh. "they don't" have "bearing on the Clinton case".

Sorry. I was unaware that you had already determined and announced that and cleared it up for the world.

I'll try to pay better attention going forward.

Again, my sincerest apologies.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #28)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 01:07 PM

Demsrule86 (65,544 posts)

35. Definitely...

The emails were not to or from Hillary...posted quite a few times actually...I support the Democratic nominee and don't buy into this witch hunt...of course others may have a different opinion for various reasons.

Reply to this post

Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #35)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 01:11 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

37. Just trying to keep it real.

It wouldn't have to be on the server or from or to HRC to be related, for instance.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #37)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 01:17 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

38. It actually would- to be directly related to Clinton- but keep on trucking...

Despite the end of the primary some can't help themselves.

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #38)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 01:50 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

39. Are you agreeing that it could "be directly related to Clinton"??

What does the primary have to do with it. HRC is the Democratic Party's nominee.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #39)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 02:03 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

40. No matter how you Comey and Trump try to spin this- if there is no direct connection to her server

There is no direct connection. You've been so unhappy here since HRC won, always nipping at her heels and regurgitating ALL the RW bullshit. Let's not pretend this is a one off, okay?

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #40)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 05:04 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

63. No matter your protest, I have put forward a rational set of ideas.

They await a rationale response.

Reply to this post

Response to Wilms (Reply #63)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 07:26 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

66. Ideas excusing Combey based on a fabrication? He never saw the emails and has no idea....

Why you are making claims to the contrary is interesting.

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #66)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 08:33 PM

Wilms (26,795 posts)

67. OK. I give up.

Putin made him do it.

Is that acceptable?

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 08:06 AM

smirkymonkey (63,221 posts)

17. K&R

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 08:30 AM

OnDoutside (19,710 posts)

19. The pressure HAS to be kept on Comey, Democrats have done a great job since this broke on Friday,

don't let up on him !!! By keeping that pressure on him, it keeps Democratic politicians/supporters at the head of the news cycle with the narrative that

a) What Comey did was wrong
b) This is no There there, yet again
c) Comey may have broken the law by doing this so close to an election

Rightly, they should be outraged at what a vague letter was deliberately designed to do, so close to Nov 8, with no prospect of the truth before then.

Reply to this post

Response to OnDoutside (Reply #19)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:49 PM

wordpix (18,652 posts)

30. main issue is, what on the computer relates to the closed investigation that Congress

needs to know about?

So far the answer is NOTHING so Comey should have kept his mouth shut. fuckhead

Reply to this post

Response to wordpix (Reply #30)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 03:26 PM

OnDoutside (19,710 posts)

49. Whether there is or not is actually not as important right now because we won't know one way

or another until after Nov 8, so Comey needs to be hammered for bias, giving into the Repubs and incompetence i.e. capture and dominate the narrative in order to hold the wavering voters. That's the most important thing imo.

EJ Dionne said it right on AM Joy that the Clinton Campaign must surely have their best oppo saved for this sort of situation. This is the time to release it.

Reply to this post

Response to OnDoutside (Reply #19)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:50 PM

anamandujano (7,004 posts)

31. Yes exactly! There is nothing else more important at this point.

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:17 PM

dalton99 (781 posts)

24. Comey couldn't care less if the emails were between Huma and Amazon

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:34 PM

Demsrule86 (65,544 posts)

25. It is also clear that Comey colluded with Chavez

who tweeted before the letter arrived.

Reply to this post

Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #25)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:43 PM

misterhighwasted (9,148 posts)

27. Chaffetz is the weasel in the mix. Investigate their emails

Chaffetz said he couldn't look his daughter in the eye if he supported Trump.
He then reversed that decision just days before Comey's "letter".

Collusion. And Chaffetz is up to his neck in it too.
Who else was in on this?
Their correspondence deserves to be investigated.

Reply to this post

Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #27)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 01:01 PM

PearliePoo2 (7,768 posts)

34. ^^Yep!^^

Agree on all points!

