'nuff saidOriginally Posted by ESP47
'nuff said
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
ational Security
‘He’s got to get control of the ship again’: How tensions at the FBI will persist after the election
- Matt Zapotosky, Rosalind S. Helderman, Sari Horwitz and Ellen Nakashima November 3 at 8:53 PM
Deep divisions inside the FBI and the Justice Department over how to handle investigations dealing with Hillary Clinton will probably fester even after Tuesday’s presidential election and pose a significant test for James B. Comey’s leadership of the nation’s chief law enforcement agency.
The internal dissension has exploded into public view recently with leaks to reporters about a feud over the Clinton Foundation, an extraordinary airing of the agency’s infighting that comes as the bureau deals with an ongoing threat of terror at home and a newly aggressive posture from Russia.
Comey, meanwhile, has come under direct fire for his decision to tell Congress that agents were resuming their investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server — a revelation that put him at odds with his Justice Department bosses and influenced the presidential campaign.
[FBI agents pressed Justice unsuccessfully for probe of Clinton Foundation]
“He’s got to get control of the ship again,” said Robert Anderson, a former senior official in the FBI who considers Comey a friend. “There’s a lot of tension in the organization, and there’s a lot of tension in Congress and the Senate right now, and all that counts toward how much people trust the FBI.”
How the FBI found itself in political trouble over a letter and a tweet
Play Video2:17
The Post’s Rosalind Helderman breaks down the latest developments of the controversies involving the FBI less than a week from Election Day. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)
Comey has been under fire since Friday from lawmakers in both parties and even President Obama for his decision to inform Congress of the new developments in the email probe just 11 days before Election Day. On Thursday, people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that Comey had learned three weeks earlier of the discovery of new emails potentially relevant to the case, but did not take action to resume the email probe until he was formally briefed last week on what investigators had found.
Clinton, who seemed to have momentum in battleground state polls before Comey’s Friday bombshell, notably declined on Thursday to say whether, if elected, she would ask the FBI director to resign.
“I’m not going to, you know, either get ahead of myself by assuming I’ll be fortunate enough to be elected,” Clinton said, responding to a question from SiriusXM’s Joe Madison. “That’s really up to you and your listeners. People have to turn out, or nothing that I’m going to be proposing will come into reality, but I also would never comment on any kind of, you know, personnel issue.”
Comey was confirmed to a 10-year term in September 2013. While the law allows a president to remove an FBI director, the step is rarely taken out of respect for the independence of the position. President Bill Clinton removed Director William S. Sessions in 1993 amid allegations of ethical improprieties.
The pent-up frustration inside the FBI seemed to burst when Comey revealed in a brief letter to legislators that agents in an unrelated case had found emails potentially relevant to the Clinton email investigation.
The details, then and now, were scant. Officials familiar with the matter said the messages came from a computer seized in the investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Agents said the messages were associated with Abedin and Clinton. Abedin has told people she has no idea how the messages got on the device.
Although investigators had discovered the emails in early October, software glitches prevented them from separating Abedin-related emails from the hundreds of thousands of messages recovered until Oct. 19 or 20, according to people familiar with the case.
Who is FBI Director James B. Comey?
While Comey had been quickly alerted by his deputy to the original find, he took no further action, allowing agents in the field to get a better idea of the scope of the material. Agents could use digital clues to decipher where emails had originated and been sent but were legally barred from reading the emails without a search warrant because they had been obtained in a separate investigation.
When agents formally recommended on Oct. 27 that the warrant be sought, Comey agreed and then felt obligated to inform Congress — which he did with his letter the following day. Comey’s only reference in the letter to the timing of his involvement was that he had been briefed the previous day.
FBI spokesmen declined to comment on the timeline of Comey’s knowledge or on internal tensions.
The FBI obtained a warrant Sunday to analyze the messages for the Clinton investigation. It remains unclear if any of the newly discovered emails contain classified or other relevant information.
Comey had previously said he recommended that the Clinton email case be closed without charges.
Not long after Comey’s new letter to Congress was made public last week, multiple media outlets reported that he had sent the missive against the advice of top Justice Department officials, who felt that commenting publicly on the inquiry would violate a long-standing policy not to take overt steps in investigations that could have an impact so close to an election. Before the weekend was over, the Wall Street Journal revealed there was a different, ongoing feud between FBI agents in New York and career public integrity prosecutors at the Justice Department over whether there was cause to investigate the Clinton Foundation.
Addressing the controversy in an interview posted Wednesday by NowThis News, Obama hinted that he was unhappy about the amount of information being revealed.
