Debates
29 May 19
@vivify saidAs for Comey coming out a few days before the election with less than flattering info on Hillary, I can only guess what was going through his mind or what his purpose was.
Okay. Exonerating Clinton before the investigation is over is not the same thing as preparing a statement ahead of time. This is why I ask for links. The way you posted it made it seem like Comey cut the investigation short in order to exonerate her...which is not the case.
Whatever Comey's plans were (which still seem wrong), a full investigation still took place which ...[text shortened]... on; she was not prematurely exonerated like the Republicans in this thread (falsely) tried to imply.
If you remember, Hillary was blaming everyone other than herself for her loss, and Comey was definitely someone she could blame. She even blamed nearly half of the American population because they didn't vote for her (the deplorables).
She has a way of endearing herself to nearly everyone, don't you think?
But here's my take on Comey. He thinks Hillary will win but wants to hedge his bets. On the one hand if Hillary wins he's the guy who got her off the hook, so he's probably safe from retribution. We won't find him dead in the street the next morning.
On the other hand if Trump wins (oh lordy no, god forbid) Comey is in a position to convince Trump that he's a fair and impartial servant of The People...
"And by the way Mr President, I was instrumental in Hillary losing the election."
30 May 19
@lemon-lime saidWe've been all through this silliness many times on this Forum; there is nothing unusual about the head of an investigation drafting a findings' statement when the investigation had proceeded for almost a year and all of the dozens of FBI agents and lawyers involved concurred with the decision not to charge. Of course, that statement finding was preliminary, open to comment and dependent on any new evidence but in the end nothing changed. HRC, as the target of the investigation, was interviewed last as is standard practice; agents like to get as much information as they can before confronting the target.
Let's try this again, shall we?
Comey Drafted Statement Ending Clinton Email Investigation Months Before (not after) Interviewing Her, FBI Confirms.
Interviewing her is supposed to be a part of the investigation, so why would he draft a statement ending the investigation before the investigation was over? Who granted Comey the autho ...[text shortened]... ation Months Before Interviewing Her, so it's not just some spurious and unsubstantiated allegation.
Once upon a time, right wingers here were drooling for the release of IG Horowitz's investigation into the e-mail non-charging decision; it landed with a whimper last June. There is a thread I started about it here: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/ig-report.177356
The conclusions:
We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice. p. vii
As to who granted Comey the authority, the Attorney General did: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html
Really how many times do right wing falsehoods have to be debunked?
@no1marauder saidAs to who granted Comey the authority, the Attorney General did:
We've been all through this silliness many times on this Forum; there is nothing unusual about the head of an investigation drafting a findings' statement when the investigation had proceeded for almost a year and all of the dozens of FBI agents and lawyers involved concurred with the decision not to charge. Of course, that statement finding was preliminary, open to comme ...[text shortened]... ary-clinton-email-server.html
Really how many times do right wing falsehoods have to be debunked?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said on Friday she will accept the recommendations of prosecutors and investigators on whether to bring charges against Hillary Clinton over her email use.
Right, she left the decision up to someone else. Too bad I wasn't there. I could have arbitrarily granted Loretta E. Lynch the authority to do her d*mn job and not pass that hot potato back over to Comey.
We're in your fantasy world now... I'm just a visitor.
30 May 19
@whodey saidWait........ They should pay the same!?!?? What if Lynch makes $100K a year, but Brennan makes $500K a year? I think you need to re-work this joke so everything is fair,,,,,,,Looks to me like Lynch should pay 20 cents, and Brennan pay a dollar, and Brennan also pay Lynch's other 80 cents.
So Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, and Strzok all walk into a bar and ask for the cheapest drink on the menu. The bartender says, "Well that's easy, that drink is called the Russian Collusion and is only $1". "Great", they all said and sat down to await their drinks. No less than a minute passed as the bartender gave them their drinks to which they responded, "Hey, bartender, these are empty glasses!" "Yes", said the bartender, "And that will be $1 each!"
I think I got that right.
@averagejoe1 saidUh, yes you did. You cited a Newsweek with this title:
Not to nitpick, but the way we posted it clearly does not make it seem like I am saying Comey "cut the investigation short in order to exonerate her'. I did not say he cut the investigation short.
“COMEY DRAFTED STATEMENT ENDING CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION MONTHS BEFORE INTERVIEWING HER“.
The actual article doesn't support that Comey actually tried "ending" the investigation early or even intended to; only that he drafted a statement early.
This explains why you refused to post the article: because its actual content doesn't say what you claim. Quite a dishonest tactic.
30 May 19
@lemon-lime saidSurely, even you know that if your given is false anything you posit based on that given will be false.
Let's try this again, shall we?
Comey Drafted Statement Ending Clinton Email Investigation Months Before (not after) Interviewing Her, FBI Confirms.