Reply to this post

Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #25)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:51 PM

wordpix (18,652 posts)

32. that's a good point but the sheeple will not "get it" if Chaffetz is

brought into the mix. Keep it on Comey coming clean with his so-called "evidence"

F-ing POS

Reply to this post

Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #25)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 12:58 PM

PearliePoo2 (7,768 posts)

33. Yes! I think it was Jennifer Granholm on MSNBC that brought this little tidbit up!

So...did the greasy, little rat-f-cker Chaffetz have some inside knowledge and was tipped off ahead of time? If so, by who?
And it was also brought up on A. M. Joy's show, remember it was Chaffetz that hauled Comey's ass to testify for hours in front of his committee!
Something really stinks here! This thread end needs to be found and pulled!

(crazy girl crush on Jennifer Granholm.

I hope she finds a position in an HRC admin!)

Reply to this post

Response to PearliePoo2 (Reply #33)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 01:09 PM

misterhighwasted (9,148 posts)

36. Jennifer Granholm fan here also. If she's publicly bringing in Chaffetz

..you know his name's been connected loud & clear to our powers that be, in private meetings.

Kind of a he who smelt it dealt it sort of thinking.

Sieze their govt & personal computer devices.
Comey didn't do this alone.

Reply to this post

Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #36)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 03:29 PM

OnDoutside (19,710 posts)

50. +1 Yep, it's an excellent attack point, and probably factually true as well, which makes it even

better !!!

Big Granholm fan as well, no bull about her.

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 03:45 PM

Jarqui (9,213 posts)

52. I disagree

Washington Post: The FBI had access to these emails for weeks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agents-knew-of-clinton-related-emails-weeks-before-director-was-briefed/2016/10/30/657ed266-9eb1-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1477847865&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news

CNN: The FBI had their experts in the Clinton case look these emails over:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/30/politics/clinton-emails-fbi-abedin/index.html

Investigators from the FBI's New York field office who are conducting the Weiner investigation stumbled on the Abedin emails while they were reviewing emails and other communications on the computer, which was considered to belong to Weiner, the officials said. They stopped their work and called in the team of investigators from FBI headquarters who conducted the probe of Clinton's private email server.

Abedin's lawyers didn't respond to requests for comment.

The investigators saw enough of the emails to determine that they appeared pertinent to the previously completed investigation and that they may be emails not previously reviewed.
Because they don't have a warrant specific to Abedin's emails, officials have not been able to further examine them. Justice Department and FBI officials view Abedin as cooperative with the investigation.

FBI officials yet don't know how many of the emails are duplicates of emails they already have reviewed as part of the Clinton email server investigation and whether any of them may contain classified information.

Investigators believe it's likely the newly recovered trove will include emails that were deleted from the Clinton server before the FBI took possession of it as part of that earlier investigation.

That's Washington Post & CNN - not right wing sources.

Comey is financially set in life. He's near the end of his time at the FBI. About the only thing left for him to concern himself with is his legacy. I doubt he wants to go down in history as the jackass who threw the 2016 election.

You could spot check 100 emails in a couple of hours from that laptop and know with reasonable % how many of the 10,000 or so emails reported on that laptop they do not already have and of those, what percentage are work related or potentially classified. Comey did not rise to the top of the FBI on a career of stupidity. I'd also say he was pretty darn fair with Hillary this summer.

I have a feeling Comey knows a lot more about what they've got than he's presently saying because they need a warrant. His career and legacy is on the line. Time will tell. Try not to rush to conclusions here.

Reply to this post

Response to Jarqui (Reply #52)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 10:24 PM

DLCWIdem (1,470 posts)

69. I disagree

This summer Comey did not deal "pretty darn fair" with Clinton this summer. There were a lot of OP' s who were very critical when he injected his personal attack about her being "careless" . There were a lot of posts citing Justice Dept experts who were saying he didn't follow FBI procedures. Namely that if they weren't going to prosecute Clinton he shouldn't have "defamed" her. Clinton and the DU let that pass as a mild annoyance because we all were glad to have the e-mails over. Fast forward to today and there are more DOJ officials who say he is a cowboy who wants to prove his independence and who again substitutes his own for the DOJ procedures. At the very least he is wilfully insubordinate and reckless himself if he's not trying actually influence the election. Reckless that if he didn't know if the emails were pertinent then at least he should've waited till he did know.