“I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations we don’t operate on innuendo, and we don’t operate on incomplete information, and we don’t operate on leaks,” he said.
[FBI agents pressed Justice unsuccessfully for probe of Clinton Foundation]
Tensions had been thick between New York and Washington for months, dating to disagreements over how to handle the case of Eric Garner, the 43-year-old black man who died after being put in an apparent chokehold by a police officer. Officials in the Justice Department’s civil rights division wanted to move forward with a case against the police officer, but New York-based agents and prosecutors vehemently disagreed, according to people familiar with the case. The attorney general has yet to resolve the dispute.
In the case of the Clinton Foundation inquiry, it was the FBI agents pushing for stronger action.
In February, people familiar with the case said, agents made their case to public integrity prosecutors about why they should proceed with a probe looking broadly at whether donors to the Clinton family charity were given improper benefits by the Hillary Clinton-led State Department.
Justice Department attorneys and FBI officials in Washington viewed the agents’ presentation as lacking substantive evidence. The attorneys felt it relied too heavily on public reports and the book “Clinton Cash,” and denied the agents authority to move forward, according to people familiar with the discussions. The 2015 book, by conservative author Peter Schweizer, relied heavily on public records and presented a largely circumstantial case that State Department actions were driven by donations to the Clinton Foundation and payments to Bill Clinton.
The move frustrated some agents in New York. They felt they were being stymied by Justice Department higher-ups in Washington and pressed forward in ways they felt were permissible, according to people familiar with the case. In August, a Justice Department official got wind of those efforts and called a counterpart in the FBI to inquire about it, one of the people said. The agents thought they had reason to believe they should press forward, although their leaders were warned that they should not take any steps close to the election, the person said.
The people familiar with the matters declined to discuss the precise evidence that agents had obtained. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that their work involved informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations.
Officials speaking with reporters on the condition of anonymity is common, and several did so for this report. But the level of specificity that has emerged in recent days about a politically sensitive investigation on the eve of an election is unusual — a sign of the deep tensions inside the Justice Department.
A spokeswoman for the FBI’s New York field office and spokesmen for the Justice Department and FBI headquarters declined to comment for this report. FBI Agents Association President Thomas F. O’Connor said in a statement: “Agents undertake all investigations with an unwavering focus on complying with the law and the Constitution, and perform their mission with integrity and professionalism. Any implication that Agents are unwilling or incapable of performing effective investigations — or implications that Agents do not respect the confidentiality of those investigations — is simply false.”
If Clinton is elected, Comey might have to contend with one or more investigations involving a sitting president. If she is not, he might face criticism for upending her bid.
Anderson, the former FBI official, said Comey will have to work quickly to finish the restarted email review, then talk to leaders and visit field offices to ease the tensions in the bureau and help mend public perceptions of the FBI. Comey has repeatedly said in the past that is important to him.
“I don’t know what your parents taught you, but mine always taught me you can’t care what people think about you. I do,” he said at a recent conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the Justice’s Department’s National Security Division. “I do because the institution I’m lucky enough to lead depends upon the American people believing that we are honest, competent and independent.”
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/ny...-fbi.html?_r=0
Tireless if often wildly inaccurate in his attacks on Hillary Clinton’s ethics, health and work as a United States senator and as secretary of state, Mr. Giuliani has been spending every minute in the public spotlight as a surrogate for Donald J. Trump.
His most remarkable claim is that he has a pipeline into the Federal Bureau of Investigation and that agents tell him they are “outraged” that they have not been able to bring Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to justice.
But his television appearance on Tuesday of last week appeared, at the time, to be in a softer hue.
Brian Kilmeade, a Fox News host, asked Mr. Giuliani about the presidential campaign during its last two weeks.
“Does Donald Trump plan anything except a series of inspiring rallies?” Mr. Kilmeade asked.
“Yes,” Mr. Giuliani replied.
Another host, Ainsley Earhardt, jumped in.
“What?” she asked.
“Ha-ha-ha,” Mr. Giuliani laughed. “You’ll see.”
Appearing to enjoy his own coy reply, Mr. Giuliani resumed chuckling: “Ha-ha-ha.”
“When will this happen?” Ms. Earhardt asked.
“We got a couple of surprises left,” Mr. Giuliani said, smiling.
This enigmatic reply roused the show’s third host, Steve Doocy.
“October surprises?” he asked.
Mr. Giuliani expanded a bit.
“Well,” he said, “I call them early surprises in the way we’re going to campaign to get our message out, maybe in a little bit of a different way. You’ll see. And I think it’ll be enormously effective. And I do think that all of these revelations about Hillary Clinton finally are beginning to have an impact.”
