The outcome of the presidential election has never been in any serious doubt, barring unforeseen events or revelations. The entire game for months now has been about getting momentum at the end so that the tide is strong enough to wash out the Republican Senate and, in a better world, the Republican House. I agree with Ed Kilgore that FBI Director James Comey’s inexplicable behavior is too little, too late. Especially, too little.
But it is a big momentum staller, which gives permission to morally scrupulous Republicans to come home. In fact, as the shock of the Access Hollywood tape (and related revelations) faded, the Republicans were already coming home.
In 2000, a late breaking story about George W. Bush getting arrested for drunk driving years earlier stalled his momentum, may have cost him the popular vote, and even the presidency (if not for a flawed ballot design in Palm Beach County, Florida that spoiled thousands of Gore votes).
It’s not just about winning, but about winning going away. The Comey Gambit (or error) has given life to Republicans, reminded them about what they don’t like about Clinton, and will help dampen what was a growing sense of hopelessness and despondency.
Something similar happened in 2012 when President Obama had a startlingly lackluster and indifferent performance in the first debate against Romney. The polls, which had been steadily widening, began to close. And, while the Obama campaign got the ball moving in the right direction again in the next two debates, the final margin never reached the point it should have.
This faux scandal will help the Republicans, but it won’t save Trump. The reason you should be pissed is that it will accomplish nothing but to make divided government more likely and anti-Clinton hysteria (once she is president) more fervent.
And Clinton will have to live with Comey because a president cannot fire a FBI director, as they are confirmed for ten year terms.
Agreed.
One minor point: there’s no such thing as a perfect political campaign, so to say one side should have won by more than it did if only (whatever—Obama prepared better for the first debate, Comey didn’t write that letter, Bush’s old DWI wasn’t released), isn’t a reality-based way of looking at campaigns.
The thought that Clinton would get through the last month of this campaign without something (external, self-inflicted, or some combination of the two) blowing up in her face is like a gambler thinking he’ll draw an inside straight: it could happen, but it’s not a good way to bet.
It’s amazing how the Democrats just keep appointing Republicans to the Daddy jobs in their administrations. The Fed Chair, SoD, CIA, the FBI.
It perpetuates their image of chronic weakness and then leads to this kind of stupid stuff. The Republicans are trying to ratfuck them all the time. What is so hard for these idiots to understand?
Yeah, also,too, let’s take a two generational opportunity to tip the Supreme Court in a reasonable, even liberal direction and appoint a nearly Social Security age centrist so that should he have any health issues the next Republican president can replace him with a 45 year old Alito clone.
Just so we are clear on this, as Democrats moan about the Reagan driven growing economic inequality, in the last 16 years of Democratic administration, exactly 3 years of the Fed Chair term have been filled by a non-conservative originally appointed by a Republican president. For the SoD, it’s 7 of 16, etc.
Just fucking kick me, like the sign I put on my back says.
Also, while I’m still pissed at the self-destructive behavior of the Democrats – after Weiner had to drop out of the NYC mayoral race the Clintons should have transitioned or planned to transition Huma to some non-election related position prior to the 2016.
Don’t the Democrats take the time to inform all their staff/volunteers that ‘Nothing personal but you need to know this – the candidate will not need to address any personal controversies related to you or any members of your family. At any point that becomes even a remote possibility your role, no matter how minor, will be terminated.’
The public good far outweighs any personal loyalties. Hillary always knew Bill C was a liability but to have to deal with Weiner fallout in 2016 is just plain stupid.
Does seem like a very strange blind spot here.
One of the few times I thought Booman was off base was when he approved of the nomination of Garland. My feeling was it would have been best to pressure the Republicans by nominating a young liberal Latino. I hoped I was wrong and Booman was right. He usually is. But as it turns out, Americans as a whole have the attention span of a gnat so it would have been far better to anger a smaller cohort in a more intense way.
Not that Latinos aren’t already pretty motivated. They’re registering in record numbers. But the slap in the face that would have come from a refusal to even hold hearings for a Latino nominee would have driven things to a fever pitch. So much so, it might have even force Republicans to take action. They’re smart enough to know they can’t alienate such a huge and growing voter block for an entire generation. It’s one thing for a nominee to make bigoted comments which down-ticket Republicans distance themselves from. It’s quite another if the entire party is actively alienating an important constituency. At least it could have put pressure on the Republican caucus. I think there are times when Democrats play it way too safe and too conventionally.