Reply to this post

Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #69)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 10:42 PM

Jarqui (9,213 posts)

70. He may be as you say "wilfully insubordinate and reckless"

and he may not. A lot of facts have to come out before we can really render that judgement. There's probably a bunch he has not told us yet about why he did what he did - in part because he's gained knowledge about evidence he didn't have a warrant for yet. I'm not going to pass judgement without a bunch of the key facts behind his actions. I do not believe this was politically motivated. It's convenient for us Dems to hope for that and I wish it were true but having followed Comey and this email thing, I'm not convinced yet.

"Careless" was about as nice a way as he could put it this summer. Given 2/3rds of the country thought she should have been charged, he was on the hot seat to explain why he didn't - which was an extraordinary position in the wake of all the media and Bill quietly meeting one on one with AG Lynch on a tarmac (bad optics).

People do things for a reason. I do not think Comey has been that dominated by politics his whole career. I think those Clinton email FBI experts he sent up to NY to look at that laptop probably told him they had something in that evidence that prompted him to act as he has. He's really stuck his neck out otherwise and he's not a stupid guy.

I could easily be wrong - just like anyone else theorizing what was behind his letter. Time will tell. In the interim, I'm not rushing to pass judgement until we know more of the story.

Reply to this post

Response to Jarqui (Reply #70)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 10:57 PM

DLCWIdem (1,470 posts)

71. Irregardless what part of the country thought

About the emails. Once he decided (which again it wasn't up to him--procedures again. Again cited from ex DOJ OFFICIALS FROM BUSH adm) not to prosecute he was not supposed to defame Hill. Again he didn't know if those emails were pertinent to HRC emails ------as per his letter to Congress "could be" pertinent & " could be" significant. Since when does someone in authority inform Congress before he has the information for
himself/herself. And per Comey' s 2 letter to his fbi employees he thought he had to inform Congress before it was leakef and he would be perceived as partisan for the Dems.

Reply to this post

Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #71)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 11:12 PM

Jarqui (9,213 posts)

72. Lynch recused herself after meeting Bill on the tarmac

and kind of left it in the FBI's hands because of her actions.

So he was kind of put into a position to kind of "decide" even though it was the DoJ's job because of what DoJ AG Lynch did with Bill (poisoned those waters). That wasn't Comey's fault.

Secondly, it was an extraordinary case - with massive media attention. You were not going to get much credibility if a junior law clerk read the results to the media. It should have come from Lynch but since she was so stupid getting caught chatting with Bill, Comey filled in.

And they needed to put it to rest. It was controversial and not clear cut. So they spanked her to give those against her a bit of a bone for carelessly handling classified material and they let her walk to give her campaign life. The result was, a bunch got put to bed and the campaign moved on.

We can nit pick but Comey did alright in that in terms of the big picture. Everyone may have some issue but overall, I think Hillary came out ok - all things considered.

The big thing now is this: are the FBI just speculating and causing a big dust up over nothing that could cost Hillary the election? Or did those FBI experts in Clinton's emails they sent up to New York really turn up something? If it's the latter, Comey's going to come out of this beautifully. If it's the former, he'll be dismissed and tarnished forever. I have a feeling Comey realized the stakes before he wrote his letter but I could be wrong ....

Reply to this post

Response to Jarqui (Reply #72)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 07:52 AM

DLCWIdem (1,470 posts)

74. You are watching too much Faux news.

Your arguments are full of right wing talking points. That argument is what Fox news and Trump have been peddling. That Comey must have SOMETHING or he wouldn't have wrote the letter. No one is buying it because it is directly controverted by what is known. That letter was too equivocal to be someone confident in what he had. Could be may be ... Furthermore from what has recently come out he hadn't even been able to examine the evidence because he needed a subpoena. You further assume that Comey is too politically savvy. Rather his actions reek of arrogance and sexism to me. Especially if as you put it he decided to "spank" a political candidate on his own against his female boss.