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Your logic is amazing. You know there are thousands of "conspiracies" that we didn't have proof of at the time, that were proven later on. Project Paperclip, MKUltra etc. There are other conspiracies that we never got proof of because the witnesses were either discredited by the mass media or killed (sorry, suicided). I guess nothing happened in any of those situations because you didn't get to see the proof. That's why there's a thing called circumstantial evidence that's allowed in a court of law because they know that not every piece of evidence out there is going to be wrapped up neatly into a gift bag labeled "proof".
You should really take a day off from being a Hillary shill. You deserve it.
'nuff said
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Wouldn't they be influencing the election if they chose not to investigate alleged crimes committed by the Clinton camp? Team Hillary's actions are influencing the election, not the FBI doing their job. Hell, I think Director Comey wants Clinton to win.
thank you weso1!
1. If KG said it in another post, I apologize. But that's not what he said in the post you quoted.
2. It has been reported that there is information related to the investigation on the laptop. So Idk what exactly is "hearsay" or "innuendo" coming from the people in authority. I'll go back and read Comey's letter, but I don't remember it saying, "This will nail the witch to the wall" or something along those lines. The political hacks on both sides made their own interpretation of what it meant. Hearsay and innuendo is a cute talking point though. You seem to pick and choose what unverified claims you like to spout on here as gospel. Democrats and Clinton supporters have spent all week telling themselves last Friday's announcement hasn't made an impact. Yet they are falling all over themselves to lash out at the FBI. Quick to point out how loaded it is with Republicans, quick to forget that nice little private chat between Bill Clinton and the head of the Justice Department when the initial investigation was still active. But they were talking about indie music, grandkids and their favorite episode of "Seinfeld," right?
3. Yes, both sides suck and I voted for Johnson. I could have pulled the trigger for Stein, but she's a write-in candidate in Georgia. So I voted Johnson. Not as a full embrace of his ideology or candidacy by any means, but as a statement that we need more choices in this country. Yet another product of political royalty driven by special interests and a dishonest demagogue preaching a dangerous brand of populism. The two most unfavorable candidates in modern history and two parties that have been overrun by special interest groups and forgotten the people they're supposed to represent. Miles worse than Obama-Romney, which I thought wasn't great but at least had a shred of civility to it in hindsight. Johnson has no shot in hell, so that's not what my vote is about. It's not a waste because of the way the Electoral College is set up. If votes for Gary Johnson cause Trump to lose Georgia, it's likely he will have lost in several other states he needed anyway and thus the election. A loss in Georgia doesn't hurt Clinton because she doesn't need it to win. But if enough people vote for third-party candidates to get them extra federal funds and to wake more people up to the fact that we need more choices, then I'm all for that. My conscience is clear.
57Brave (11-04-2016), cajunrevenge (11-04-2016)
Did you know John Gotti wasn't a crime boss until 1992?
2) " It has been reported" then you go on to explain how I use un verified sources. Rarely do I post with out a link or quotations. Seems the only "verifiable" information coming out of Comey's letter is he has lost the clubhouse and factions of the FBI have gone rogue with a political agenda.
That is being reported with bylines (not on reddit).
the Brietbart connection is a walking talking connection. Read the above link to the NY FBI offices main source for looking further into CF. A book funded by a man who is a) the money behind Brietbart b) the head of Trump Super Pac c) the boss of not only Trumps Campaign manager but his campaign CEO.
These are facts - not "it has been reported" 's
Who knows what Bill and Loretta Lynch talked about. And what could theu have talked about? Who knows what Clarence Thomas' wife talks about during Right Wing thnk k Tank confabs? Maybe they shared a bet onwhen Fredi Gonzalez was to be fired and Lynch was welching on the bet ...
As evidenced this past week the AG has very little influence ofer this FBI Chief.
Lash out at the FBI?? Do you expect the Clinton Campaign to simply lay down? I keep hearing this every time they fight back ... why does the right get it's panties in a wad everytime the left hits back? Kinda like bullies huh? See my point
It is now documented the connection between the Trump Campaign and the NY FBI office. Yeah, they lashed out
3) I respect your reasoning though I disagree.
I look at this the same way I look at the World Series -Super Bowl - State 14U Baseball championship.
Johnson -Stein etal have had time to make their case and didn't make the last cut.
In fact, Johnson became a (L) not out of ideological temperment but because he failed at (R) politics.
Kinda like the Cubs could have used Jim Johnson Tuesday night - but, Jim Johnson's team didn't make the final two
Why do just the NL and AL get spots in the World Series?
How's about we get an alternative football league to rival the NFL.
