Senate Democrats ask Comey to provide more info by Monday
42 replies, posted
[url]http://www.politico.com/senate-democrats-james-comey-letter[/url]
[quote]Senate Democrats are pressuring FBI Director James Comey to cough up more information about the new evidence the FBI is investigating in its probe into Hillary Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state.
In a new letter to Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch Saturday, top Democrats on national security and oversight committees urged the FBI chief to be more forthcoming with what exactly he was investigating – saying Comey's letter to several committee chairs is “already being used for political purposes” and raising more questions than answers, particularly so close to an election.[/quote]
I want off Mr.Bone's Wild election ride.
Oh fuck off, you do not need evidence of an ongoing investigation. Evidence shouldn't be released till all things are assessed and dealt with.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51280856]Oh fuck off, you do not need evidence of an ongoing investigation. Evidence shouldn't be released till all things are assessed and dealt with.[/QUOTE]
there's quite a bit of confusion about what is going on
[QUOTE=Sableye;51280859]there's quite a bit of confusion about what is going on[/QUOTE]
The thing is though, is that until the FBI concludes their investigation, and contacts parties which need to be contacted, no one should know what's going on.
It'd be on par with an investigation of a runaway convicts whereabouts and then releasing information you gained to the public. It only serves to shoot yourself in the foot. The Democrat party can wait.
So before, when Hillary was given the "all clear" by the FBI, it was the right thing to do. Now, the Democrats are saying they are pulling a politically motivated stunt because they came across new evidence?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51280871]The thing is though, is that until the FBI concludes their investigation, and contacts parties which need to be contacted, no one should know what's going on.
It'd be on par with an investigation of a runaway convicts whereabouts and then releasing information you gained to the public. It only serves to shoot yourself in the foot. The Democrat party can wait.[/QUOTE]
The FBI shouldn't have said anything in the first place. They've put themselves into this position where revealing things would be the best thing to do.
[QUOTE=Smoot;51280895]So before, when Hillary was given the "all clear" by the FBI, it was the right thing to do. Now, the Democrats are saying they are pulling a politically motivated stunt because they came across new evidence?[/QUOTE]
The FBI basically said "Hey guys Clinton might be a lawbreaker! LOL. We don't know that yet, though but just saying y'know?"
[QUOTE=Octavius;51280903]The FBI shouldn't have said anything in the first place. They've put themselves into this position where revealing things would be the best thing to do.[/QUOTE]
Comey had to correct his testimony in front of congress. He had said that the investigation was closed when it is now in fact not quite closed.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51280966]Comey had to correct his testimony in front of congress. He had said that the investigation was closed when it is now in fact not quite closed.[/QUOTE]
It isn't a correction though. He was correct in sayng the investigation was closed, because it was closed. This is a reopening of the investigation, and thst doesn't retroactively make it so that it never was closed. An update would be a better word, and what's being argued about is that this update was irresponsibly done.
[editline]29th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51280987]and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that[/QUOTE]
There absolutely is something wrong with that. Their words carry weight, so if they say shit irresponsibly, it has a big impact. And that's what the problem is.
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51281021]in what way was saying the case was reopened when it was irresponsible. it's not his responsibility to consider the damage it could do to her campaign, and they're not entitled to more information.[/QUOTE]
It certainly is their responsibility to ensure their actions don't have undue adverse effects on others, and I'd say especially to ensure they don't have undue impact on an election.
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51280987]and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that[/QUOTE]
Uh, if they can't say what's in the emails yet then yeah, there fucking is.
Saying that there's more to look at sounds bad no matter what, but those emails could literally be more risotto recipes.
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51281051]none of the letter was misinformation, they shouldn't worry about how other people interpreted it, it ahould be none of their concern[/QUOTE]
There's a tradition of not doing stupid shit right before an election that could unnecessarily have an influence.
The Justice Department even told him it was a dumb idea.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;51281072]There's a tradition of not doing stupid shit right before an election that could unnecessarily have an influence.
The Justice Department even told him it was a dumb idea.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter, Justice Department rigged.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;51281072]There's a tradition of not doing stupid shit right before an election that could unnecessarily have an influence.
The Justice Department even told him it was a dumb idea.[/QUOTE]
Of course the JD doesn't like it. It's run by leftist Obama appointees who want Hillary to win.
I'm not saying the JD is never trustworthy or is some conspiratorial agency, just that their opinion isn't exactly non-partisan.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51281086]Of course the JD doesn't like it. It's run by leftist Obama appointees who want Hillary to win.
I'm not saying the JD is never trustworthy or is some conspiratorial agency, just that their opinion isn't exactly non-partisan.[/QUOTE]
You aren't trying to say that there is a conspiracy here.
But there is most likely a conspiracy here.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51281095]You aren't trying to say that there is a conspiracy here.
But there is most likely a conspiracy here.[/QUOTE]
It's not a conspiracy to lean on the side that helps your side. That's human nature.
They want Hillary to win. So if there's a reason to not release anything that makes Hillary look bad, then they're going to lean on that side of the issue.
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51281090]Shouldn't break tradition then, considering that, given the circumstances, its hard to write this off as "stupid shit".