Reply to this post

Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #74)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:07 AM

Jarqui (9,213 posts)

75. I don't have cable and cannot watch FOX news. Nor do I commonly visit their site.

My most common news sources are CNN, MSNBC online videos/NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT & WaPo - with other major papers/mags thrown in now and then. I hate FOX, always have and canceled my cable because of them.

I don't know IF Comey has something. I'm not Comey nor in the FBI. But I cannot dismiss he doesn't have something because I don't know that either.

Maybe they found nothing new but they found classified emails on Weiner's laptop. They'd have to report a security breach, wouldn't they? That's another possibility that would explain his actions.

There is a terrible rush to judgement here with scant facts to support that judgement and a simplistic presumption of it being partisan or hatred based. But because my jury is still out looking for more evidence to convince me of positions that are being taken, I'm a right winger? That's pretty narrow minded and ignorant and false. I've been a left winger all my life.

PS: the notion of hate is a troubling one for me. I don't hate much of anything. It doesn't feel good and often the emotion is misplaced emotional energy from a lack of understanding of the other side. But I can tell you there is one person that gets me pretty darn close to ugly feelings and makes my blood boil: Donald Trump.

Do I wish this would all go away so that Hillary could be president? Absolutely. It will be our worst nightmare if it turns out otherwise.

Understanding is a very powerful thing. I do not think Hillary is inherently evil. She's got flaws but is not the second coming of Adolf Hitler like some construe Trump. I truly believe that the sooner we can understand what is really going on with Comey, our defense of Hillary against the right wing on this will be much more effective because it is founded on facts and truth. Comey owes America an explanation - more details. I'm sure he's feeling that heat. I doubt he'll remain silent until the election. If we haven't gone off the rails half nuts swamped with crazy conspiracy theories based on hate, folks will be far more receptive to a facts based rational presentation of the evidence - that could effectively and quickly exonerate Hillary.

Reply to this post

Response to Jarqui (Reply #75)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 10:42 AM

DLCWIdem (1,470 posts)

82. I am sorry if you thought I was attacking you for

Being right wing. I wasn't. I actually had to rewrite that post 4 times because my electronics were acting up. My piece actually started as long as yours, but was cut down so I could get it out. However, it is true that Trumps surrogates are saying that Comey MUST have something. When it was clear to me that the letter was much too tentative. Now, I am not like the other posters here who as you have stated rush to judgement and said he was partisan and should be fired. In fact, I don't know if he knew the letter would be released. Although, I do believe and take him at his word, that he's trying to protect FBI reputation that it's is not partisan. But by doing that he was substituting his own protocols, procedures etc for the bureau's own protocols. In other words, his judgement was better than the judgement of Loretta Lynch, his female boss, and the judgement built into fbi's own protocols. These protocols are there for a reason. Such beliefs smack of arrogance and maybe even sexism. I think your "spank" terminology is right on the money. I don't think he would done the same to a male candidate. And I don't think he is politically savvy, i think he's trying too hard to be independent. At the first hearing when he was called to the Hill he was trying very hard to convince repubs in that commitee.

Reply to this post

Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #74)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 05:15 PM

Jarqui (9,213 posts)

84. Evidently, so is Barack Obama

To be clear, I do not share the same praise for Comey. But I'm willing to consider more information before passing judgement (though the Russian election influencing he avoided announcing that came out today is pushing me away ...)

Reply to this post

Response to Jarqui (Reply #84)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 05:23 PM

DLCWIdem (1,470 posts)

85. What about we won't defend or criticize leads you

To believe he is defending Comey?. What about that statement leads you to believe that he believes that Comey had something? what that is Is a statement of neutrality. The same neutrality that the FBI was supposed to take.

Reply to this post

Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #85)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 05:35 PM

Jarqui (9,213 posts)

86. No it is absolutely not merely "a statement of neutrality".

You are only listening to things in that statement you want to hear.

He described Comey as:

"a man of integrity" "man of principle" "well regarded by senior officials in both parties" ...

"so all those things are true" "they speak to his good character"

"the President's assessment of his integrity and his character has not changed"

"For example, the President does not believe that director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election. The President does not believe that he is secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party."

That defended Comey against some of the current allegations of his handling of this.

And it leaves one to wonder if Obama is correct, what is Comey doing and why that would be consistent with Obama's assurance that his good character is still intact. Just maybe Comey has his reasons that are not as sinister as some folks are making out. But we won't know that until we get more info.

Obama is not buying the rush to judgement. At the same time, no one should buy a rush to judgement against Hillary either.

Reply to this post

Response to Jarqui (Reply #86)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 06:16 PM

DLCWIdem (1,470 posts)

87. Apparently I am not the only one reading into that

Presser question what they want to hear. In the first place there was a reason that question was asked; because it seemed to the reporter the WH was distancing himself from Comey. it was Ernst himself who was saying that he found Comey to be a man of integrity. Secondly, I didn't say There was a planned collusion between Comey and Trump. Rather I said he was reckless. He seems to put his "reputation" above our democracy. That bipartisan support that Ernst was talking about included H. REID who just stated in his letter he stood up for Come in the past against the repugs but he could see he had been wrong.
Finally, again I don't see him toting the Fox line that Comey must have had something more for him to write that letter to Congress. THAT PRESSER IN NO WAY furthered those Fox talking points that you were touting.

Reply to this post

Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #87)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 06:54 PM

Jarqui (9,213 posts)

88. First of all,

I don't listen to or read FOX News or hard right media unless I inadvertently click a link so I wouldn't have a clue what their talking points are. Obviously, you do listen to or read them. I can't be bothered. They lie way too much for me to waste my time on them.

" it seemed to the reporter the WH was distancing himself from Comey. it was Ernst himself who was saying that he found Comey to be a man of integrity"

That's true. But it didn't end there. Listen to it again. I quoted above. Ernst went on to tell the press Obama thought similarly about Comey's integrity and character and still does after last Friday. So Ernst was not just speaking for himself.

I do not recall you saying "a planned collusion" but many others have alleged it (maybe even on FOX News but between the two of us, only you would know). It's been riddled throughout mainstream media. Contrary to your position that the White House did not defend Comey, Ernst did on that specific point to let the press know that Obama did not think this was a partisan act on Comey's part.

I do wonder if Comey had reasons for writing his letter beyond partisanship. But I don't know that for sure yet. I'm not as far along as Obama on that point. I allow that it might have been partisan based but I also allow that it might not. I'd like more information - like so many. But unlike as many, I have backed off my initial emotional desire to have Comey fired, calming down to wait for more information before passing judgment. That is unlikely to be a FOX News position as I suspect they didn't originally call for him to be fired and then back off refusing to pass firm judgment. I doubt those were FOX News positions but again, between the two of us, only you would know.

What I continue to look for are reasons why Comey wrote that letter. I've allowed that it might be partisanship. But if it is as Obama said, and not partisan, why then would he write it?
1) Covering his own ass with congress after the election
2) Responding to morale issues within the FBI on his handling of Clinton
3) Circumventing what he construes as an inevitable leak because the NYPD had a sniff of what was on the laptop
4) Feeling he had to notify congress because his advance Clinton email FBI experts told him after looking at the laptop there was a breach of more classified emails on that laptop and they might need to bring in the CIA or other departments (which also fed the leak concern)
5) They hit the jackpot in terms of evidence on the laptop and could really nail some folks and therefore the public should be made aware before they cast votes ...

You can probably add to the list. Could be any or or a combination of those. If FOX News mentioned any of those, too bad. I didn't hear any of them from right wing sources. They all just popped into my head while thinking it over or were mentioned in the mainstream media.

So unlike what I expect the right wing media would be howling about - like pre-concluding Hillary is guilty as sin somehow without any facts, I'm not sure of anything here. I'd like more info before passing judgment on Comey or Hillary or Huma or anyone else. I have my doubts many of the most rabid right wingers are taking a wait and see approach.