Interviewing her is supposed to be a part of the investigation, so why would he draft a statement ending the investigation before the investigation was over? Who granted Comey the autho ...[text shortened]... ation Months Before Interviewing Her, so it's not just some spurious and unsubstantiated allegation.
@vivify saidYou seem to be confused. No one is saying Comey attempted to end the investigation early. Read what you posted:
Uh, yes you did. You cited a Newsweek with this title:
“COMEY DRAFTED STATEMENT ENDING CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION MONTHS BEFORE INTERVIEWING HER“.
The actual article doesn't support that Comey actually tried "ending" the investigation early or even intended to; only that he drafted a statement early.
This explains why you refused to post the article: because its actual content doesn't say what you claim. Quite a dishonest tactic.
"COMEY DRAFTED STATEMENT ENDING CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION MONTHS BEFORE INTERVIEWING HER“.
The draft itself doesn't end the investigation (how could it?) But it clearly indicates how Comey intends to end the investigation before the investigation ends. The interview is not a formality, it's an integral part of the investigation, so how would he know months before gathering ALL of the evidence how the investigation would end?
Clearly, there was only one acceptable outcome regardless of the evidence... exonerate Hillary. Period.
30 May 19
@suzianne said
Surely, even you know that if your given is false anything you posit based on that given will be false.
30 May 19
@lemon-lime saidInterviewing the target is rarely an integral part of the investigation because the target need not consent to an interview.
You seem to be confused. No one is saying Comey attempted to end the investigation early. Read what you posted:
"COMEY DRAFTED STATEMENT ENDING CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION MONTHS BEFORE INTERVIEWING HER“.
The draft itself doesn't end the investigation (how could it?) But it clearly indicates how Comey intends to end the investigation before the i ...[text shortened]... arly, there was only one acceptable outcome regardless of the evidence... exonerate Hillary. Period.
The Clinton e-mail investigation started in the Summer of 2015 and all relevant facts had been gathered by the Spring of 2016. It was only sensible for Comey at that point to start drafting a final statement; his entire investigative team had already concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to charge HRC. Something could have happened to alter the judgment, so the draft was a preliminary statement but surely any investigation should end within a reasonable amount of time. As it happened, the interview with Hillary yielded no new information, so the case was closed.
30 May 19
1 edit
@lemon-lime saidThis is exactly what I'm talking about: no it doesn't.
The draft itself doesn't end the investigation (how could it?) But it clearly indicates how Comey intends to end the investigation before the investigation ends.
The draft may show that Comey drew an early conclusion about the investigation doesn't indicate *intent* to prematurely end it. That's quite obvious from the fact the probe WASN'T ended before interviewing Clinton.
The very Newsweek article you cited clearly doesn't support any idea that Comey intended the end the investigation early. This kind of misquoting and fact-twisting is so ubiquitous with conservatives, and seems to answer why averagejoe never posts links to his claims; because if he did, his statements would be more easily refuted.
30 May 19
1 edit
In his book, A Higher Loyalty, Comey doesn't exactly give HRC a ringing endorsement after the interview:
"After discussion and careful review of her answers, there was nothing in her comments that we could prove was a lie beyond a reasonable doubt............................................ Whether we believed her or not, we had no significant proof otherwise." pp. 182-83
30 May 19
@vivify saidWhat was so "early" about it? He prepared a draft in May 2016 when the investigation had already been ongoing for 10 months. This is what he says in his book:
This is exactly what I'm talking about: no it doesn't.
The draft may show that Comey drew an early conclusion about the investigation doesn't indicate *intent* to prematurely end it. That's quite obvious from the fact the probe WASN'T ended before interviewing Clinton.
The very Newsweek article you cited clearly doesn't support any idea that Comey intended the end th ...[text shortened]... joe never posts links to his claims; because if he did, his statements would be more easily refuted.
"Any investigator or prosecutor who doesn't have a sense, after nearly a year of investigation, where their case is likely headed, is incompetent ............................................. Unless we suddenly found a smoking-gun email or directive clearly pointing to Clinton's intent, or unless she lied to us in an FBI interview, both of which were possibilities, this was the way I expected the case to end." p. 173
Where is the fault in those statements?
30 May 19
5 edits
@no1marauder saidI'm just going by the words of Chris Swecker, former Assistant Director for the FBI, who said in the Newsweek article that they don't "prejudge investigations, particularly from the top", in response to Comey's drafted statement.
What was so "early" about it?
I'm in agreement that after a year of investigation it was quite possible to know where the email probe was going. I just didn't want to act like I know more than a former assistant director for the FBI.
According to Newsweek, Matthew Miller, a former spokesperson for the Justice Department, tweeted in September, “The decision is never 'made' until the end, even when there's a 99% chance it is only going to go one way.”
Just to reiterate, there's no evidence Comey intended to actually stop the investigation prematurely.