The Clintons just dont operate like that. Obama does, but they never have and never will. Anyone who didnt know stuff like this would go down from the instant of the official candidacy has been fooling themselves.
Let me see. Hillary Clinton has been through an experience in which her husband was publicly humiliated because of a sex scandal and she would throw Huma Abedin under the bus just to keep her campaign from having difficulties.
Isn’t it interesting that what Hillary Clinton is accused of being did not apply in this instance. Loyalty and empathy overcame caution and calculation.
If you want to lead – you have to be a leader. Make the clear decisions that need to be made even if you personally are not comfortable with them and even if you have empathy for the person who might feel slighted by the consequences.
The Democrats have a once in 50 year chance to change the direction of the Supreme Court in a liberal direction. The Hillary/Huma relationship doesn’t amount to a molehill of beans compared to that.
When the Weiner movie came out it was clear that being anywhere within the same time zone as this narcissistic pervert was a risk.
At that point in time Huma needed to find another job. The Clinton’s are well connected, that’s not even a moderate challenge for them. You can support someone without putting the future of the country on the line.
No one made the necessary decision then and in parallel Obama gives the federal investigative keys to a Bush appointee. Both seriously stupid actions and now you have the result of the laziness, lack of discipline, and/or lack of understanding of the consequences of your actions/inactions.
Honestly, it’s mind bogglingly, inexcusably stupid.
Comey’s appointment was to get it through a Republican filibuster.
That’s the reality of all but two years of the Obama administration.
And Democrats, Democrats continue to act as if the President has dictatorial powers in all things. Progressives are worst. Lefties are just trolling stuff like this; they don’t care about the existing order in the first place.
He was considered the least worst candidate who the Republicans would be embarrassed to reject.
And he turns into the Linda Tripp of the Benghazi investigation (remember that it was frustration with Benghazi that started Republicans in the House down the email road).
Meanwhile the usual suspects are partying and singing, “Ding, dong, the witch is dead.” while we argue of minutiae.
Progressives are worst.
Amen! The whole reason the Monica thing happened is that the FBI illegally pressured her to testify without talking to a lawyer and then got a deposition from Clinton before he knew what had happened. Also, under the definition of sexual relations specifically cited in the question, Clinton had not had sexual relations with that woman.
If you’re going to cite historical events, it’s important to use the real facts. The FBI wasn’t involved in the Paula Jones lawsuit against WJC, and Lewinsky submitted an affidavit in that case that was false.
And we know that Lewinsky’s affadavit was false because of DNA evidence of semen collected on a little blue dress by two GOP operatives and analyzed and identified by whom?
What we know about DNA identification now is a little more extensive than it was then and attributions without chain of custody now come under scrutiny.
What was the chain of custody of that dress?
The prominence of Lucianne Goldberg and her relation to Linda Tripp, a former George H. W. Bush White House employee carried over to the Clinton administration because she was civil service becomes more relevant after W’s attempt to embed political appointees as civil service in the transition to the Obama administration.
And in publicized scandals, the question I raised earlier applies. Would you lie about your guilt just to shut down the media shitstorm?
We know that the sequential Clinton scandals were an operation to find something, anything to impeach Bill Clinton.
We could have ended this Republic much earlier if the Federalists had set up an independent commission to examine Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson’s relations with Sally Hemings while Ambassador to Paris, couldn’t we? Or General Eisenhower’s relations with Kay Summersby while liberating Europe?
It is the post-Second Feminist movement change in consciousness that shreds the earlier deference to elites in sexual scandals. And it is more effective a tactic for Republicans because it depresses Democratic voters and until Trump, less effective for Democrats because modern conservative Republicans don’t pretend to respect women.
Also, the fact that Monica Lewinsky lied does not prove that Paula Jones was telling the truth. Nor does the fact that the Clintons paid Jones a huge settlement.
Again the exculpatory evidence that must be taken into account is “Was there a Republican operative involved in bringing the charges?”
Was Billy Bush a Democratic operative? Have all of the women who have come out accusing Trump been associated with a Democratic operative?
What evidence do you have to present to show political hijinks?