Reply to this post

Response to Jarqui (Reply #88)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 07:43 PM

DLCWIdem (1,470 posts)

89. Again I was alluding to your comment that Comey

Must have something (some damning evidence) or he wouldn't have went forward with the letter. And there was a (treasure) trove in the e-mails. First of all, I am sort of a captive audience when Days news comes on as my roommate watches it and I can't avoid it. But I don't have to be watching Faux news because cable news networks have his surrogates and replay his rallies. His lines in last rally was the exact line "Comey must have had SOMETHING to write that letter". The exact line in one of your posts above. A surrogatevalso tallied about a " trove" of emails. Fox news has also replayed these memes. Now, do you see why I said you were using Fox and Trump talking points.

Reply to this post

Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #89)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:02 PM

Jarqui (9,213 posts)

91. I didn't say for example there was a " (treasure) trove in the e-mails"

I just pointed out that it was possible.

If as Obama says, the letter was not partisan motivated, Comey had some other reason. What triggered that "other" reason likely was evidence on a laptop containing Huma's emails that has subsequently has been run past a judge to successfully get a search warrant.

Having FBI Clinton email experts go up to New York to look at that laptop, as has been reported. And having it reported that while they were there, they ran software against those emails to help them determine what they already had and what they didn't already have within those emails. It's increasingly hard for me to imagine them coming back to Comey and saying "we didn't find a thing!" and Comey rushing off to send that letter. People do things for a reason. Comey is people.

I like and trust Obama and although I do not blindly accept his vouching for Comey, if you combine what the White House said today with the above paragraph, and that they got approval for a search warrant, I'd say the odds that Comey's got some significant evidence from that laptop is increasing. And that evidence and report from those FBI agents who looked at it is looking more like a key part of the motivation for that letter.

But I'm still not there yet to say that's the only way it could be. I've always allowed consideration for it being a partisan act. In fact, that's where I started - I initially wanted Comey fired. Provide a link from FOX News asking that Comey be fired.

Reply to this post

Response to Jarqui (Reply #88)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 07:56 PM

DLCWIdem (1,470 posts)

90. By the way

As to that WH PRESSER look at th post on dem underground labelled Trump is Toast.

Reply to this post

Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #90)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:05 PM

Jarqui (9,213 posts)

93. And somewhere in my posts today is my disgust with Comey that he

knew of Russian issues but didn't want to publicize them before the election (if that article I saw posted on DU.com was accurate).

I can't stand Trump. I'd be delighted if he didn't get a single vote.

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:04 PM

duffyduff (3,251 posts)

54. Of course not.

He reminds me of his old colleague of sorts, Kenneth Starr, when he kept stringing the public along on the non-scandal of Whitewater.

Starr kept talking about a "new phase" or something in the investigation, and it wound up like Al Capone's vault.

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:22 PM

McCamy Taylor (19,240 posts)

57. Good grief! They don't make October surprises the way they used to.

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Sun Oct 30, 2016, 11:56 PM

burrowowl (16,688 posts)

73. And a former ethics lawyer under GW is filing a

complaint under the Hatch Act.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/30/1588609/-Former-Bush-Ethics-Head-Files-Complaint-Against-Comey-Alleging-Potential-Violations-Of-Hatch-Act

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:08 AM

liberal N proud (59,672 posts)

76. He should be fired

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Response to Post removed (Reply #78)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:25 AM

roamer65 (34,034 posts)

79. Fuck off, troll.

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:38 AM

Grey Lemercier (1,429 posts)

80. unfortunately it is semantics

The laptop, from what I have seen reported, contains tens of thousands of FORWARDED emails, emails from one Huma Abedin account to another. Many originally did indeed come from, and were sent to Sec. Clinton.

So it is a tad disingenuous to say that none of the emails have anything to do with Clinton. The OP source is a dodgy site and should never be fully trusted.

That said, what Comey did is treasonous in my book and is a blatant attempt at a soft coup.

Reply to this post

Response to RBInMaine (Original post)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:05 PM

OnDoutside (19,710 posts)

92. Comey's letter said "in the middle of the election season", NO, it's the END of the election season!

Reply to this post

2016 Postmortem (Forum)