May 3, 2017

"James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, on Wednesday sharply defended his rationale for notifying Congress about new emails related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation..."

"... saying any suggestion that he affected the vote’s outcome made him 'mildly nauseous.'" the NYT reports.
The F.B.I. director said he went public [on] Oct. 28 because he believed his agents had possibly found emails that could provide insight into Mrs. Clinton’s reasons for using a private email server and change the outcome of the investigation. Mr. Comey said that failing to inform Congress would have a required an “act of concealment.”

“Concealment in my view would have been catastrophic,” Mr. Comey said.
Nauseous... catastrophic... highly emotive words, carefully chosen. 

144 comments:

mockturtle said...

Just one question: When is Trump going to DRAIN THAT SWAMP??!!

MadisonMan said...

highly emotive words, carefully chosen

Not so carefully.

Nauseous also means 'causing nausea'. The more carefully chosen word would be 'nauseated'.

Original Mike said...

I'm watching the hearing. Apparently the NYT reported on an email in which a Democrat official expressed confidence that A.G. Lynch would not let the FBI investigation into Clinton's server "go too far." When asked about it, Comey said he couldn't talk about that in public because it concerns "classified material". I'm trying to figure out what could be classified about such an email. Anybody know?

Rene' Saunce said...

When will the nation learn to understand that the Clintons are above the law?

Come on - Progressives in California get it.

Paddy O said...

This illustrates the trouble with contemporary ethics discussions. They tend to move the bar to an advantageous, if arbitrary, starting point for their outcome. It's sales not ethics.

The ethical question isn't about whether Comey should have notified Congress. It's about whether Hillary should have had that server. Media frame the discussion always just as far to shift the ethical question on someone besides who they support. This is also why we talk about Russian hackers instead of what was written in emails. This is also true in immigration debates and just about every other topic. Ethics is far too often a tool of propaganda not a genuine interest in bettering our societal condition.

Mattman26 said...

Better to be mildly nauseous than cause a catastrophe, right?

tim in vermont said...

believed his agents had possibly found emails that could provide insight into Mrs. Clinton’s reasons for using a private email server

The reason is obvious, to avoid oversight, to have the ability to delete emails without having to go through anybody else, there is simply no other remotely plausible reason. That Comey felt he had to look further just shows how corrupting the influence of the Clintons has been.

Ann Althouse said...

"Not so carefully. Nauseous also means 'causing nausea'. The more carefully chosen word would be 'nauseated'."

Unless he's one step beyond that in carefulness. If he said "nauseated," people might think he's prudishly, pedantic. Who has time to stop and gather your English-teacher wits about you if you're really going to hurl?

JohnAnnArbor said...

I'm trying to figure out what could be classified about such an email. Anybody know?

There's a too-common tactic of classifying what is embarrassing (weapon doesn't work as advertised, email exposes a political motive, etc).

madAsHell said...

When will the nation learn to understand that the Clintons are above the law?

I don't understand why we have to be reminded, and then do NOTHING about it. If they don't appoint a special prosecutor, then re-visiting the email server is just so much monkey spanking.

tim in vermont said...

It would have been interesting had Comey looked into why she destroyed her schedules of meetings with foreigners who gave her money, and BTW, probably emailed her we will never know, in State Department "burn bags." A clear criminal offense, which is why Comey never looked into it.

But the problem is internet commenters who keep bringing this up, amiright?

Original Mike said...

"There's a too-common tactic of classifying what is embarrassing..."

Well, that's what I'm thinking too. Can't see how it would be "classified", but it sure would cast a shadow on the motives of the Obama Justice Department.

mockturtle said...


I don't understand why we have to be reminded, and then do NOTHING about it. If they don't appoint a special prosecutor, then re-visiting the email server is just so much monkey spanking.


Precisely!

David said...

Either approach was potentially catastrophic. And who seeded the ground of the catastrophe? Hillary Clinton (with a nice assist from Dumb as Fuck John Podesta.)

Rene' Saunce said...

Clinton was under FBI investigation.

Media could have changed the outcome of the election by treating her like they would treat any Republican under FBI investigation. Force candidate to bow-out. Instead, media did what Paddy-O is talking about. (@10:23) Media never asked the correct ethical questions. Instead, media framed the investigation as if Comey and the FBI had no right to investigate her at all.

Bay Area Guy said...

Point of Parliamentary Procedure!

I would like to re-post my earlier comment in a different thread:

At some point, the 4th, 5th or 6th autopsy on a politically dead body yields no further useful information.

Hillary lost. She and her supporters (including media shills) should move on.

tim in vermont said...