The FBI is independent of the Department of Justice, nice of them to have an opinion, though.[/QUOTE]
I'm gonna assume that you are hoping this hurts Hillary because I've already explained why it is objectively problematic.
Is it okay that people have come forward claiming Trump assaulted them? Yep.
Would it be okay for the US government to open an investigation about it right before the election long before they could put out any real information? Naaaaaaaaah.
[B]What if[/B], Comey was subject to some sort of corruption/bribery and this is his kind of message of a "wake up sheeple."
[Sp] Totally hypothetical [/sp]
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51280987]and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that[/QUOTE]
In a perfect world, yes but this isn't a perfect world. The Media isn't infallible, and misinformation has no penalty.
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51281138]Incorrect assumption, I intend on voting for Clinton, and would much rather see her in office than Trump or anyone else currently running for the presidency. I believe she shouldn't be given preferential treatment no matter how much people try to disguise it as something else. As such, I am not hoping this damages her campaign, I do believe voters are entitled to the knowledge of the case being reopened and that the FBI shouldn't work on their schedule.
Comey claims they have access to new emails that [B]"seem to be pertinent" to their investigation, so assuming he is telling the truth[/B], the comparison isn't really a fair one to make.[/QUOTE]
I.e. you still have no idea.
Preferential treatment would be withholding information that clearly shows wrongdoing. They're not telling him to not release new information, they're saying it was a bad move to suggest that there might be something there that could be bullshit.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51281152]In a perfect world, yes but this isn't a perfect world. The Media isn't infallible, and misinformation has no penalty.[/QUOTE]
Okay? So blame the media for hyping it up then, instead of crying that the FBI is doing their job and informing the public of their investigation. People have a right to know if someone running for president of the United States is under investigation. Hilarious how even after all the fumbles, backroom meetings and payoffs that were involved in the FBI investigation into Clinton, the Democrats praised Comey as a god of neutrality and dedication to his job. Now that he's continuing to do his job and it doesn't look good for Clinton, he's an evil Republican who is out to strategically smear Clinton before the election.
[editline]30th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Splarg!;51281173]I.e. you still have no idea.
Preferential treatment would be withholding information that clearly shows wrongdoing. They're not telling him to not release new information, they're saying it was a bad move to suggest that there might be something there that could be bullshit.[/QUOTE]
All he did was note that they found emails related to Clinton's prior investigation and they will be examining them as appropriate. You have an issue with how people interpret that, take it up with whoever is misinterpreting it.
[editline]30th October 2016[/editline]
Maybe if Clinton didn't want to get caught by all this drama she shouldn't have been sneaking around breaking protocol in the first place? Did that ever cross your mind? How horrible to think that her actions have consequences, even if they're not as serious as imprisonment.
[QUOTE=srobins;51281195]Okay? So blame the media for hyping it up then, instead of crying that the FBI is doing their job and informing the public of their investigation. People have a right to know if someone running for president of the United States is under investigation.[/quote]
I think you need to ask yourself how careless the FBI is with this information given how people have previously reacted to FBI statements.
[media]https://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse/status/792047597040971776[/media]
Jason Chaffetz, figurehead in the Clinton witchhunt, literally said "CASE REOPENED" when it has been said by multiple sources that the case was not in fact reopened.
The FBI should be more specific when talking about important issues like this. We wouldn't want Jason Chaffetz childlike imagination to run wild.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51281250]I think you need to ask yourself how careless the FBI is with this information given how people have previously reacted to FBI statements.
[media]https://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse/status/792047597040971776[/media]
Jason Chaffetz, figurehead in the Clinton witchhunt, literally said "CASE REOPENED" when it has been said by multiple sources that the case was not in fact reopened.
The FBI should be more specific when talking about important issues like this. We wouldn't want Jason Chaffetz childlike imagination to run wild.[/QUOTE]
Childlike imagination? Yeah, I forgot what an asshole Chaffetz was with his whole "Clinton witch hunt" thing. I mean, what kind of jackass actually investigates when Clinton's IT guy gets caught asking Reddit how to scrub an email server of all evidence? What kind of moron actually investigates when the FBI agent overseeing Clinton's investigation received what, half a million dollars for his wife's political campaign? You're actually complaining that someone in our government is actually investigating the laundry list of bad decisions and coverup attempts Clinton has made, congratulations on being so rooted in your hate for Trump that you can't even recognize the value of a functioning justice system. Where are these multiple sources stating that the case was not reopened? I've yet to see FBI confirm it has been reopened, which means Chaffetz may well have jumped the gun, but I've also yet to see any actual statement indicating the case is not reopened and will not be reopened, just pundits from liberal networks speculating as such.
[QUOTE=srobins;51281195]All he did was note that they found emails related to Clinton's prior investigation and they will be examining them as appropriate. You have an issue with how people interpret that, take it up with whoever is misinterpreting it.[/QUOTE]
And if it swings the election, but afterward we learn it was something nobody gives a shit about?
Yeah, people are going to speculate and come to ridiculous conclusions. That's exactly why the FBI is (usually) careful about this kind of thing.
