6 ms·

> I can't imagine Comey sending that letter out this close to the election without having something actionable. He knows full well the impact that even the alle

by jonknee 10y ago

> I can't imagine Comey sending that letter out this close to the election without having something actionable. He knows full well the impact that even the allegation that something is there would have. He apparently was legally required to because he previously testified that everything had been looked out. There is now more to look at. This was a savvy move by Rep Chaffetz, not a strategy by Comey (Chaffetz is also who characterized it as being re-opened, Comey said no such thing).

koolba 10y ago
> (Chaffetz is also who characterized it as being re-opened, Comey said no such thing). I think there's a technical correctness to that. The FBI won't look into anything if there isn't an open investigation. So it'd have to be re-opened for them to look into it.
- jonknee 10y ago
  Technically it had never been closed in the first place, so if you want to be technical Chaffetz is still full of shit. https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/792065775658012677 https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/792065775658012677 https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/792063653919031296 https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/792063653919031296
  - koolba 10y ago
    > Technically it had never been closed in the first place, so if you want to be technical Chaffetz is still full of shit. I'll give you the point on being technically correct (and Chaffetz being full of...) but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time.
    - yourapostasy 10y ago
      > ...but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time. Interesting. Has there ever been a Fortune 500 board of directors in a CEO selection process under way with a CEO candidate personally under FBI investigation say, "oh, that's okay, you're still one of our two top choices"? If not, it is a peculiar juxtaposition. While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty until proven innocent" bar, CEO's have been summarily fired by boards or left for the good of the company simply for being personally under FBI investigation. For the political geeks/wonks among us, can you please explain to this layperson how Clinton's situation differs?
      - koolba 10y ago
        > Interesting. Has there ever been a Fortune 500 board of directors in a CEO selection process under way with a CEO candidate personally under FBI investigation say, "oh, that's okay, you're still one of our two top choices"? If not, it is a peculiar juxtaposition. There aren't any parallels in the corporate world I can point to. Being under federal investigation would be like wearing skunk cologne to any sane corporate board. > While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty until proven innocent" bar, CEO's have been summarily fired by boards or left for the good of the company simply for being personally under FBI investigation. For the political geeks/wonks among us, can you please explain to this layperson how Clinton's situation differs? Short answer is that she's a Clinton and in control (whether direct or indirect) of the entire DNC and it's delegates. The Clinton's are a big part of the DNC money machine, raising money across the organization so everybody owes them favors. They'd ignore anything like this out of fear of spiting her or WJC unless it were criminal not to do so (say if she were convicted).
      - jonknee 10y ago
        There is not a good comparison because if it were anyone else no one would ever have known about the investigation. The FBI does not normally comment on ongoing investigations and since no charges were ever brought there would not have been any disclosure of the matter.
    - StevenRayOrr 10y ago
      As with many investigations. See, for example, the 9/11 investigation: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/25/911-fbi-investigation/70423820/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/25/911-fbi...

by jonknee 10y ago

koolba 10y ago

> (Chaffetz is also who characterized it as being re-opened, Comey said no such thing). I think there's a technical correctness to that. The FBI won't look into anything if there isn't an open investigation. So it'd have to be re-opened for them to look into it.

jonknee 10y ago
Technically it had never been closed in the first place, so if you want to be technical Chaffetz is still full of shit. https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/792065775658012677 https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/792065775658012677 https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/792063653919031296 https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/792063653919031296
- koolba 10y ago
  > Technically it had never been closed in the first place, so if you want to be technical Chaffetz is still full of shit. I'll give you the point on being technically correct (and Chaffetz being full of...) but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time.
  - yourapostasy 10y ago
    > ...but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time. Interesting. Has there ever been a Fortune 500 board of directors in a CEO selection process under way with a CEO candidate personally under FBI investigation say, "oh, that's okay, you're still one of our two top choices"? If not, it is a peculiar juxtaposition. While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty until proven innocent" bar, CEO's have been summarily fired by boards or left for the good of the company simply for being personally under FBI investigation. For the political geeks/wonks among us, can you please explain to this layperson how Clinton's situation differs?
    - koolba 10y ago
      > Interesting. Has there ever been a Fortune 500 board of directors in a CEO selection process under way with a CEO candidate personally under FBI investigation say, "oh, that's okay, you're still one of our two top choices"? If not, it is a peculiar juxtaposition. There aren't any parallels in the corporate world I can point to. Being under federal investigation would be like wearing skunk cologne to any sane corporate board. > While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty until proven innocent" bar, CEO's have been summarily fired by boards or left for the good of the company simply for being personally under FBI investigation. For the political geeks/wonks among us, can you please explain to this layperson how Clinton's situation differs? Short answer is that she's a Clinton and in control (whether direct or indirect) of the entire DNC and it's delegates. The Clinton's are a big part of the DNC money machine, raising money across the organization so everybody owes them favors. They'd ignore anything like this out of fear of spiting her or WJC unless it were criminal not to do so (say if she were convicted).
    - jonknee 10y ago
      There is not a good comparison because if it were anyone else no one would ever have known about the investigation. The FBI does not normally comment on ongoing investigations and since no charges were ever brought there would not have been any disclosure of the matter.
  - StevenRayOrr 10y ago
    As with many investigations. See, for example, the 9/11 investigation: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/25/911-fbi-investigation/70423820/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/25/911-fbi...