91–100 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Reopening the investigation is not going to change the election outcome. Perhaps true. But it does indicate who Comey thinks is going to win the election. If you were the director of the FBI would you re-open an investigation of your about-to-be boss?
Comey already threw his about-to-be boss under the bus by publicly denouncing her deemed-legal behavior. What does he have to lose at this point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that HRC (or Trump, for that matter) should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. As it currently stands, an indictment hasn't even been recommended . Under such circumstances, the exposure of a search for a smoking gun is suspect.
It's tough and I don't think it's so black and white, and ultimately depends on "exactly" what they found. Waiting until after seems wrong, and I say this as someone who as it stands is voting for HRC. I honestly don't view this as influence, and more covering his ass, which has me nervous for HRC.
Unfortunately, all we do know is that they might have found something that might be important enough to warrant an investigation that might result in an indictment recommendation, &c, &c. With this in mind, it's more than a little strange.
Unless I've misunderstood Comey's powers of discretion over FBI investigations (which is entirely possible), he has little to no need to "cover his ass."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> average voters either don't care What were you saying about 'wishful thinking?' A presidential candidate under FBI investigation on election day is huge.
I agree, it is! But that still doesn't mean people (or, at least, swing voters) actually care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The e-mails should have put her in prison, and they would have put anyone else in the same situation in prison. But you're right, with her being her, they're a complete nonissue. They simply don't matter at all.
To be absolutely objective about it, there really are people in prison for doing with confidential state secrets what Secretary Clinton did with confidential state secrets. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-inves...
We don't know that about Clinton, and the reason that matters is because information does not get declassified just because it is publicly known. The full text of a newspaper article about a Snowden disclosure contains information that to this day is classified top secret or higher. Someone sending her an email about a NYTimes story could result in classified info in her email.
Another difference is that Clinton was legally empowered to determine which emails were work-related (and therefore must be archived) and which were personal (and therefore could legally be deleted). The fact that she and her team made mistakes in this process is not criminal; mistakes are not a crime. In addition the FBI recovered and reviewed many of these deleted emails and still recommended against prosecution.
The extent to which one can point to a classified disclosure prosecution and say "this is just like Clinton!" is exaggerated. The details matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard many people cite emails as the main reason they are not voting for her. I assume most of them actually would never have voted for her anyway, but it's a real issue.
I've always voted democrat as "the lesser of two evils" but this email situation has really ruffled my feathers (and is why I am voting third party). I get that there is favoritism in everything, but the idea that Hillary (at least before looked like she) walked away scott-free after committing what I believe to be a very serious crime whereas any one of us in a similar situation would have been thrown in jail right…
I'm not saying the email scandal is a non-issue, but I find it very interesting that so much emphasis is placed on what she has done despite plenty of other questionable incidents previously. It follows well the narrative that she is being at the very least held to a different standard than other politicians.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
[2] http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/did-colin-powell-use-personal-...
Oh my god everyone here is splitting hairs like the rest of the goddamn internet. The FBI is looking at more Clinton emails. That sounds shady and bad for Clinton no matter how you swing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard many people cite emails as the main reason they are not voting for her. I assume most of them actually would never have voted for her anyway, but it's a real issue.
I've always voted democrat as "the lesser of two evils" but this email situation has really ruffled my feathers (and is why I am voting third party). I get that there is favoritism in everything, but the idea that Hillary (at least before looked like she) walked away scott-free after committing what I believe to be a very serious crime whereas any one of us in a similar situation would have been thrown in jail right…
I'm disappointed to see this sort of hysteria and conspiracy theorizing in a HN comment section.
The real question is whether this is because of the KimDotCom tweet, or whether it's related to something in the Podesta emails or otherwise.
It would be rather funny if America's justice system is so inefficient that one agency would have all of the evidence necessary for an investigation and another would fail to at least ask for it .