Dumb as Fuck John Podesta.

He was smart enough to not tell anybody about his 75,000 shares of Russian Oligarchy stock, err, I mean GazProm.

Original Mike said...

Patrick Leahy was particularly shameless in blaming Clinton's loss on Comey.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buwaya puti said...

It's all politics, ethics does not apply. Everything, truth or lies, is simply ammunition.

tcrosse said...

Comey should know that nobody likes a snitch.

Sebastian said...

"Clinton’s reasons for using a private email server" As we now know, those reasons partly derived from her checking for loyalty in emails and server use by her flunkies on a prior campaign, giving the lie to her I-didn't-know protestations.

The Godfather said...

Comey was a model FBI Director and a saintly figure when he decided not to prosecute Hillary for her crimes. How far the great have fallen!

Hagar said...

I think Comey was facing internal revolt in the FBI and did what he did to keep that under wraps.
For the FBI, the Agency is what matters.

Nonapod said...

Ever since he refused to recommend pursuing criminal action against Hillary, I could only assume that Comey is either corrupt or hopelessly incompetent. If he doesn't respect rule of law, then he's corrupt. If he doesn't understand that what he did undermined the very notion of people being equal under the law, or under some misguided notion of "protecting the sanctity" a US presidential election he decided to put the needs of the powerful ahead of the law, then he's incompetent. I find it nauseating that this moron is still in a position of power at all.

mockturtle said...

Me, too, Nonapod. Did Comey ever answer the question about whether Hillary should be given security clearance if elected? He had already stated that anyone else who did what she did would not be eligible.

Francisco D said...

Original Mike asked: "Comey said he couldn't talk about that in public because it concerns "classified material". I'm trying to figure out what could be classified about such an email. Anybody know?"

My best guess is that Hillary's people were taking content off the State Department computers and putting it on her computer, via e-mail. (There was no direct access between servers). They were in the habit of deleting the designations for different levels of classified material. Thus, Hillary had classified material (some of it highly classified) on her server that was emailed to her.

Obama should have fired her and prosecuted her for breach of national security. By the time she resigned, the worst of the evidence was gone and the Democratic scandal machine revved up, once again, to defend the Clintons.

Rene' Saunce said...

Lets also not forget, as the media has, that Clinton Bleach-bitted her e-mails so they were not recoverable. That is why she got away with it.


you know, with a cloth - that had bleach on it.

Matthew Sablan said...

"My best guess is that Hillary's people were taking content off the State Department computers and putting it on her computer, via e-mail. (There was no direct access between servers)."

-- We know this to be true; we have an email from her telling her staff to remove the classification headers. We know that her maid frequently retrieved classified documents and brought them to her.

Matthew Sablan said...

Frankly, the fact that Abedin did not hand over Weiner's laptop, in almost any other criminal investigation, would have been perjury or obstruction. The fact they got to walk away is... very generous of the FBI.

Drago said...

Rene' Saunce: "Lets also not forget, as the media has, that Clinton Bleach-bitted her e-mails so they were not recoverable. That is why she got away with it"

Whoa!

Slow down there Tiger.

"lifelong republican" Chuckie is not going to like you offering up substantive criticism of Hillary or any dem while Trump remains in office.

Consider this fair warning.

Richard Dolan said...

"Nauseous... catastrophic... highly emotive words, carefully chosen."

He wants to convince us that Hillary! managed to lose all on her own. Many don't need much convincing. Team Hillary! is not convincible.

What's curious is that anyone expects this to matter beyond the very short-term. Trump is doing his thing, and there's no upside in trying to pretend that Dems can succeed in the 'don't normalize and don't legitimize' him stuff. And the Dems are moving sharply away from the cautious and inauthentic approach to politics that they now think Hillary! personified. The Repubs and Team Trump are mostly just enjoying the show and wishing against hope that Hillary! will somehow manage to keep herself in the limelight.

Amazing bit of political stupidity by the Dems in letting this story keep bubbling up to the front pages.

Bad Lieutenant said...

"lifelong republican" Chuckie is not going to like you offering up substantive criticism of Hillary or any dem while Trump remains in office.

Consider this fair warning.

5/3/17, 11:32 AM

Don't worry Drago, Chuck is busy taking notes on the cocksucker, I mean cock holster thread.

Original Mike said...

Man, Comey's refusing to answer all sorts of questions. Grassley's getting pissed.

Inga said...

"Clinton was under FBI investigation."

Trump was also under FBI investigation at the same time Clinton was, just week's before the election, he still is. If Comey decided to notify Congress of the active investigation of Hillary, he should've also notified Congress of the active investigation of Trump/ associates at the same time.

