Department of Justice investigating Comey's actions before election

[ChrisL68]

It's absolutely relevant. The DNC manipulated the process to nominate a corrupt, shit candidate and now we're stuck with Donald Fucking Trump.

This is utter nonsense, but the fact that a bunch of naive progressives bought it made it the perfect wedge issue for the right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[wfumike02]

If Comey doesn't make his totally unprecedented, unprofessional statement in October, I think she still wins. He had no evidence. He had nothing and no reason to make that statement.

He was still under oath and had testified the investigation was closed. He had an ongoing obligation to keep his testimony current. If anyone manipulated the process it was the committee members who leaked the letter.

 

[wfumike02]

This is utter nonsense

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

OK, care to explain why so many democrats and others who supported Obama stayed home or voted third party?

Could we maybe try waking up to reality so the same results don't keep repeating?

 

[ChrisL68]

OK, care to explain why so many democrats and others who supported Obama stayed home or voted third party?

Could we maybe try waking up to reality so the same results don't keep repeating?

Because the side that lost felt that they got cheated doesn't mean they got cheated. Progressives did the same thing to themselves with bush gore. But Clinton beat Sanders because millions of more people voted for her than him in the primaries. Nothing more.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[wfumike02]

Because the side that lost felt that they got cheated doesn't mean they got cheated. Progressives did the same thing to themselves with bush gore. But Clinton beat Sanders because more people voted for her than him in the primaries. Nothing more.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

The fact that it was as close as it was when Sanders wasn't even a real democrat speaks volumes. If Biden or any other respectable Dem is there, he/she wins the primary and the general handily. Hillary was under active investigation during basically the entire primary. Has that ever even happened before?

 

[TownieDeac]

The fact that it was as close as it was when Sanders wasn't even a real democrat speaks volumes. If Biden or any other respectable Dem is there, he/she wins the primary and the general handily. Hillary was under active investigation during basically the entire primary. Has that ever even happened before?

Sure, with Trump.

 

[06deacon]

Please direct me to one of those posts, because I don't remember reading any of them. You can do so by PM, if you prefer. I'm just trying to find out what makes you tick because, as I said, you are probably the most frustrating poster on the boards for me. I don't think that I have ever agreed with a single position that you have ever taken....and that is very unusual, to say the least. I'm not sure that I could say that about any other poster...and there are many posters with whom I very seldom agree.

ETA: And by the way, I am not a white evangelical. I haven't attended church services in more than 45 years. (June 8th, 1968, to be exact.)

You went to church on a Saturday? Sounds fishy.

 

[jhmd2000]

Because the side that lost felt that they got cheated doesn't mean they got cheated. Progressives did the same thing to themselves with bush gore. But Clinton beat Sanders because more people voted for her than him in the primaries. Nothing more.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Deacfreak07]

You went to church on a Saturday? Sounds fishy.

He's just as bad as Townie. Telling WHOPPERS.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Because the side that lost felt that they got cheated doesn't mean they got cheated. Progressives did the same thing to themselves with bush gore. But Clinton beat Sanders because millions of more people voted for her than him in the primaries. Nothing more.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

The fact that cheating wasn't the only reason she won doesn't make it unimportant and dismissable. If the DNC wants to unify liberals, it's pretty fucking stupid for them to put the responsibility of unification on the people who are the least loyal to the Democratic party.

 

[wfumike02]

Sure, with Trump.

That doesn't make me feel any better.

There was recently an article on CNN about Trump gaslighting America (link). I couldn't agree more.

I've been saying for months that while it's not uncommon for politicians to lie, those lies are usually in the form of promises that will never be fulfilled. What we've seen in this election is lying about things that have already happened in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. I can only remember three politicians doing that with impunitiy: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.

Hillary would have had historic unfavorable numbers if it weren't for Trump, and this was clear long before Comey did anything. That objectively makes her a shit candidate. Shouldn't that send up a giant red flag that we need to find someone better?

 

[RJKarl]

Comey refused to even answer if there are any FBI investigations going on about Trump or any of the people in his campaign. But he felt the need to talk to the world in a press conference about an investigation about which he had no evidence. This is the same guy who deflected any questions about the Russian hacking over a month earlier saying it was too political and too close to the election.

He wouldn't talk about something where there was tons of evidence because it was "too political" but he held court over something that he no evidence on closer to the election and that he knew was very political.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

as an aside, you guys remember when conan was relevant?

 

[DEACisGO]

vaguely

 

[wfumike02]

Comey refused to even answer if there are any FBI investigations going on about Trump or any of the people in his campaign. But he felt the need to talk to the world in a press conference about an investigation about which he had no evidence. This is the same guy who deflected any questions about the Russian hacking over a month earlier saying it was too political and too close to the election.

He wouldn't talk about something where there was tons of evidence because it was "too political" but he held court over something that he no evidence on closer to the election and that he knew was very political.

One is simply declining to answer. The other is updating testimony when you remain under oath and have testified directly to the contrary of what is currently true.

 

[DEACisGO]

you lost we won you can't talk until you have a president again

 

[DistrictDeacon]

One is simply declining to answer. The other is updating testimony when you remain under oath and have testified directly to the contrary of what is currently true.

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation".

The FBI had no clue if they were pertinent or not. Comey stretched the truth to cover his own ass.

And BTW, one does not "remain under oath".

 

[wfumike02]

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation".

The FBI had no clue if they were pertinent or not. Comey stretched the truth to cover his own ass.

And BTW, one does not "remain under oath".

First of all, one can "remain under oath." I've heard judges utter those words at least a hundred times. Second, ...

The truth is Comey didn’t have a choice. Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.

Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau had completed its review. Once he learned that there were new emails that required examination, Comey had to notify Congress that he had to amend his testimony because it was no longer true.

Also, Hillary herself has expressed doubt at the letter affecting the election:

Clinton laughed when she a reporter asked her if Comey's letter would "sink" the campaign.

Link

 

[PhDeac]

Sure candidate Hillary can't publicly express that the Comey letter could sink her campaign.

 

[RJKarl]

First of all, one can "remain under oath." I've heard judges utter those words at least a hundred times. Second, ...



Also, Hillary herself has expressed doubt at the letter affecting the election:



Link

So, if a person leaves court after taking an oath, anything he says in public can be considered perjury? That's what you are saying. Comey was under absolutely no obligation to hold a press conference to tell the world he had nothing.