Yes, the FBI was working with Starr in that caae. It was the FBI that planted the wire on Tripp, and the FBI, along with Starr’s people, who questioned Lewinsky and threatened her if she did not change her testimony and take immunity, which is what she did, just not immediately. See, for example:
CNN
Jan. 13, 1998: Tripp, wired by FBI agents working with Starr, meets with Lewinsky at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel bar in Pentagon City, Va., and records their conversation.
Jan. 16, 1998: Starr contacts Attorney General Janet Reno to get permission to expand his probe. Reno agrees and submits the request to a panel of three federal judges. The judges agree to allow Starr to formally investigate the possibility of subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case. Tripp and Lewinsky meet again at the Ritz-Carlton. FBI agents and U.S. attorneys intercede and take Lewinsky to a hotel room, where they question her and offer her immunity. Lewinsky contacts her mother, Marcia Lewis, who travels down from New York City by train. Lewis contacts her ex-husband, who calls attorney William Ginsburg, a family friend. Ginsburg advises her not to accept the immunity deal until he learns more.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/
No, the reason the Monica thing happened was because was a sleazy creep who went after the White House interns because he was president and he thought he was entitled. It’s really extraordinary how deft the Clintonites have become at twisting everything so that it somehow becomes the fault of external actors.
No, the reason the Monica thing happened was because was a sleazy creep, a dirty old man, who went after the White House interns because he was president and he thought he was entitled. It’s really extraordinary how deft the Clintonites have become at twisting everything so that it somehow becomes the fault of external actors.
And you know all this because of what evidence? Kenneth Starr’s pornographic report?
Clinton is handling it well; always possible that it works in her favor – or, better said, our downballot races’ favor.
This is giving her an opportunity to pivot from her earlier (mistaken) approach of apologizing for doing nothing wrong to the (correct) approach of attacking this as a partisan witchhunt and contrasting it with the major and actually illegal email management of the Bush administration. Even if the new approach doesn’t take in time for the campaign it will help with future witchhunting once she’s elected.
I assume ppl watched her press conf. and she was strong, like the debates. could diminish Trump even more. yes, we can assume this is what we’ll have for the next 4 yrs at least. Truman Show/ Matrix etc as Sam’s twitter has it
https://twitter.com/woke8yearold/status/792091966636818432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
I don’t watch CNN much, but one of their pundits is calling for Comey to resign now. Sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps there is enough time left for Clinton’s campaign to show what a witch hunt this campaign has been. I see some potential for this mess to turn around and bite the GOP in the ass, but a lot would have to break her way.
I have never observed anything like this campaign in my 71 years. We as a nation are simply not prepared for 24/7 “coverage” of the race to the White House for over a year. Journalists need to get off their butts and provide the public with some substance, instead of this drivel.
Agreed. We’ve witnessed her campaign get hacked, the DNC get hacked, and the highly unusual actions of the FBI Director. It’s funny because some on our side of the aisle still insist on seeing her as sort of evil wicked mastermind, rigging primaries, pushing for WWIII, etc. Yet, if you step back, it appears all the vile forces she supposedly commands are aligned against her campaign. It’s truly a frightening thing we’re witnessing.
Would like to see her take it to the press too, for not calling out the FBI and treating each Wikileak dribble as if it were some little gem of wisdom and insight. Time to call BS and use this to rally the base.
That’s just going to come across as partisan maneuvering.
That’s what sucks about the current landscape: it’s impossible for anyone who isn’t a well-informed political junkie with a solid understanding of policy and the mechanics of governance to see anything but symmetrical tug-of-war posturing.
I’d blame the press, but it’s not their fault; they just enabled it. As Jay Carney and BooMan and so many others have exhaustively demonstrated, politics is discussed in a value-neutral, conversation/trend-based fashion because that’s the easiest way to overcome the tremendous imbalance in integrity and honesty between the two sides.
So it’s a discussion of “They just did this — will it ‘work’? Or will the other side come up with a public countermove that will also ‘work’?” Where the actual merits or value or comparative legitimacy of the two moves is never explained or discussed.
It is the job of the press to explain what is going on.
It hasn’t just “enabled” all of this, it actively profits from all of this.
Qui bono?
This new faux incriminating email drama shouldn’t change the opinions of Hillary voters. It didn’t change my vote, but I think I sprained my eyeballs when I rolled them so hard with the news.
Seriously, Comey is a partisan hack and he needs to be gone. This was clearly yet another “other shoe dropping” moment that has no merit, and for Comey to come out on a Friday news dump and issue a vagely accusatory letter in front of a salivating press just in time for the election, well, it’s inexcusable.
I hope this too shall pass. People who hate Hillary just hate her more, and those who defend her will defend her again.
Please let this election hurry up and be done with!
my eyeballs when I rolled them so hard with the news”, though like/agree with the rest, too.
But I literally LOLed at that bit. Thanks for that.
The president has no power to throw Comey under the bus. His appointment was for ten years.
“Please let this election hurry up and be done with!”
Couldn’t agree more. Get it over with, and let President Trump appoint a body of special prosecutors to do the thorough investigation that Obama and his cabal have been blocking. While it seems to me and I think most people that she has been extensively involved in criminal activity, it is unseemly for her to be tried in the press. She deserves a chance to clear her name in a court of law. If she can do that then she can always run again in 2020.
This should tell you something useful about the folks you hang out with. Also too, about yourself.
Sadly, I predict that it will not.
Parody troll or raging moron?
Actually Comey’s actions changed my view of Clinton. I’ve been on the sidelines with her, but seeing his letter just made me go sign up with every site I could find that was ‘I’m with her’. Enough of this bs. May others be angry enough to do the same and get off the undecided bench or wherever they’ve been sitting.
More I think about Comey’s stance on this, where it’s being perceived as a CYA perspective I call bs. The protocols set out for the FBI/DoJ with the 60 day window that prohibits bombs like this are specifically meant to address this dilemma. The protocols were there to CYA. If he felt strongly enough to argue with Loretta Lynch’s telling him to follow protocol, he should have written that letter to her and let her take whatever heat came down.
“The outcome of the presidential election has never been in any serious doubt, barring unforeseen events or revelations.”
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Revisionist history.Before the first debate Clinton was up 2.5. 538 and virtually everyone doing statistical analysis put Trumps odds at north of 30 before the first debate.
The polls blew up after the first debate. Had Trump won the first debate we might be in very different place. I don’t think we would, but we might.
Having said this, history provides two guides for how this race breaks from here:
1. The model from ’68, ’72, ’76, ’88, ’92 and ’92.
In each of these races candidates were running behind where you would expect among their own party. In the end the partisans came home, and the margin closed. I think if you understand 2012 this is what happened post the first debate as well. This isn’t unusual – debates usually function to consolidate support within party.
What troubles me in some ways is ’68. Humphrey made up ground in 2 ways. The first was through a decline in Wallace voters – Wallace lost about 1/3 of his vote in the last 20 days and all of it went to Humphrey. These were Democrats coming home. In addition Humphrey began to get Democratic leaning independents home as well. By one measure he close a 10 point gap to .5.
The same thing happened in 1988 – Dukakis brought Dem leaning voters home.
This is a VERY different race. But a Johnson collapse could get Trump even with the historical GOP numbers. If that happens. this is a 3 point race, and Trump may well exceed Romney’s EV total.
That would in turn shift the EV discussion, and would solve Trump’s turnout problem. If GOP voters think they have a chance, it will change turnout.
It is worth noting what is undecided is white.
Moreover both candidates STILL have problems with their base. Pew – absolutely the best pollster in the business is worth looking at.
57% of Clinton supporters support her strongly. By contrast it was 69 in ’12, 68 in ’08 and 63 in ’04. Think about that – Kerry supporters were more for him than Clinton’s are for her in this election.
And the problems remain for Clinton among the young in some ways. 49% of those under 30 think she will be a worse President than Obama.
Nor have the doubts among Sanders supports gone away. Only 42% of Sanders supporters like her, and only 40% say she is honest. There is good news: she scores well on qualifications and inspiration.
But in the worst case scenario these problems cause turnout problems for her.
The nightmare is Trump gets within 3 on election eve.
If he does he could actually get close – though I don’t see how he gets to 270 without Colorado, Virginia and Pennsylvania.
In the nightmare scenario the firewall is Pennsylvania.
Literally. Colorado and Virginia look gone. While Clinton leads in NC, and FL and arguably OH, all three are not put away. If Trump carries PA then Iowa, Nevada and NH are irrelevant. If he loses it I struggle to see Trump winning New Hampshire.
2. The lead grows late – This has been my working assumption. See 1980, 2008.
I am writing about this elsewhere.
You’re really full of yourself aren’t you, asshole.
You’re going to have to show your work on that one.
538.com currently has Clinton with an 84.1% chance of winning Colorado and a 91.3% chance of winning Virginia.
As in Clinton has won both.
I think 538’s pdds are way too low for Clinton in those two states.
Yes, but 538 also posits that if one state moves, others tend to move with it. That’s why Clinton’s at 80% and not at 95 or higher.
I’m not freaking out, mostly because it makes no sense to freak out, but I am putting my nervous energy into making calls to battleground states. As an attorney I’d fly to a swing state to be an on-the-ground poll watcher if last minute tickets weren’t so damn expensive. But I’m sure they have plenty of attorneys who live in or close to the swing states.
Right now the two states last two to fall are PA and NH. I am working legal protection in NH.
I am going to canvass tomorrow.
The nightmare is that Trump gets the election close enough that the voter suppression becomes relevant as it did in Florida in 2000. This time, it is not just in one state. Any one of those states could be the tipping point for Trump. And it might not trigger an automatic recount.
Yes, that’s the threat. Course this time we have a 4/4 SCOTUS.
The FBI director can be fired by the President for cause, according to Slate:
“The president may remove a director with adequate cause. President Clinton dismissed Director William Sessions halfway through his term on charges that Sessions misused official resources–such as using FBI aircraft for personal trips.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2002/06/how_do_you_dump_the_fbi_director.h
tml
“cause” does not include doing his job. If he was fired for this, that would be equivalent to Nixon firing Cox.
I don’t remember Cox inserting himself into an election with a scare pronouncement of no real substance, but YMMV. That said, Comey has certainly covered his ass on this one, by pretending that the discovery of any potentially relevant material must be immediately disclosed.
Would not play in Peoria. Not that Peoria isn’t totally fucked anyway.
Wouldn’t not following rules and policy be enough cause?
What policy is he not following?
It’s not policy, but it’s two long-standing precedents to not comment on an ongoing investigation and to not insert oneself into an election. To try to throw the election without even the recommendation of an indictment makes it triply bad.
Best outcome: Lynch takes one for the team and fires Comey before Inauguration Day.
I’ve read them. Would have to search to find the source.
What rule in particular has he violated? I am asking – I was a prosecutor and I can’t think of one. Making a public statement is unusual but not if he has a duty to inform the House Committee.
Of course if the entire point is to hurt Clinton then he has violated his oath – but if that was his goal he would have indicted her before.
For example, if his goal were to hurt her, but not himself (which a transparently ridiculous and partisan indictment would have done), then this cya-couched action (just fulfilling my obligation to Congress!) would — or at minimum, plausibly could — make pretty good explanatory sense for his behavior.
The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-officials-warned-fbi-that-comeys-deci
sion-to-update-congress-was-not-consistent-with-department-policy/2016/10/29/cb179254-9de7-11e6-b3c9
-f662adaa0048_story.html
posting that.
Doesn’t refute my point, imo; supports it, if anything.
Unless you think the last graf does, but the authoritative attribution of motivation to Comey in the “reporter”‘s voice is of course nonsense. At best, that may be what Comey (or someone speaking for him, or pretending to) said were his reasons. Neither you nor I nor the “reporter” knows whether those avowed reasons were his actual (and especially, his sole, entire) motivation.
Which is, of course, always the problem with this sort of unnamed-source “reporting” — very amenable to manipulation of the “reporter” for personal/political/propaganda purposes.
My speculation was premised on trusting this sort of “reporting” about as far as I could throw the source, even if I knew who it was. Remains quite plausible imo, that this avowed motive fed to this WaPo “reporter” by Comey or some designated mouthpiece is more cya. In fact, that interp fits quite snugly and comfortably with my original comment, I think.
Who is “the Bureau”? A Ken Starr-like leak or someone at the FBI willing to be publicly accountable for lying?
Damn, I hate that we have to parse our media carefully now and still don’t know what’s going on.
Given this action, which I interpret as political, he likely didn’t have anything last time around and was, I fact, padding his findings. They are saying on CNN now that this sort of thing is not usually done since they do not have the information. Innuendo reigns supreme. Release the emails.
Lotta “ifs” there. He’s been in Washington a longtime. He knew what his open-ended letter would do. Clearly there was a lot of reticence about his actions internally–it’s being expressed from the inside now. This is ugly stuff. Combine it with a single campaign being hacked, a single party comittee being hacked, and Clinton’s run an amazing campaign given the circumstances.
From the Post:
:In the Friday memo to his employees, Comey acknowledged that the FBI does not yet know the import of the newly discovered emails. “Given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression,” Comey wrote.
It was irresponsible to write the letter to the House given he did not know the content of the emails without making clear has HAS NO REASON TO THINK THERE IS ANYTHING IN THE EMAILS THAT WOULD CHANGE HIS DECISION NOT TO INVESTIGATE.
That should have been part of his letter.
Agreed. Open-ended letter was outrageous. At best, clumsy. At worst, purposeful. I lean towards the latter, but could be a combination.
That letter was irresponsible and partisan. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Do you really think Comey had no idea?
Just trying to be generous.
Consider this on TPM– an expert taking a different tack.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/just-a-few-days
Since when does evidence taken in one investigation automatically get reviewed for another investigation?
I keep thinking about procedurally what has happened to the Clintons over 25 years. How many private citizens who are not the Clintons endured this sort of legal and law enforcement harrassment?
The timing (and I suspect the original charge in August 2016 against Weiner) is meant to screw with the CLinton campaign.
Trump’s trial was put off until after the election and became off-limits for the media.
Of course, after Bush v. Gore, I don’t trust any Republican to be other than a partisan tool.
“Since when does evidence taken in one investigation automatically get reviewed for another investigation?”
If relevant, always in my experience as a Prosecutor. I can think of a couple of cases in my own career when it happened.
Weiner is being pursued for obvious reasons having little to do with Clinton.
I won’t defend Comey’s letter to the House here, though I guess I understand it. His second statement today was designed to address obvious anger within the DOJ and the FBI.
I think Comey’s actions through most of this are reasonably defensible. In this instance it depends on the content of the letter – and I really don’t understand why he would need much time to review it – either it changes the decision not to prosecute or it doesn’t. That should be a long review.
Would not the FBI have to subpoena the specific files on Abedin’s (or less likely Weiner’s) phone in order to see that evidence? What exactly would the warrant to seize their phones for the Weiner case specify?
I can’t get over how neat the timing is in this. A “known sex offender” does it again at a helluva politically inconvenient time. Given the NYPD’s excursion into NSA-like surveillance, one cannot dismiss the possibility of a local PD operation against Clinton given the FOP endorsement of Trump.
What really fascinates me about the timing is how Democratic positions of clean government and feminism set up the possibility for ratfucking with bogus sexual scandals under the assumption that elites can take care of themselves. (Unless they are being ratfucked by other elites with access to courts and law enforcement.)
So it changes his decision to prosecute Hillary Clinton. He announces it before the election. He, a Republican, just triggered a Republican victory and the setup for a very media circus impeachment and conviction. And ensures Republican downticket victories in legislatures and governorships by Democrats too demoralized to vote. The review is does he want to go down in history as being the second selector of a President (after the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore). Or associated with a post-Inaugural Republican coup. Or Hillary Clinton’s Ken Starr.
That his actions are reasonably defensible in a non-partisan situation is understandable. That makes him a more useful tool; so were Ken Starr’s (except for the leaking to the media).
You are entering conspiracy theory on the timing of Weiner and you have no knowledge on which to support your theory.
Ken Starr’s actions were not defensible. An FBI investigation into Clinton’s e-mails was absolutely warranted.
New information has come to light – I can’t see a reason why it would not be pursued. The question is over the release of the decision to review the additional e-mails.
He is not prosecuting Clinton. No charge been filed.
Interesting thing about sexual allegations is they have not definite evidence. Black men used to be hanged for rape on that lack of definite evidence. Women have had their experiences dismissed for that lack of definite evidence. And it is media catnip.
When you have a known ratfucker like Roger Stone around, positing a conspiracy as a heuristic to look for evidence is not crazy.
For how many more months will no charges be filed against Clinton but have her not exonerated of legal wrongdoing.
An FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails was warranted, but apparently not one into Rove’s emails.
Prosecutors don’t exonerate except in rare occasions.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/justice-department-officials-told-fbi-comey-policy
The FBI/DoJ 60 day rule comes to mind as what Comey violated. It’s there specifically to address this kind of scenario. He was right in taking this to Loretta Lynch, but when she said do not go forward because of the 60 day rule, he should have written the letter to her, let her take the heat and gone on about his investigation.
If his boss says no and he goes ahead with it, isn’t that insubordination?
The FBI Director has a strange relationship to the Attorney General after Watergate. The FBI Director is nominally strictly independent, which means they can buck the White House and the Attorney General in order to “find the truth”.
I doubt that it is insubordination, but it might be interfering in an election, which might be cause for firing. I doubt that Obama will go there, but if elected, Clinton might.
If Comey is fired and sues, can he be re-instated or just get a big pile of cash?
Amazed to be amazed how all nightly news led with this but couldn’t explain why it mattered. It’s just a bright squeaky chew toy for the press and GOP. Amazing how women are still coming forward about the GOP ‘ S Cosby. Gotta be impressed in a way how Trump has put himself in a position beyond disgrace.
I doubt it will matter much to results. Idea that Clinton running up the score in her race will change obstruction isn’t persuasive. Winning Senate is the marker for me. Does email nonsense matter there? I doubt it.+
And the Repubs preposterously whine that the game is rigged against THEM! Of course the daily Wikileaks hacked email release will be breathlessly covered as well, whatever its “substance” might be.
Anyway, the comically unqualified Trump has been taken out of camera range, and it’s all up to the grunts now–the Dem activists in PA, FL, NH, WI and NV. They either turn the straight ticket vote out or it’s a Repub senate and a constitutional crisis in the first 30 days of HRC’s admin.
McConnell’s Misfits will refuse to confirm any HRC cabinet nominee they haven’t pre-approved and she can forget about lesser officials, just as they blocked Obama’s lesser appointments before Reid blew up the filibuster. Because Hillary’s a criminal who should be in jail, donchaknow, and her nominees cannot be considered legitimate…
A month ago, it was vitally important for everyone to know that Ms. Machado claimed that she was fat-shameed by her employer, Mr. Trump, in 1996.
Survivors defy partisan analyses and opinions. By survivors, I mean those that can assess difficult situations in which they find themselves and find the least risk path for themselves. Gates, Comey, Kissinger, Brock, etc. are in that class of survivors. One day heroes and another day bums according to the consensus of a single group. They really aren’t suitable for public office because they are snakes.
Sorry gang — can’t have it both ways. It’s either all fair game or all of it’s off the table.
In an election about personality, trivia matters.
The race looks like it was closing some while I was gone anyway. Tracking polls are notoriously volatile so I don’t take the movement in ABC seriously, just as I don’t in TIPP (which is a good pollster).
Looks like this is a 3-6 point race before the e-mail stuff. The danger is Clinton gets caught in a self-reinforcing cycle – she declines and then the coverage says she is declining so she declines some more.
The Early Voting numbers in Florida show very good turnout in the panhandle – which you might take as a sign that Trump’s turnout problems aren’t close to what has been suggested.
I still think she wins going away.
But I am more nervous.
Tough to recall a presidential election that wasn’t personality driven, as opposed to substantive and real policy issues and differences.
Perhaps 1948 — but even there Dewey was described as like the little man on a wedding cake. However, voters did seem to recognize that they didn’t want more of what the “do-nothing Congress” had given them.
In other years policy mattered.
Tax cuts, Iraq, Obamacare. All of those dominated discussion in prior years.
I can’t name a single policy issue that has really mattered in this race.
Dominated or were stock and/or faux issue add-ons to fill dead space during the campaigns? Try naming a recent presidential election where policy issues dominated and personality stuff didn’t matter at all?
Wasn’t Mitt mocked by Obama and Democrats in 2012 for labeling Russia the #1 US enemy? And look at 2016.
2008- Obama cool vs bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran McCain and the lipstick on a pig lady. How often did Democrats repeat the story of McCain dumping his first wife?
What did Kerry run on?
Perot’s campaign revolved around a single issue, but he lost it by being really nutty.
The republicans are going to burn down congress and the courts. They won’t confirm any executive branch nominees and they will bring government to a stand still. And why shouldn’t they? What have they got to lose?
What is it that leads anyone to think that these next 4 years are going to be anything but one clusterf%#k after another?
Hey, but we’re the left. We are supposed to want these things to happen because the revolution will occur afterwards.