Bruce Hayden said...

In Comey's defense, the Obama/Lynch DoJ was not going to prosecute Crooked Hillary if they could help doing so in any way. We all, of course, knew that, but still hoped, deep down, that justice would be done. Wasn't going to happen. Not under either one of them. Normally, this sort of criminal investigation would roll up the underlings, flipping them along the way, until they got to the top. But, instead, the DoJ gave immunity to all the underlings that they were supposed to be pressuring. These minions had, also, violated both the Espionage Act and the Official Records Act, and should have faced prison time if they didn't cooperate with the Feds. And, the Feds got diddly squat from these minions in trade for giving them immunity. All that immunity did was protect them, and their boss, if by some stroke of luck, the Republicans won the election. Which, of course happened. There were probably a dozen things along the way where the DoJ either did something they shouldn't, or didn't do something that they should have if they had been looking for justice. Heck, it came out eventually that the White House knew, all along, that Clinton was wantonly and intentionally violating both these laws, and did nothing about it.

My belief is that Crooked Hillary has no room to gripe about how Comey handled the criminal mess that her paranoia caused. If it cost her the Presidency, then good - she paid some price for her blatant and intentional violation of these laws. If she had been anyone else, having committed the number of felonies she admitted committing (among the thousands more that she very clearly appeared to have committed), she would have spent the rest of her natural lifetime in prison, and probably the next several, if there is such a thing as reincarnation. Anyone else. Not getting to move back into the White House so that she could terrorize the staff there again is a minuscule price to have paid for her crimes.

traditionalguy said...

Congress is SOL. The FBI has always has survived and survived and survived, primarily as a Black Mail Operation holding secret info over the DC swamp creatures.

Rule #1: Once you disclose what you threatened to disclose, it is too late to Black Mail anyone

Matthew Sablan said...

"If Comey decided to notify Congress of the active investigation of Hillary, he should've also notified Congress of the active investigation of Trump/ associates at the same time."

-- He did. That's how we got all those leaks about golden showers and dossiers.

Original Mike said...

"Not getting to move back into the White House so that she could terrorize the staff there again is a minuscule price to have paid for her crimes."

Amen.

Big Mike said...

What bothers me most about Hillary's Email server is the way she was allowed to get away with her "I'm just a woman; I don't know about this computer stuff." That's part of your female privilege, Althouse -- the ease with which you and other women let females get away with playing dumb when it's convenient.

Inga said...

"-- He did. That's how we got all those leaks about golden showers and dossiers."

No he did not inform Congress just 11 days before the election that the FBI was also investigating Trump and Associates.

tim in vermont said...

Well Unknown Troll, who is to blame? Hillary for skating the line of the law, crossing it, and putting the FBI in this position, or the FBI for not knuckling under to the pressure of the Clinton machine, the way Justice did?

It's an honest question.

tim in vermont said...

If only Hillary could be allowed to completely disregard the law in peace! In the words of Debbie Wasserman Shultz, everybody should just MYOB!

Inga said...

If Trump and associates colluded with Russia it's a far worse crime than Clinton having a private email server. Get your head out of Trump's ass. Why did Trump and associates make the FBI investigate them??

tim in vermont said...

Comey admitted that she broke the law, but said he couldn't prosecute due to "mens Rea," due to the fact that she was too ignorant to know she had broken the law! Secretary of Fucking State, in line for the presidency, ignorant of the laws governing her actions in her job! But it's the FBI's fault!

Run her again, get eight years of Trump. Are you feeling luck troll?

Inga said...

"If only Hillary could be allowed to completely disregard the law in peace! In the words of Debbie Wasserman Shultz, everybody should just MYOB!"

If only Trump could commit treason and no one should judge him!

tim in vermont said...

If Trump and associates colluded with Russia it's a far worse crime than Clinton having a private email server.

Keep hope alive! It's just an accusation used to cover an abuse of power by the Obama administration at this point. Based on less than nothing.

Matthew Sablan said...

"No he did not inform Congress just 11 days before the election that the FBI was also investigating Trump and Associates."

-- What are you talking about? In the summer and fall of 2016 we knew the FBI was investigating Trump's potential ties to Russia. We were told about it non-stop from October to November. Left-leaning commentators, on this blog, were telling us this thing.

tim in vermont said...

So far we have only one of the two candidates who took tens of millions of dollars from the Russians and did them high value favors, like killing Keystone and getting Uranium One through, and it wasn't Trump.

Matthew Sablan said...

