If he sitş on the new info, it may be a worse option. He has said the investigation was closed. THEY found new evidence. Do you want him to look the other way (and lie to Congress by omission)? I get that what he did does not help your candidate, but that does not mean it was the wrong thing to do. These are the complications of nominating a perpetually shady candidate. IF this had come out about Ben Carson or Bernie Sanders 11 days before the General, it would look like a smear. With HRV, It resonates (and is having an impact) because most people think " Well, not crazy, so maybe..."
Likely indictment
- Thread starter marquee moon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
If he sitş on the new info, it may be a worse option. He has said the investigation was closed. THEY found new evidence. Do you want him to look the other way (and lie to Congress by omission)? I get that what he did does not help your candidate, but that does not mean it was the wrong thing to do. These are the complications of nominating a perpetually shady candidate. IF this had come out about Ben Carson or Bernie Sanders 11 days before the General, it would look like a smear. With HRV, It resonates (and is having an impact) because most people think " Well, not crazy, so maybe..."
P4nthers11
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,101
- Reaction score
- 202
Don't have a problem with issuing a letter. That said, any non-idiot could see the potential for partisan gamesmanship. Therefore, maybe write a better, more clear letter if that is something you wish to avoid?
deacdiggler
"Well known member"
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,903
- Reaction score
- 11,944
Who changed the subject? Can we get back to discussing :cam:'s leadership please
DistrictDeacon
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 13,054
- Reaction score
- 1,068
When he sent the letter on Friday, they didn't know if they had new evidence or not. He jumped the gun, plain and simple, and ended up affecting the election.
pinochadeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,778
- Reaction score
- 531
He sat on it for 2 weeks before sending the letter.
In total fairness, I'd probably be salty if the roles were reversed, so I don't judge you guys for getting hurt over the event or its timing. What I'm saying is a) the other choice is just as bad (As evidenced by pinochadeac's characterization; you say he rushed, he says he sat on it), and b) make no mistake about it, this is a chosen pain on the part of the Dems. They nominated somebody under an active FBI investigation. You can only be so pissed at other people for that.
Last edited:
91deac
Richard Joyce
You guys are pre-judging Comey:
Assume there are smoking guns in the 650k emails found on the perv's computer and over the last couple of weeks and Comey saw enough from a cursory review to know this was bad. He knew the next step would be to get a subpoena for the team investigating Clinton to review the emails, which would undoubtedly be made public at some point. Reasonable people would clearly agree that sending a letter to congress (making it public) would be the right thing to do. He would be ridiculed if he sat on that info until after Clinton got elected, then announced the re-opening of the investigation.
On the other hand, assume he only knows there are a few emails related to Clinton on Wiener's computers and has no idea what is in them. If he sent over the letter to congress just based on that, he is clearly in the wrong.
Nothing definitive is going to be known before Tuesday so - only time will tell whether Comey was acting reasonable or he was being political.
Personally, I believe he saw the volume / subjects of the emails and knew he needed to re-open the investigation, so he tried to thread a needle by saying, we don't necessarily have anything definitive, but we are re-opening the case.
Assume there are smoking guns in the 650k emails found on the perv's computer and over the last couple of weeks and Comey saw enough from a cursory review to know this was bad. He knew the next step would be to get a subpoena for the team investigating Clinton to review the emails, which would undoubtedly be made public at some point. Reasonable people would clearly agree that sending a letter to congress (making it public) would be the right thing to do. He would be ridiculed if he sat on that info until after Clinton got elected, then announced the re-opening of the investigation.
On the other hand, assume he only knows there are a few emails related to Clinton on Wiener's computers and has no idea what is in them. If he sent over the letter to congress just based on that, he is clearly in the wrong.
Nothing definitive is going to be known before Tuesday so - only time will tell whether Comey was acting reasonable or he was being political.
Personally, I believe he saw the volume / subjects of the emails and knew he needed to re-open the investigation, so he tried to thread a needle by saying, we don't necessarily have anything definitive, but we are re-opening the case.
it seems to me that the party that nominated the FBI investigate doesn't get to choose to how write the letter. Assumption of risk and all that. This was a problem of choice.
Put the shoe on the other foot. When Pubs pitch about how Trump's campaign is characterized, don't you guys say "Then nominate a better candidate"? I would.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
the (re) politicization of the FBI is definitely one of the saddest parts of this election
It's also say that he (rather than a message board poster) is in the best position to know what he didn't know when he closed the investigation in July, so let him (a guy who was widely praised by the left in July for his fairness and integrity) decide what looks comment-worthy.
Unless you can point to something in the letter that wasn't true (can you?), then you're more upset with the existence of the letter than its contents. And who's fault is that, again?
Weak sauce. The guy is doing his job. He wrote a letter you didn't like. You want to know what a politicized government agency looks like? Ask the Attorney General, who has had to recuse herself because she got caught in a clandestine meeting with Bill. And you guys are mad at Comey? Compare the offenses and get back to me.
Last edited:
TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,923
This is hilariously bad logic.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
The ITC gifs are one of the gems of The Tunnels. I legit enjoy each and every one.
But yeah, if only there was a way that the Dems could have avoided having the FBI director write bad things about their nominee. Really hard to see this coming.
But yeah, if only there was a way that the Dems could have avoided having the FBI director write bad things about their nominee. Really hard to see this coming.
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
Lol. If Hillary wins, the case will disappear unless they can come up with something before the inauguration, and might disappear before then. If Trump wins, it continues and any indictment will be spun as a political witchhunt and reiterated through a fawning press.
I got you, bro
sailordeac
Well-known member
pretty much on target
TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,923
"fawning press" get the fuck out of here
marquee moon
Banhammer'd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 31,882
- Reaction score
- 2,091