Yeah. Mostly I’m thinking we just stop pretending goverment does anything for us beyond basic services. I’d like to see it stop waging unnecessary wars too, but that’s way too much to ask for at this point. If I thought all this dysfunction would restrain the national security apparatus I’d welcome it. Unfortunately, neither chaos nor good goverment seem capable of doing that. It operates outside politics.
I’ve got a 5-year old. Am not looking for a glorious revolution. Agree on foreign policy, but understand not all decisions are easy calls.
Comey’s type in Washington don’t fear Democrats. Democrats are expected to be deferential to institutions like the FBI and the DOD.
The ire from Trump and the threats from Republicans seem to matter more than Democrats bleating feebly about this coming out before the election. That needs to change.
Perhaps he can’t be fired but they need to make life miserable for Comey or people will learn the wrong lessons from this.
Reaction from Pres Obama will be interesting. He was quick to throw Shirley Sherrod under the bus. I wonder how much more he is willing to tolerate from someone who has done actual harm.
There’s an argument to be made that Loretta Lynch bears some responsibility for Comey being off the leash.
MSNBC and CNN are running Trumps speech. He has and continues to beat the shit out of both Clintons. I really am not sure she can survive this onslaught. What a terrible day.,
Trump has been completely and utterly defined as a lier and a con man. He’s convinced all who will be convinced.
Women and POC will save the Republic. The email nonsense will have no effect on them. They know bullshit when they see it.
.
That man as President is too hard to imagine.
They do that pretty much every Saturday. She’s survived all such onslaughts so far.
He says he will reduce lowest tax rate including business taxes to 15%. That means assholes like him will never pay a nickel more than that. Reminds me of that little fuck with the mustache who,got himself excused from paying taxes.
How is he going to balance the budget after he raids the Social Security Trust fund; it only has $3 trillion or so?
How is he going to pay for war? Military toys?
You know that only capital gains is going to get preferential rates. Taxes on wages will remain the same. And the scale that currently has lower than 15% effective rates on lower incomes will then have a 15% effective rate to balance the budget. Here comes the flat tax.
Trump and others in his business run their businesses like a partnership or LLC. The tax on that will be 15%. But the average Joe may pay a good deal more especially after SS and other payroll,taxes. I rather doubt he is worried about the debt he will,accumulate. But when he does, or when inflation takes hold, he can always cut SSMM . Bush ran the Iraq war on a credit card. There is a good deal of room to run. When his string runs out, he can come up with other schemes like we all need to pay our,fair share, except businesses of curse. And yes, he will likely change his three proposed rates to something else, even a flat tax. Funny how Sanders was about to bankrupt us all but not Trump. He likes to keep talking about our debt, which is utter nonsense, but it sounds good.
This guy defines demagogue. He keeps repeating all the triggers. My only hope is he keeps it up bc most sane people will not believe it. Go Donald, keep it up.
This was done solely to suppress votes for Clinton, as well as encouraging the Never Trumpers on the R side of aisle, including many Republican female voters who left Trump in droves recently, to jump back on the Trump train.
Comey is seriously out of line here, but none dare call him out on it.
Seriously pissed off. Just marked my vote by mail ballot for Clinton (and in all honesty, I was still somewhat toying with the idea of Stein. So sue me, I’m in a deep blue state). The Fibbies, as usual, can go eff themselves.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Voted early for Clinton too, and feel solid about it. We’ve seen in real time how different she’s treated by all sides, including ours. She is always scheming, always plotting, always wicked, always pulling strings, always the head of some syndicate or conspiracy. The press encourages the ugliest narratives about her, Republicans proudly fill the void, and left wing publications happily pounce on innocuous and likely typical email nonsense to propel their sense of aggtievedness over the primary, neoliberalism, fracking, you name the demon.
On the other hand, her campaign’s been hacked, the DNC’s been hacked, we’ve read more of her emails than any candidate in history and all we really have for it is . . . she’s a fairly typical politician, running a fairly tight campaign. Nobody is clamoring for the transcripts of Paul Ryan’s presentation to big donors in Aspen this year, nor are they screaming about Condi Rice’s emails from her time in office, which she did not retain in conformity with the law.
For all the talk of rigging, I’d say everything’s been against Hillary, but it’s a testament to her fortitude she’s still standing. I gotta respect that.