"If Trump and associates colluded with Russia it's a far worse crime than Clinton having a private email server."

-- If Pizza Gate is true, it is a far worse crime than a private email server.

So. Yeah. I guess if terrible things are true, they may be worse than things that are true. I try to live in what the left used to call a "fact-based reality," though. Not a conspiracy fever dream.

Inga said...

Treason, doesn't mean a damn thing to Trumpists. Hang your heads in shame.

furious_a said...

Media never asked the correct ethical questions. Instead, media framed the investigation as...

"Republicans Pounce!"

That's how they frame it!

madAsHell said...

“Somehow, her emails were being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information,” Comey said, adding later, “His then-spouse Huma Abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him for him to print out for her so she could deliver them to the secretary of state.”

Somehow?? The FBI can only produce a somehow??

You're not dealing with a genius master criminal. The email headers are there. The somehow is easily illuminated.

I don't understand why she would forward them to a documented fuck-up like Weiner. Sure, I understand keeping a Pearl Harbor file, a keep-my-ass-out-of-jail file, but there are so many better ways to manage such documentation.

My only conclusion.....these people are completely incompetent, and it makes me wonder what happened to Seth Rich.

tim in vermont said...

Why would Putin want a "drill baby drill" Republican in power when Hillary was the one who was impeding US, and North America's generally, energy development? Russia is first and foremost a petro-state. Why do they want downward pressure on the price of their one resource from the US?

I would love to hear a. theory as to why Putin would sell out GazProm, Russia's energy giant in which Podesta held 75,000 shares, to put in a guy who is going to go balls to the wall on US energy development?

Inga said...

Matthew, the FBI had good reason to investigate Trump and associates collusion with Russia, which they are STILL doing as we speak. I didn't hear that any Pizzagate investigation warranted an FBI investigations. See the difference?

Drago said...

Inga: "Matthew, the FBI had good reason to investigate Trump and associates collusion with Russia, which they are STILL doing as we speak."

LOL

Original Mike said...

"Treason, doesn't mean a damn thing to Trumpists. Hang your heads in shame."

Did I miss a news report or something?

furious_a said...

The 1950s called Inga and asked for their Red Scare back.

tim in vermont said...

Unfounded accusations oftreason, doesn't mean a damn thing to Trumpists. Hang your heads in shame

Fixed it for you.

tim in vermont said...

I get it, it's a long term "Drain America First" play by the Russians! Once we have sold all of ours, they will have the market to themselves and really clean up!

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
furious_a said...

"Matthew, the FBI had good reason to investigate Trump and associates collusion with Russia, which they are STILL doing as we speak."

Sid Blumental and the TMZ Gang are compiling a bought-and-paid-for "dossier" as we speak.

So far what we've learned is that Russian hotel rooms do indeed have beds.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

Unknown, Keep hope alive!

Drago said...

Inga: "Treason, doesn't mean a damn thing to Trumpists."

Red Queen Inga: First the verdict and then the trial!!

LOL

Just listened to AlFranken assert that Roger Stone was colluding with Guccifer2.0 via twitter publicly!!

Thats some secret conspiracy!

Whats most amusing is to watch which of the crazy lefties/"lifelong republicans" are still clinging to this non-existent reed. The vast bulk of dems have thought better of this and have "moved on" a bit so as to avoid the inevitable fallout.

tim in vermont said...

Basically, the American People had no right to know the truth about Hillary. It is the job of the press to tell us what we can and cannot know! It's right there in the Constitution!

Matthew Sablan said...

What has Trump done regarding Russia that is more suspicious than Podesta/Clinton, or Obama's promises of flexibility?

If you believe Trump is a traitor -- how do you NOT think the others are?

Drago said...

Original Mike: "Did I miss a news report or something?"

Nope.

Inga is off the reservation (sorry Tomahawk Liz Warren!) and is running wild.

Her spittle-flecked fever dream is currently in complete control of her psyche.

furious_a said...

Inga's really wetting the bed about Russia. Get it -- wetting the bed? :-D

Drago said...

Mathew Sablan: "If you believe Trump is a traitor -- how do you NOT think the others are?"

Why would you bother spending even a moments time attempting to reason a lunatic out of their mindlessly adopted viewpoint?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Treason, doesn't mean a damn thing to Trumpists. Hang your heads in shame."

Treason? Do you mean like this, Inga:

"Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Oh, but "it's OK when we do it."

You still have no hard evidence whatsoever. But keep hanging your pussy hat on your stupid Russia theory.

Your hat doesn't cover your hypocrisy.

Drago said...

furious_a: "Inga's really wetting the bed about Russia. Get it -- wetting the bed? :-D"

Yes, she appears to be quite "hooked" on that!

Original Mike said...

Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conduct government business, including classified material, on her personal email server? Yes.

Did Donald Trump collude with the Russians to gain advantage in the Presidential campaign? At this time we, the public, have no knowledge that he did.

MadisonMan said...

it makes me wonder what happened to Seth Rich.

Hillary's campaign was trying to kill someone else and they screwed that up too?

I think Rich was the victim of an armed robbery. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. I'm sorry for his parents.

Drago said...

exiled: "You still have no hard evidence whatsoever."

There is no hard evidence.

There is no soft evidence.

There is no evidence.

The reason for that is simple: it didn't happen.

But Inga, the "lifelong republicans" and other lefty crazies NEED for it to be true and by gosh they are going to keep pushing this story for all its worth.

Otherwise, reality would have to be dealt with, and lets face it, reality "ain't" in the lefty/"lifelong republican" wheelhouse.

furious_a said...

UP NEXT: Inga's going to blow us away with a hot Trump take from Perez Hilton.

Francisco D said...

Inga said: If only Trump could commit treason and no one should judge him!"

Conspiracy theories are the last refuge of the increasingly desperate and unhinged.

furious_a said...

Inga's Pussy Hat is squeezing her brain.

Infinite Monkeys said...

Came to see how long it would take a pedant to say it should have been "nauseated", was not disappointed. (I don't think it's prudishly pedantic, though.)

tim in vermont said...

Pussy hat kegels!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Ah, but Drago, you must remember what PB said the other day - that there were Russian operatives running amuck in Michigan and Wisconsin during the campaign. They jumped Inga and tried to feed her the Magic Borscht which would have made her march into the polls with a MAGA hat on and cast her vote for Trump, but yet, she resisted.

They had an easier time with me. But it took more than borscht. I held out for some Uranium One stock too. I'm not cheap.

Big Mike said...

@MadMan, if Seth Rich died in a robbery gone wrong, then why didn't the robber(s) take his wallet or watch or cell phone?

Drago said...

Inga: "I didn't hear that any Pizzagate investigation warranted an FBI investigations. See the difference?"

Sure.

Pizza. Not pizza.

Easy.

Francisco D said...

From a blog regarding Comey's just concluded testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee:

" He also says he stands by his testimony that there was no surveillance of the Trump campaign."

Inga and other moonbeams most deeply affected.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

How easy it would have been for Hillary to avoid all this anguish. All she needed to do was to comply with federal law.

Rick said...

Inga said...
If Trump and associates colluded with Russia it's a far worse crime than Clinton having a private email server.


It seems there's a key word in this sentence left wingers use but don't actually understand.

Psst: it's the first one.

Francisco D said...

"I held out for some Uranium One stock too. I'm not cheap."

All I got (here in Iowa) was some sort of nasty stew and all the cheap vodka I could drink. It tasted like squirrel with a little moose meat tossed in for flavoring. The Russkies must have thought they had Iowa all sewn up.

Matthew Sablan said...

"@MadMan, if Seth Rich died in a robbery gone wrong, then why didn't the robber(s) take his wallet or watch or cell phone?"

-- The easiest answer is panic; the robber didn't plan to be a murderer. It's suspicious, but I'm willing to go with the most likely solution instead of the more conspiratorial one.

Original Mike said...

Sure would like to more about the email stating Lynch would not let the Clinton investigation go "too far".

Mike said...

IF the Hillabeast had not circumvented the law and Obama policy with her illegal server, AND her closest aid, the muslim sisterhood Huma had not illegally sent her husband classified documents to further that work-around, THEN the whole I'm with Her might have had a smoother go of it. For certain there would have been no Comey news conferences to uh "interrupt" her scheduled coronation.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga and other moonbeams most deeply affected.

5/3/17, 12:59 PM

Not for long. She loves this Russian story far too much to let a small thing like Comey's testimony get in the way.

You gotta admit, it's much more fun than "We lost because Hillary is a revolting human being and the Democrat party is completely out of touch with Americans who live outside their little blue islands."

exiledonmainstreet said...

Should have bargained harder, Francisco D. Make the Rooskies work for your vote next time!

Original Mike said...

Huma had a regular practice of sending Hillary's emails to Weiner to print out, including classified material. Why hasn't Huma been indicted?

FullMoon said...

Inga said...

Matthew, the FBI had good reason to investigate Trump and associates collusion with Russia, which they are STILL doing as we speak. I didn't hear that any Pizzagate investigation warranted an FBI investigations. See the difference?
5/3/17, 12:35 PM


The FBI is investigating Pizzagate. You have not heard of it because it is a secret investigation, and classified, duh!

exiledonmainstreet said...

"It seems there's a key word in this sentence left wingers use but don't actually understand.

Psst: it's the first one. "

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride and the Imperial Pantsuit would be in the Oval Office right now.

furious_a said...

Q: Why does Vladmimir Putin prefer reading New York Times over Izvestia?

A: Because the former constantly reminds him that he has remote control over America's voting machines.

There is no 'Izvestia' in 'Pravda' and there is no 'Pravda' in 'Izvestia'. -- form Soviet Union humor

Nonapod said...

Original Mike said...

Huma had a regular practice of sending Hillary's emails to Weiner to print out, including classified material. Why hasn't Huma been indicted?


Clearly because most laws don't apply to the Clintons and their various household retainers. Laws are for the simple rabble, the unwashed masses. Laws are not for those under the divine beneficent protection of the great Queen of Pantsuits.

Anthony said...

I've actually lost all sense of trust in any part of the Federal government after this. This is just plain old Banana Republic crap. The MSM is Pravda in all but name. Corrupt from top to bottom.

Matthew Sablan said...

Whoa. Apparently the dossier company? Worked for Russia; extent unknown. And that dossier WAS used to get FISA warrants on people.

Nonapod said...

Matthew Sablan said...

Whoa. Apparently the dossier company? Worked for Russia; extent unknown. And that dossier WAS used to get FISA warrants on people.


If true, we may face a full on Narrative Inversion. Not only were the Russians not abetting Trump, but they were actually actively trying to hurt him? And where these actions at another party's behest?

Original Mike said...

@Matthew Sablan - IIRC, it was when Grassley was questioning Comey about Steele and the dossier company that Grassley got pissed with Comey's unresponsiveness. At one point he said something along the line of "You won't even tell me that? Ye God!"

Original Mike said...

Grassley was asking, among other things, about "other people" who were also paying the dossier company. We know that they were doing opposition research for Hillary.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"If true, we may face a full on Narrative Inversion."

If true, I predict MSM interest in this story will evaporate as quickly as raindrops in the Sahara.

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "Whoa. Apparently the dossier company? Worked for Russia; extent unknown. And that dossier WAS used to get FISA warrants on people."

This was hinted at quite some time ago, that the very (fake) basis used by the dems to justify their spying on Trump and associates during the campaign was itself a "dossier" provided by a Russian group.

If you are wondering why so many dems have sort of shut up about this entire investigation this would be one of several reasons.

The cannon fodder ground troops like Inga and "lifelong republican" Chuck haven't quite caught up yet but they will soon have to deal with that reality.

Drago said...

exiled: "If true, I predict MSM interest in this story will evaporate as quickly as raindrops in the Sahara."

Mirroring exactly the press reaction to the unmasking by obambi political operatives of the Trump campaign officials and the subsequent leaking of that information through the greatly expanded info sharing rules obambi promulgated at the very end of his lame duck period.

Unexpectedly.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Huma had a regular practice of sending Hillary's emails to Weiner to print out, including classified material. Why hasn't Huma been indicted?"

Immunity. Remember, the Lynch DoJ gave all of Crooked Hillary's closest minions immunity so that a Republican DoJ couldn't come in later and flip them. (I suspect that their stated reason was more that they did it to pursue leads, but could have done that more effectively by hanging multiple felony counts over their heads).

My theory is that the Clinton emails were on the Weiner family computer because it was mirroring Huma's main email account, probably using POP3, which doesn't attempt to synchronize email like IMAP does. Set up and forgotten, downloading her email day in and day out for years, and no one the wiser. I will admit to the same sin - I have one account on one iPad still using POP3, and have thousands of emails stored there, going back years. Moved everything else to POP3 for just this problem - I liked having the backup, and having to delete everything twice was fine as long as I had only two copies, but it became infeasible with the current six (PC, laptop, iPhone, 3 iPads).

Bob Ellison said...

I'm with MadisonMan on the word "nausea".

The modern American use of the term to mean "feeling like I'm about to vomit" is a misunderstanding of the word. "Nauseated" is correct.

We should teach word choice. Mark Twain wrote a lengthy piece on Fenimore Cooper that details, toward the end, the problem of word choice.

Rabel said...

Bruce Hayden wrote:

"My theory is that the Clinton emails were on the Weiner family computer because..."

No. Despite the "Somehow" wording in another statement, Comey made it clear today that Huma was forwarding the emails to Weiner "so that he could print them out."

We can question whether or not the last part of that is a true reflection of her motivation but they did not go to Weiner's computer due to an unintentional, technical process.


exhelodrvr1 said...

The total lack of evidence is because the Russians hacked into all the systems and destroyed all of it. Duh!!

Matthew Sablan said...

"No. Despite the "Somehow" wording in another statement, Comey made it clear today that Huma was forwarding the emails to Weiner "so that he could print them out.""

-- If any of it was classified, and Weiner doesn't have a clearance... that's a crime. Like, a no wiggle room sort of crime.

Matthew Sablan said...

Apparently, Huma didn't know this was illegal, and is getting a pass.

Part of getting a clearance is learning this stuff is illegal.

This... this is just embarrassing that she's not getting charged, while I've heard stories of people fired for forgetting to log when they open or closed a safe in a secure room.

Original Mike said...

"-- If any of it was classified, and Weiner doesn't have a clearance... that's a crime. Like, a no wiggle room sort of crime."

Comey was asked exactly that. His response to whether it was a crime was "maybe", Depends on Huma's motive.

This is ridiculous. We all know that if any one of us had done this we would have been nailed to the wall.

Matthew Sablan said...

... Also, to get secret/classified information to a computer that could email Weiner is a separate crime, in and of itself.

Original Mike said...

Comey was also asked if Weiner had read any of the classified emails he printed out. He said "No". I mean, come on.

Matthew Sablan said...

The maid, I'm sure, also did not read any of the emails Clinton had her pick up.

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "... Also, to get secret/classified information to a computer that could email Weiner is a separate crime, in and of itself."

In Humas and "Ant-neys" defense, it was their Russian body-doubles doing the forwarding and printing so there might not be any charges that stick.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Original Mike said...
Comey was also asked if Weiner had read any of the classified emails he printed out. He said "No". I mean, come on."

Well, maybe he didn't, if they contained no dirty talk and didn't have photos of 15 year old girls attached.

Rabel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rene' Saunce said...

Tapper:

Pretty damning comment by Comey about his view of the credibility of how DOJ was handling Clinton email investigation

Matthew Sablan said...

I don't see a defense for either of those two things. To get the classified information to an un-secure system, Abedin had to know it was secure, since she got it OFF the secure system. She had to know sending the information was illegal because... everyone who gets a clearance has that beat into their head.

Rabel said...

Accepting for the sake of argument that Comey's interpretation of intent as necessary for a crime to have been committed is legitimate, I can see two possible defenses for Huma;

1. She did not know the emails contained classified information.

2. She did not know that sending classified information as she did was illegal.

My question to Comey would be "Did you ask her about this and how did she respond?"

Rabel said...

Matthew, I clarified and reposted my 3:09 comment.

SukieTawdry said...

I've been mildly nauseous since the 2016 presidential campaign began. I'm still not over it.

madAsHell said...

Apparently, Huma didn't know this was illegal, and is getting a pass.

Wasn't she one of the people immunized from prosecution?

mockturtle said...

What? Ignorance of the law is a valid excuse?? I'll explain that to the state patrolman next time I'm pulled over. Gee, officer, I didn't know what the speed limit was.

Yancey Ward said...

I still think Comey went with a public statement in July of last year because of only one event- the tarmac meeting between President Clinton and Loretta Lynch. I believe that if that hadn't occurred, it is likely he would have simply passed on the evidence to Lynch and let her make a decision or not, whether she did so before or after the election. I think when Lynch got caught meeting Clinton (and I don't for second believe it was her only contact with the Clinton Campaign, just the only one we actually learned of), Comey decided to give Clinton a public pass on criminal charges, but took the time to lay out all the evidence because it was so damning.

After that press conference in July, Comey made a written promise to the Congressional oversight committee to update them if anything changed in regards to the e-mail investigation. Like it or not, things did change with the Weiner cache. I don't think Comey had any choice but to inform Congress, but I think it is possible that the DoJ tried to stop the FBI investigators in October from even looking at the new material, and that is what convinced him to keep that written promise.

Matthew Sablan said...

That is about what Comey says. In a different way, though. Also, the fbi only got Weiner's files by serendipity. Huma Abedin had lied to them and claimed she held nothing back. That alone should negate her immunity deal. But, she's rich and influential. The law is different for her.

MadisonMan said...

the tarmac meeting between President Clinton and Loretta Lynch.

Kudos belong to the local reporter who broke the news on that very shady and clandestine meeting. Give 'em a Pulitzer!

What if we relied on the WaPost, NYTimes, LATimes, etc., to report the important news?

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

You're probably right, Yancey, but laying out a clear-cut case and then not prosecuting only makes things worse. And pisses off people who see the lack of prosecution as evidence of a double standard.

Yancey Ward said...

Mockturtle,

Prosecuting isn't his decision to make. I think he literally knew no one was going to take the case to court because it was Hillary Clinton and not Hillary Smith. Given the public disclosure of Lynch's meeting, he was in a tough spot- be forever complicit in a political fix by saying nothing at all before the election (you can be sure that the DoJ, even if they had publicly stated they weren't bringing a case, would never let you see the evidence), or he could do what he did and at least let the public see the evidence against her. Not an easy decision to make.

However, the decision in October is much easier in my opinion- written promises to Congress should be kept- I bet he never really expected have a reason to do so.

cubanbob said...

Rabel said...
Accepting for the sake of argument that Comey's interpretation of intent as necessary for a crime to have been committed is legitimate, I can see two possible defenses for Huma;

1. She did not know the emails contained classified information.

2. She did not know that sending classified information as she did was illegal.

My question to Comey would be "Did you ask her about this and how did she respond?""

How much of a rube does one have to be to believe a former first lady, a former US Senator and a then Secretary of State had no clue on what is and isn't classified information? Besides what justification did she again with her background even have to create and store public records on her server out of the reach of record and freedom of information laws. Comey himself needs to be subject to an investigation by a special prosecutor along with Lynch and the Clinton's and no doubt Obama is up to his eyeballs in this as well.

cubanbob said...

Yancey Ward said...
Mockturtle,

Prosecuting isn't his decision to make. I think he literally knew no one was going to take the case to court because it was Hillary Clinton and not Hillary Smith. Given the public disclosure of Lynch's meeting, he was in a tough spot- be forever complicit in a political fix by saying nothing at all before the election (you can be sure that the DoJ, even if they had publicly stated they weren't bringing a case, would never let you see the evidence), or he could do what he did and at least let the public see the evidence against her. Not an easy decision to make.

However, the decision in October is much easier in my opinion- written promises to Congress should be kept- I bet he never really expected have a reason to do so."

Prosecuting wasn't in his scope of authority. Making a judicial determination on the law's requirement of intent wasn't in his scope of authority. Making a criminal referral to the Attorney General was. And he laid out the case for doing so then he derelict ed his duty.

tim in vermont said...

How much of a rube does one have to be to believe a former first lady, a former US Senator and a then Secretary of State had no clue on what is and isn't classified information?

Were it true, she was utterly unqualified to be in any leadership position in the government, let alone the presidency. Hell, she was unqualified for a followership role.

tcrosse said...

Were it true, she was utterly unqualified to be in any leadership position in the government, let alone the presidency. Hell, she was unqualified for a followership role.

Yes, she was. Because vagina.

Drago said...

The "good news" is that Susan Rice is courageously refusing to appear to testify under oath before the Senate.

mockturtle said...

Yancey argues: Prosecuting isn't his decision to make. I think he literally knew no one was going to take the case to court because it was Hillary Clinton and not Hillary Smith. Given the public disclosure of Lynch's meeting, he was in a tough spot- be forever complicit in a political fix by saying nothing at all before the election (you can be sure that the DoJ, even if they had publicly stated they weren't bringing a case, would never let you see the evidence), or he could do what he did and at least let the public see the evidence against her. Not an easy decision to make.

My point was not that the FBI Director has prosecutorial power but wonder why, since he knew Lynch wouldn't prosecute, and that he would not recommend it, he chose to proceed. I watched all of the hearings and it was a slam-dunk.

mockturtle said...

And I heard Comey say at the hearings that he would not recommend prosecution.

Drago said...

mockturtle: "And I heard Comey say at the hearings that he would not recommend prosecution"

I believe that will be Rod Rosensteins decision when the time comes, unless the immunity cover given to the Clinton Clan was so complete none of them are in any danger.

Known Unknown said...

Treason, doesn't mean a damn thing to Trumpists. Hang your heads in shame

Please put forth actual evidence. If you have no legitimate evidence, then shut up about it.

tim in vermont said...

Listen to Frankin talk about the "web of patronage" that supposedly ensnared Trump, when Hillary is on record to have taken tens of millions of dollars from Russians and has done them huge favors.

Navy8r said...

Comey's a drama queen. (Perhaps it goes with the job title.)

BillyTalley said...

He felt nauseous. He had feelings. We should care, he implies.

mockturtle said...

Comey's a drama queen.

Comey was definitely not cool under fire yesterday. An FBI director should be. Very.