[QUOTE=srobins;51281195]Maybe if Clinton didn't want to get caught by all this drama she shouldn't have been sneaking around breaking protocol in the first place? Did that ever cross your mind? How horrible to think that her actions have consequences, even if they're not as serious as imprisonment.[/QUOTE]
This is a government investigation, is it okay for them to fuck something up just because she's shady?
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;51281203]Okay, the FBI shouldn't be coerced into working on their terms, though. There's no inherent wrongdoing in making the reopening of an investigation public. Regardless of how it may influence the election via the influence outsiders might have when misrepresenting what it means, that act of transparency is not inherently damaging. However, pressuring information out of an ongoing investigation in order to regain favorability from the public for your preferred candidate seems like demanding preferential treatment to me.[/QUOTE]
I actually haven't commented on people pressuring them to release more information yet but I don't believe that her campaign/supporters should be able to interfere with the investigation.
You say that the FBI is in the clear because they're simply being transparent but the FBI has a history of being extremely careful about stuff like this around election day and by their own standards this is risky.
Considering that tweet from Chaffetz though, maybe that's going out the window.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;51281399]And if it swings the election, but afterward we learn it was something nobody gives a shit about?
Yeah, people are going to speculate and come to ridiculous conclusions. That's exactly why the FBI is (usually) careful about this kind of thing.[/QUOTE]
People thinking the investigation is done and closed, with Clinton totally out of the mud, might also skew the results.
She may still be totally fine, but she also might not be. The most fair solution is to let people know that they found more to look at, but that there's nothing that's been found yet. That lays out the facts as they lie without skewing the narrative in either side's favor.
[QUOTE=srobins;51281348]Childlike imagination? Yeah, I forgot what an asshole Chaffetz was with his whole "Clinton witch hunt" thing. I mean, what kind of jackass actually investigates when Clinton's IT guy gets caught asking Reddit how to scrub an email server of all evidence? What kind of moron actually investigates when the FBI agent overseeing Clinton's investigation received what, half a million dollars for his wife's political campaign? You're actually complaining that someone in our government is actually investigating the laundry list of bad decisions and coverup attempts Clinton has made, congratulations on being so rooted in your hate for Trump that you can't even recognize the value of a functioning justice system.[/quote]
I hate Jason Chaffetz because [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/01/jason-chaffetz/chart-shown-planned-parenthood-hearing-misleading-/"]he's a partisan hack[/URL]. I hate Jason Chaffetz [URL="http://benghazicommittee.com/benghazi-by-the-numbers/"]because he wastes time and money on political witchhunts.[/URL]. I hate Jason Chaffetz because he embodies everything wrong with congress.
What he does isn't justice. To imply I hate him because grrr Trump is ridiculous because he doesn't even have any association with Trump.
[quote]Where are these multiple sources stating that the case was not reopened? I've yet to see FBI confirm it has been reopened, which means Chaffetz may well have jumped the gun, but I've also yet to see any actual statement indicating the case is not reopened and will not be reopened, just pundits from liberal networks speculating as such.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what you mean by a liberal network, but a lot of journalists from major news organizations tweet the same two tweets:
[media]https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/792069375964569600[/media]
MSNBC says they was always open, and nothing reopened.
Another tweet is [URL="https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/792082869841645568"]here[/URL] but it's now removed.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51281444]I hate Jason Chaffetz because [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/01/jason-chaffetz/chart-shown-planned-parenthood-hearing-misleading-/"]he's a partisan hack[/URL]. I hate Jason Chaffetz [URL="http://benghazicommittee.com/benghazi-by-the-numbers/"]because he wastes time and money on political witchhunts.[/URL]. I hate Jason Chaffetz because he embodies everything wrong with congress.
What he does isn't justice. To imply I hate him because grrr Trump is ridiculous because he doesn't even have any association with Trump.
I don't know what you mean by a liberal network, but a lot of journalists from major news organizations tweet the same two tweets:
[media]https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/792069375964569600[/media]
MSNBC says they was always open, and nothing reopened.
Another tweet is [URL="https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/792082869841645568"]here[/URL] but it's now removed.[/QUOTE]
Wow, nice! So in one post you've demonstrated that A. you can't point out anything he's done wrong in the Clinton email investigation and B. the investigation is still open and Chaffetz' only error was in assuming (like almost everyone in America up until now) that the case was in fact closed before? Thanks, that's all I needed.
[QUOTE=srobins;51281467]Wow, nice! So in one post you've demonstrated that A. you can't point out anything he's done wrong in the Clinton email investigation and B. the investigation is still open and Chaffetz' only error was in assuming (like almost everyone in America up until now) that the case was in fact closed before? Thanks, that's all I needed.[/QUOTE]
You know, it's polite to warn the other team before shifting the goalposts.
The FBI had to release the information that she is now undergoing an investigation because if they didn't, and she was elected and they find in two months that there is actually something to prosecute for and evidence of actual criminal wrong doing they would get ripped apart by the republicans. They would be accused of conspiring with the dems/Clinton for not revealing the information available at the time that could have changed the outcome of the election. It is simply the FBI covering their own asses.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.