Oh, that was tried before and Trump **** all over that too
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Had a spokes person for HRC sat on national TV saying they knew in advance ...
Giuliani says he was leaked information about emails days in advance of Comey letter
“You’re darn right I heard about it.”
https://thinkprogress.org/rudy-giuli...79f#.gy7rulml7
Last edited by 57Brave; 11-04-2016 at 12:48 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Let's try this again.
Legitimate news outlets, aka CBS for one, have reported emails from Clinton's state department, have been found on the computer. It is not known whether they are relevant to the investigation. As far as I'm aware, that's essentially what his letter said. It's been somewhat interesting to hear Clinton supporters go from "He was required by law to tell Congress about this. This is a nothing-burger," to "It's incredibly irresponsible to tell Congress about this before an election" mixed in with "It doesn't matter because it's had no impact on the election prospects." I guess I can understand the frustration and panic.
In one of your stories pasted above, it notes that they had the messages in early October, were able to separate them on Oct. 19-20 and then took another week to determine a warrant being worthwhile. I guess as Deep Throat said in All the President's Men, "These are not smart people" might apply to these Republican goons in the FBI, but I would venture to say if they really wanted to screw over Hillary, it might have been better to go ahead and put that info out instead of waiting a week while Clinton was firmly in the lead and the Dems were looking at a total takeover of Congress. Again, they might just be that dumb.
It's not really so much the links that you post. You occasionally post from reputable news organizations. You also like to copy and paste from left-leaning tweets and blogs' interpretation and spinning of stories and present them as fact. But you have no problem hammering home at any unverified claim that would deflect blame from them.
We have seen through WikiLeaks people in the Justice Department were keeping Clinton up to date on the investigation and about future testimony, but since the Russians gave to us (without a doubt) just disregard that. They're trying to meddle in our business and keep Clinton from winning what is her birthright.
The fact that you look at the two-party monopoly in this country and special-interest control as an adequate comparison to professional sports is...well....enough said.
working backwards
I do see the primaries as a whittling down process. Looking at (R) they started with what 21 ?
Finally it was Trump v Cruz
and what were those conversations between Justice and the Clinton people ? My reading told me they were procedural conversations
The Russians I dont think care whether Clinton or Trump win. They just want to act like, The Russians
Well, thank you for recognizing some sources I post are "reputable" but the Left leaning ones. For a man that prides himself in his open mindedness I would think you would welcome information from where ever it comes from and all view points. There are those that see NYT as a left leaning source- which I find laughable
while discussing issues arising from Brietbart sponsored literature
The FBI was definitely conflicted on what and how to approach this. One of the issues coming out today is the "this". Apparently "this" was a book financed by Brietbart with half baked right wing notions and schemes. Their stock and trade. We could go on for days about the "corruption" that is Brietbart.
http://www.breitbart.com/
Politically I thought the timing was genius. They get two weekends of free air time and not enough time to deconstruct the claims
Apparently any email with the name Hillary Clinton is fair game for speculation.
?
Because you know she is crooked. Trump has been saying that over and over for months to where it seems to be taken for granted.
Like one poster said above - even though there is no proof
Last edited by 57Brave; 11-04-2016 at 02:03 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Michael Cohen
@speechboy71
... anyone think Giuliani boasting about talking to FBI will receive as much coverage as allegation of Clinton getting heads up from DOJ?
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Mark Cuban @mcuban 38m38 minutes ago
Mark Cuban Retweeted Mark Cuban
Now that he has admitted to it twice @jasoninthehouse, why wont you subpoena him to testify ? Where are your ethics ?
Mark Cuban added,
Mark Cuban Verified account
@mcuban
Hey @jasoninthehouse , are you going to investigate Rudy Guliani for knowing about the comey letter in advance ?
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Yes I do think it will because the fact, not allegation, of Clinton getting the heads up has been ignored. Also glossed over is the Justice official had significant ties to Democratic and Clinton causes. Ah, but the Russians. It can't be trusted.
ESP47 (11-04-2016)
Is this because Hillary ruined Rudy's dream of serving in the US Senate?
Don't let facts get in the way of insignificant nonsense.
Big picture
Anyone else concerned over the media's influence/participation in a national election?
thank you weso1!
I probably shouldn't open this can of worms either, but what the heck, can you first define who "the media" is because I think in this country we have a really really really crappy media but at least half of them don't call or consider themselves to be in it.
I've been crying about it this entire time. Non internet savvy people get half of the information that is necessary to make an informed vote. The media will have a massive hand in this election and if they reported it down the middle, Trump would win in a landslide for the ages.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote