Election 2016 Thread

[Tero]

Comey went over the head of AG Lynch.

[Tyrannical]

Comey went over the head of AG Lynch.

Umm. The AG isn't his boss

[Tero]

But the FBI does not bring up criminal charges. The department of justice usually does the announcements, even the earlier one Comey made.

[Tero]

‪I'm putting my psychic hat on. Info in the new emails will reveal that:‬
- A UK footballer was denied visa for Las Vegas party trip, despite bribe to Clinton foundation
- Hillary had something to do with an attack on an embassy. It's coming to me...in North Africa. I see a B abd a Z but can't see the whole word

[pErvinalia]

I thought they were to do with the Weiner man.

[Brian Peacock]

Few White House races have been more bitter than the current one between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. So any public official who intervenes in it, 11 days before polling, needs to be very sure what they are doing. Such interventions don’t come bigger than the FBI director James Comey’s announcement that the bureau is reopening its probe of Mrs Clinton’s private emails. The potential impact is huge. Until last Friday, Mrs Clinton was looking on course to hand Mr Trump a decisive beating. It may still happen. But that is now all up in the air.

Mr Comey’s defence appears to be that justice must be done and that he would be damned if he made the announcement and damned if he didn’t. It is certainly true that US politics has become so polarised and so riddled with paranoia that the FBI director faced an unenviable choice. If he had carried out the new investigation behind closed doors and it had only become public after the election, whatever the result, one or both sides would be certain to cry foul. Conspiracy theorists would have had a field day. Yet by making it public now, he makes the investigation itself into a red-hot pre-election issue in a contest that will shape not just America but the world – and that’s awful.

This is precisely why the US Justice Department, with which the FBI works, has an established framework of rules designed to protect its impartiality from allegations of political bias. The department puts strict limits on disclosures about ongoing investigations and especially on anything that might be seen as influencing an election. A memorandum to this effect has been issued by a succession of US attorneys general every four years, including in 2016. Mr Comey has broken with this. Former Justice Department officials from both political parties have denounced him for this over the weekend. The current attorney general is believed to have advised against it, too.

Mr Comey has also compounded the potential abuse of power in two important ways. First, the investigation is at an embryonic stage. It may go no further. In his Friday announcement he spoke of emails “that appear to be pertinent” to the previous investigation he completed – concluding then that there was no case to answer – in the summer. But the emails come from a separate investigation, may not even be from Mrs Clinton at all and the FBI chief has not read them. His phrasing was extraordinarily vague. Mr Comey has thus launched his missile with minimum facts and maximum innuendo. There are echoes of British police blunders over child sex allegations. Even louder are the echoes of anti-Clinton fanatics like Judicial Watch. This strikes at the democratic process, not just individuals.

Second, Mr Comey should not have deferred to Congress, as he did last week. The investigation and prosecution processes should be kept rigorously apart from politics. That’s especially true at election time and even more necessary in such a polarised and acrimonious polity as the US Congress has become. One of the recipients of Mr Comey’s report, Jason Chaffetz, announced even before the FBI director’s move that he intends to begin oversight hearings into Mrs Clinton as soon as she is elected, if she is. Incredible though it may seem to the outside world and many Americans, impeachment efforts by Republicans against Mrs Clinton are already a serious possibility. Law enforcement officials have to be completely scrupulous in such a world. Mr Comey has not been. It is a step towards a lawless process....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hing-to-do

[Tero]

Locate the sleazebag in the photo

[Brian Peacock]

Spot the sleazebag in this photo.

[Brian Peacock]

Donald Trump sexism tracker: Every offensive comment in one place.

[DaveDodo007]

Few White House races have been more bitter than the current one between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. So any public official who intervenes in it, 11 days before polling, needs to be very sure what they are doing. Such interventions don’t come bigger than the FBI director James Comey’s announcement that the bureau is reopening its probe of Mrs Clinton’s private emails. The potential impact is huge. Until last Friday, Mrs Clinton was looking on course to hand Mr Trump a decisive beating. It may still happen. But that is now all up in the air.

Mr Comey’s defence appears to be that justice must be done and that he would be damned if he made the announcement and damned if he didn’t. It is certainly true that US politics has become so polarised and so riddled with paranoia that the FBI director faced an unenviable choice. If he had carried out the new investigation behind closed doors and it had only become public after the election, whatever the result, one or both sides would be certain to cry foul. Conspiracy theorists would have had a field day. Yet by making it public now, he makes the investigation itself into a red-hot pre-election issue in a contest that will shape not just America but the world – and that’s awful.

This is precisely why the US Justice Department, with which the FBI works, has an established framework of rules designed to protect its impartiality from allegations of political bias. The department puts strict limits on disclosures about ongoing investigations and especially on anything that might be seen as influencing an election. A memorandum to this effect has been issued by a succession of US attorneys general every four years, including in 2016. Mr Comey has broken with this. Former Justice Department officials from both political parties have denounced him for this over the weekend. The current attorney general is believed to have advised against it, too.

Mr Comey has also compounded the potential abuse of power in two important ways. First, the investigation is at an embryonic stage. It may go no further. In his Friday announcement he spoke of emails “that appear to be pertinent” to the previous investigation he completed – concluding then that there was no case to answer – in the summer. But the emails come from a separate investigation, may not even be from Mrs Clinton at all and the FBI chief has not read them. His phrasing was extraordinarily vague. Mr Comey has thus launched his missile with minimum facts and maximum innuendo. There are echoes of British police blunders over child sex allegations. Even louder are the echoes of anti-Clinton fanatics like Judicial Watch. This strikes at the democratic process, not just individuals.

Second, Mr Comey should not have deferred to Congress, as he did last week. The investigation and prosecution processes should be kept rigorously apart from politics. That’s especially true at election time and even more necessary in such a polarised and acrimonious polity as the US Congress has become. One of the recipients of Mr Comey’s report, Jason Chaffetz, announced even before the FBI director’s move that he intends to begin oversight hearings into Mrs Clinton as soon as she is elected, if she is. Incredible though it may seem to the outside world and many Americans, impeachment efforts by Republicans against Mrs Clinton are already a serious possibility. Law enforcement officials have to be completely scrupulous in such a world. Mr Comey has not been. It is a step towards a lawless process....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hing-to-do

Lets get one thing straight from the off, the Guardian is a bunch of cucks, self loathing gimps and man hating harpies. Also Comey is a pussy who has sent the FBI's reputation into the mud with his cowardly letting off of Hillary. As well as handing out immutities like candy on Halloween. Though the FBI have Weiner's laptop now and the NYPD have forced their hand.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may- ... 477854957/

The evil empire of the corrupt, lying Clintons is coming to an end and thank god for that.

[pErvinalia]

ad hominen fallacy.

[DaveDodo007]

Donald Trump sexism tracker: Every offensive comment in one place.

Nobody is buying the sexism card anymore, it is like you lot haven't heard of the fable 'the boy who cried wolf.'

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, the boy who cried wolf was eaten by the wolf.

Few White House races have been more bitter than the current one between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. So any public official who intervenes in it, 11 days before polling, needs to be very sure what they are doing. Such interventions don’t come bigger than the FBI director James Comey’s announcement that the bureau is reopening its probe of Mrs Clinton’s private emails. The potential impact is huge. Until last Friday, Mrs Clinton was looking on course to hand Mr Trump a decisive beating. It may still happen. But that is now all up in the air.

Mr Comey’s defence appears to be that justice must be done and that he would be damned if he made the announcement and damned if he didn’t. It is certainly true that US politics has become so polarised and so riddled with paranoia that the FBI director faced an unenviable choice. If he had carried out the new investigation behind closed doors and it had only become public after the election, whatever the result, one or both sides would be certain to cry foul. Conspiracy theorists would have had a field day. Yet by making it public now, he makes the investigation itself into a red-hot pre-election issue in a contest that will shape not just America but the world – and that’s awful.

This is precisely why the US Justice Department, with which the FBI works, has an established framework of rules designed to protect its impartiality from allegations of political bias. The department puts strict limits on disclosures about ongoing investigations and especially on anything that might be seen as influencing an election. A memorandum to this effect has been issued by a succession of US attorneys general every four years, including in 2016. Mr Comey has broken with this. Former Justice Department officials from both political parties have denounced him for this over the weekend. The current attorney general is believed to have advised against it, too.

Mr Comey has also compounded the potential abuse of power in two important ways. First, the investigation is at an embryonic stage. It may go no further. In his Friday announcement he spoke of emails “that appear to be pertinent” to the previous investigation he completed – concluding then that there was no case to answer – in the summer. But the emails come from a separate investigation, may not even be from Mrs Clinton at all and the FBI chief has not read them. His phrasing was extraordinarily vague. Mr Comey has thus launched his missile with minimum facts and maximum innuendo. There are echoes of British police blunders over child sex allegations. Even louder are the echoes of anti-Clinton fanatics like Judicial Watch. This strikes at the democratic process, not just individuals.

Second, Mr Comey should not have deferred to Congress, as he did last week. The investigation and prosecution processes should be kept rigorously apart from politics. That’s especially true at election time and even more necessary in such a polarised and acrimonious polity as the US Congress has become. One of the recipients of Mr Comey’s report, Jason Chaffetz, announced even before the FBI director’s move that he intends to begin oversight hearings into Mrs Clinton as soon as she is elected, if she is. Incredible though it may seem to the outside world and many Americans, impeachment efforts by Republicans against Mrs Clinton are already a serious possibility. Law enforcement officials have to be completely scrupulous in such a world. Mr Comey has not been. It is a step towards a lawless process....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hing-to-do

Lets get one thing straight from the off, the Guardian is a bunch of cucks, self loathing gimps and man hating harpies. Also Comey is a pussy who has sent the FBI's reputation into the mud with his cowardly letting off of Hillary. As well as handing out immutities like candy on Halloween. Though the FBI have Weiner's laptop now and the NYPD have forced their hand.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may- ... 477854957/

The evil empire of the corrupt, lying Clintons is coming to an end and thank god for that.

Hmm. You may not favour the tone or political position of a media organisation (The Guardian begin decidedly centrist in its out look - hardly a hot bed of left-wing cuckery) but what about arguing on the basis of the facts, rather than this 'My opinion Trumps all others' nonsense. So...

This is precisely why the US Justice Department, with which the FBI works, has an established framework of rules designed to protect its impartiality from allegations of political bias. The department puts strict limits on disclosures about ongoing investigations and especially on anything that might be seen as influencing an election. A memorandum to this effect has been issued by a succession of US attorneys general every four years, including in 2016. Mr Comey has broken with this. Former Justice Department officials from both political parties have denounced him for this over the weekend. The current attorney general is believed to have advised against it, too.

Any thoughts beyond poisoning the well with ad homs?

[DaveDodo007]

ad hominen fallacy.

Magic words totally destroyed my arguments, oh wait they didn't. Either come up with something of substance or butt out.

[DaveDodo007]

Yeah, the boy who cried wolf was eaten by the wolf.

Few White House races have been more bitter than the current one between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. So any public official who intervenes in it, 11 days before polling, needs to be very sure what they are doing. Such interventions don’t come bigger than the FBI director James Comey’s announcement that the bureau is reopening its probe of Mrs Clinton’s private emails. The potential impact is huge. Until last Friday, Mrs Clinton was looking on course to hand Mr Trump a decisive beating. It may still happen. But that is now all up in the air.

Mr Comey’s defence appears to be that justice must be done and that he would be damned if he made the announcement and damned if he didn’t. It is certainly true that US politics has become so polarised and so riddled with paranoia that the FBI director faced an unenviable choice. If he had carried out the new investigation behind closed doors and it had only become public after the election, whatever the result, one or both sides would be certain to cry foul. Conspiracy theorists would have had a field day. Yet by making it public now, he makes the investigation itself into a red-hot pre-election issue in a contest that will shape not just America but the world – and that’s awful.

This is precisely why the US Justice Department, with which the FBI works, has an established framework of rules designed to protect its impartiality from allegations of political bias. The department puts strict limits on disclosures about ongoing investigations and especially on anything that might be seen as influencing an election. A memorandum to this effect has been issued by a succession of US attorneys general every four years, including in 2016. Mr Comey has broken with this. Former Justice Department officials from both political parties have denounced him for this over the weekend. The current attorney general is believed to have advised against it, too.

Mr Comey has also compounded the potential abuse of power in two important ways. First, the investigation is at an embryonic stage. It may go no further. In his Friday announcement he spoke of emails “that appear to be pertinent” to the previous investigation he completed – concluding then that there was no case to answer – in the summer. But the emails come from a separate investigation, may not even be from Mrs Clinton at all and the FBI chief has not read them. His phrasing was extraordinarily vague. Mr Comey has thus launched his missile with minimum facts and maximum innuendo. There are echoes of British police blunders over child sex allegations. Even louder are the echoes of anti-Clinton fanatics like Judicial Watch. This strikes at the democratic process, not just individuals.

Second, Mr Comey should not have deferred to Congress, as he did last week. The investigation and prosecution processes should be kept rigorously apart from politics. That’s especially true at election time and even more necessary in such a polarised and acrimonious polity as the US Congress has become. One of the recipients of Mr Comey’s report, Jason Chaffetz, announced even before the FBI director’s move that he intends to begin oversight hearings into Mrs Clinton as soon as she is elected, if she is. Incredible though it may seem to the outside world and many Americans, impeachment efforts by Republicans against Mrs Clinton are already a serious possibility. Law enforcement officials have to be completely scrupulous in such a world. Mr Comey has not been. It is a step towards a lawless process....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hing-to-do

Lets get one thing straight from the off, the Guardian is a bunch of cucks, self loathing gimps and man hating harpies. Also Comey is a pussy who has sent the FBI's reputation into the mud with his cowardly letting off of Hillary. As well as handing out immutities like candy on Halloween. Though the FBI have Weiner's laptop now and the NYPD have forced their hand.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may- ... 477854957/

The evil empire of the corrupt, lying Clintons is coming to an end and thank god for that.

Hmm. You may not favour the tone or political position of a media organisation (The Guardian begin decidedly centrist in its out look - hardly a hot bed of left-wing cuckery) but what about arguing on the basis of the facts, rather than this 'My opinion Trumps all others' nonsense. So...

This is precisely why the US Justice Department, with which the FBI works, has an established framework of rules designed to protect its impartiality from allegations of political bias. The department puts strict limits on disclosures about ongoing investigations and especially on anything that might be seen as influencing an election. A memorandum to this effect has been issued by a succession of US attorneys general every four years, including in 2016. Mr Comey has broken with this. Former Justice Department officials from both political parties have denounced him for this over the weekend. The current attorney general is believed to have advised against it, too.

Any thoughts beyond poisoning the well with ad homs?

Lol, and: