Jump to content
MassED MassED (New Member) New Member

FBI reopens its investigation into Hillary

Politics   (5,361 Views 91 Comments)
20,088 Visitors; 438 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 4 of FBI reopens its investigation into Hillary. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Since there is a long trail of corroborating accounts, yes. Bragging about how much money he has? Not so much.

I also believe very little of what comes out of Trump's pie hole and this stance is supported by his obvious and well documented history of lying about the smallest of things.

I would agree with you that this particular nugget of truth from Trump is easy to believe because it has been so thoroughly supported by his actions and by the witness of so many women who were victims of his self indulgent behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The criticism is that Comey has released information during an active investigation, more importantly that it is incomplete information at this point, that's what he did when he announced there are more emails to look at. The FBI has not actually seen the emails yet, and there has been nothing to suggest there is anything criminal in the emails, which makes the announcement somewhat suspect.

I'm not really sure why you think she needs a "last ditch impression she is innocent", since the only conclusion Comey has ever made on her guilt or innocence of crime was that there was no evidence a criminal act was committed, and that doesn't appear to have changed at this point.

Muno, what are you reading? The FBI investigation was reopened into Hillary. He has not released anything into his current investigation into Hillary, as it is an active investigation. What is the comprehension issue here?

And how do you know the FBI hadn't looked at the emails yet? Why would you even make any assumption when that is not your field of expertise? All we know is what is printed from the horses mouth. Talk is just that, talk. You do understand this is a NEW investigation, so whatever happens before was BEFORE, not current. Maybe you need to go back and look at the information to present a clear post with the most recent data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also believe very little of what comes out of Trump's pie hole and this stance is supported by his obvious and well documented history of lying about the smallest of things.

I would agree with you that this particular nugget of truth from Trump is easy to believe because it has been so thoroughly supported by his actions and by the witness of so many women who were victims of his self indulgent behavior.

I wonder if you all work for CTR....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that Trump masterminded the hack. First of all, I don't think he's intelligent enough and besides, there's too much evidence suggesting different culprits. It's no secret that Julian Wikileaks Assange has a strong personal dislike for Secretary Clinton which dates back several years. President Putin hardly wants Hillary Clinton elected as US President as she likely wouldn't grant him carte blanche and turn a blind eye at his ambitions to expand his nation's territorial borders and sphere of power.

Donald however isn't completely without blame. He did after all encourage a foreign power to meddle in the US election at one of his rallies: Russia if you are listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

Russians 'likely responsible' for Clinton campaign hack | Fox News

I would have thought the problem is obvious. Someone or something, likely a foreign power/foreign national is trying to influence the outcome of your Presidential election. Anyone who cares about their own country ought to find that deeply worrisome. This, and not the ridiculous "rigged" polls/election accusations is what you should be discussing. I'm amazed how easily some people will sacrifice their own integrity simply because this time the interference in your election seems to be helping their candidate.

To me that's spineless. One might even call it unpatriotic.

Wikileaks needs a damn award for exposing the lying, cheating and rigging of the elections by he DNC and Hillary and her cronies!! He is aiding in the exposure of the rats who want to run the country. Good for him and all associated with him, he's like Robin Hood.

If there was crud to find on anyone else, I'd be happy to know. P.s. most any reasonable, honest person would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Muno, what are you reading? The FBI investigation was reopened into Hillary. He has not released anything into his current investigation into Hillary, as it is an active investigation. What is the comprehension issue here?

And how do you know the FBI hadn't looked at the emails yet? Why would you even make any assumption when that is not your field of expertise? All we know is what is printed from the horses mouth. Talk is just that, talk. You do understand this is a NEW investigation, so whatever happens before was BEFORE, not current. Maybe you need to go back and look at the information to present a clear post with the most recent data.

The FBI stated that they had not yet obtained a search warrant to review the emails until today, this was widely reported Report: FBI Obtains Warrant to Examine Clinton Emails | Fox Business Were you under the impression Comey's announcement came after seeing the emails in question?

What exactly is it you feel I'm not comprehending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wikileaks needs a damn award for exposing the lying, cheating and rigging of the elections by he DNC and Hillary and her cronies!!

Wikileaks haven't actually exposed the election as being rigged or provided objective proof of any cheating. That's just wishful thinking and/or creative interpretation on your part. But I assume from your post that you are indeed comfortable with a foreign national/foreign power interfering with the outcome of your election. I find that strange.

He is aiding in the exposure of the rats who want to run the country.

Rats? That is dehumanizing language. It sounds highly emotional and I have to wonder if it affects your ability to view data objectively and draw level-headed objective conclusions from the facts that are in evidence.

Good for him and all associated with him, he's like Robin Hood.

I realize that you are predisposed to think positively of anyone who actively tries to sabotage a politician whom you seem to vehemently dislike, but can't you see Assange's personal agenda? It's quite easy to identify. Robin Hood he is not.

If there was crud to find on anyone else, I'd be happy to know.

If Hillary took a page out of Trump's book I guess she could ask North Korea or China or some random nation to hack Donald Trump's tax returns and whatever else he wishes to keep from the general public's eyes (i.e. the voters in the U.S. election), but we both know that she wouldn't stoop to that. To be honest with you I doubt the veracity of your claim that you'd welcome crud on Trump, but we might not ever find that out. No parties outside of the U.S. seems to be engaged in sabotaging Donald Trump. But if I remember correctly you didn't seem overjoyed by the Donald "groping genitals" tape which leads me to believe that true, damaging revelations on Trump are not very high on your wish list.

I just read the following article and I think its implications are worrisome.

US election 216: Clinton camp blasts FBI 'double standards' - BBC News

The Clinton campaign has blasted FBI Director James Comey for "blatant double standards" over the new inquiry into Hillary Clinton's email use.

The comments came after US media reports that Mr Comey had urged against publicly accusing Russia of interfering in the US election, including alleged email hacking.

Mr Comey's concern about releasing the information was due to the proximity to the election, reports say.

The FBI declined to comment to the BBC.

Instead it was the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who released a joint statement on October 7th.

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security | Homeland Security

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

If it's true that Mr Comey didn't want to release the information regarding Russian interference in early October out of fear of influencing the outcome of the election then it's truly mind-blowing that he felt it was appropriate to release the information regarding the emails on Mr Wiener's computer a mere eleven days before the election.

It becomes even more mind-boggling if you take into consideration how extremely vague the statement he made and the information he gave was. New emails on were discovered in an unrelated investigation. They hadn't been read by FBI investigators at the time when Mr Comey decided to make the statement, as the search warrant they had at that time covered the "sexting" investigation. He admitted that he didn't know whether the unread emails contained new information or are at all relevent to the investigation/would alter the outcome of the investigation that he himself completed in July.

So yes it's true that if he actually didn't want the Russian connection made public, then he has clearly demonstrated that he has double standards and in my opinion it makes his motivations look dubious.

Edited by macawake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The articles seem to me to be a fairly accurate description of class dynamics in politics ... including the traditional scorn for the nouveau riche.

Of course, when progressives start to discuss this, we are accused of inciting class warfare.

What they prove is that the Clintons are:

A. Classic 90's vintage yuppies and,

B. They wage the same kind of hardball politics as every other person elected to an office with any real power.

The critical question never addressed by the article is on whose behalf are those battles being fought?

Wall Street, certainly. As president, I would want Clinton to advance some effective way to constrain the finance industry from sucking our economy dry again. This will be hard and I'm glad for the presence of Warren and Sanders as counterweight to her yuppie "greed is good" instincts.

Women, too, and (theoretically, at least) working class, poor, minorities and other groups traditionally left out of the political conversation except as scapegoats.

For the most part, feminists of Clinton's background are both notoriously classist and cross-culturally illiterate. I would expect it to be a hard job keeping her feet to the fire and not throw the rest of us completely under the bus. Still, it beats trying to stop Trump from selling us out to Putin and having white supremacists anywhere near national security policy.

The hopeful thing, to me, is that there are many old and toxic cans of worms being ruptured and, thanks to Obama's presidency and Clinton's campaign, people seem less intimidated out of trying to deal with them honestly.

Definitely a values election.

Edited by heron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The articles seem to me to be a fairly accurate description of class dynamics in politics ... including the traditional scorn for the nouveau riche.

Of course, when progressives start to discuss this, we are accused of inciting class warfare.

What they prove is that the Clintons are:

A. Classic 90's vintage yuppies and,

B. They wage the same kind of hardball politics as every other person elected to an office with any real power.

The critical question never addressed by the article is on whose behalf are those battles being fought?

Wall Street, certainly. As president, I would want Clinton to advance some effective way to constrain the finance industry from sucking our economy dry again. This will be hard and I'm glad for the presence of Warren and Sanders as counterweight to her yuppie "greed is good" instincts.

Women, too, and (theoretically, at least) working class, poor, minorities and other groups traditionally left out of the political conversation except as scapegoats.

For the most part, feminists of Clinton's background are both notoriously classist and cross-culturally illiterate. I would expect it to be a hard job keeping her feet to the fire and not throw the rest of us completely under the bus. Still, it beats trying to stop Trump from selling us out to Putin and having white supremacists anywhere near national security policy.

The hopeful thing, to me, is that there are many old and toxic cans of worms being ruptured and, thanks to Obama's presidency and Clinton's campaign, people seem less intimidated out of trying to deal with them honestly.

Definitely a values election.

And it depends on where we sit in the "values" department that determines how we see Hillary and/or Trump.

I guess my head shakes at the idea that Hillary would be against "Wall Street" (whatever that really means) . . . since "Wall Street" helps line the pockets of the Clintons. And other candidates as well.

I'm truly disappointed that Hillary is the choice as the 1st female presidential nominee. And might be the first female prez.

Again, I'm not happy with either candidate. And I'm not happy with the ugliness and greed of politics.

It is a cliche to say our country was not founded on making lifetime politicians. But I still wish politicians would put in their time (at the most two concurrent) and go the hell home and work at a real job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say Clinton was "against Wall Street"? If so, I didn't mean to. I don't think she is. For one thing, she probably can't afford it. For another, the finance industry is too embedded in the American economy to meddle with carelessly. It's not going to be easy to thread that needle.

But I think we have to try ... there are issues with the industry's ethics and priorities that make their greed way too toxic for any humane society to survive. I think Clinton tends to mimic this since, let's face it, their ethics-free approach has been enormously successful in sucking dollars out of American pockets and blaming poor people and liberals for the results. Like all the rest of us, Clinton likes having money. It's certainly way more fun than not having money!

I disagree, however, that politicians don't have a real job. By definition, politicians are people angling for power. Elected government workers are politicians who are hired to do the job of governance. Of all the people in their jurisdiction and that means balancing many disparate - often conflicting - interests. At best, a particular interest group will only get part of what benefits them specifically. That's in a healthy democracy, however. Ours hasn't been healthy for a long time.

What I think we need is competent politicians.

Edited by heron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, it was unprecedented.

And now this.

I suspect that after the election there will be some fallout from his partisan choices.

Or, maybe we'll learn there was no intent of wrongdoing and it was just a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×