Will Comey be prosecuted under the Hatch Act?

[rickb]

Or is it illegal to interfere in elections only if your side loses?

Comey knew his announcement that the FBI was looking at additional emails would be used for partisan purposes. It then was used for partisan purposes: wildly distorted by Fox ("indictment coming soon"), repeated by the MSM, and then loudly proclaimed by Trump for the entire week before the election ("she's going to be locked up" ....). This changed the entire tone of the election coverage away from what a demonstrably despicable excuse for a human being Trump is (which certainly seems to be truth), to what a vile criminal Hillary is (which seems to be nothing but a BIG LIE).

Comey's statement more than a week later (the Sunday before the election) that there was nothing of interest in the additional emails was pretty much overlooked in the press, and by that point the damage had been done.

Is the bottom line here that it's OK to rig an election if you win?

[Tyler]

Is the bottom line here that it's OK to rig an election if you win?

Of all the potential examples of election rigging this year (ask Sanders about that), Comey informing Congress of factually true information pertinent to a federal investigation is way down on the list.

[rickb]

Is the bottom line here that it's OK to rig an election if you win?

Of all the potential examples of election rigging this year (ask Sanders about that), Comey informing Congress of factually true information pertinent to a federal investigation is way down on the list.

You don't think he was deliberately trying to influence the election? Or you don't think what he did actually ended up influencing the election?

I think the answer is a definite yes on both counts.

[Tyler]

Oh, the decision absolutely influenced the election. I just think the idea that his actions are criminal is ridiculous. Hillary's actions put him in an impossible position where any action -- factually reporting an ongoing criminal investigation or clearing her twice -- could be interpreted as influencing the election by one side or another. If Hillary is upset about having her emails in the news, the only person to blame is herself.

my hunch is he was trapped in the middle, the FBI had plenty of evidence to prosecute in the first place, and pressure from the agents investigating and FBI standards to do so, he also had pressure from above to let her off... so he let her off... when even more evidence presented itself ...he was screwed.... he had to notify people it was being looked at, the story was going to come out no matter what, but he was still under whatever back-room agreement he had made to let her off..

[clacy]

I would say it's far more likely that Lynch is prosecuted for subverting justice.

[MachineGhost]

(which certainly seems to be truth), to what a vile criminal Hillary is (which seems to be nothing but a BIG LIE).

Are you Reub from an mirror universe? Are you at/under 35? Let's view some of the scandals of the esteemed Clinton family:

Foundationgate (Ongoing)
Emailgate (2015)
Benghazigate (2013)
Ponzigate (2008)
Lootergate (2001)
Pardongate (2001)
Filegate (1998)
Monicagate (Late 1990's)
Chinagate (1996)
Drugdealergate (1996)
Troopergate (1994)
Hairgate (1993)
Fostergate (1993)
Travelgate (1993)
Bimbogate (1992)
Whitewatergate (1980's)
Commoditygate (Late 1970's) (I really love this one... she turned $1K into $100K in just 10 months with no futures trading experience. At all.)

I won't mention Bodygate because that doesn't seem to have panned out with any veracity according to the lamestream media.

So, do you seriously think a person is a "vile criminal" only if they're first indicted and sentenced??? There's very valid reasons President Clinton came to garner a reputation in insider political circles of being nicknamed "Slick Willie" and why I call his wife "Slick Hilly". She's demonstrated she is Teflon just as he is.

But no, it's not okay to rig an election if you win. But the Clintons appear to think so (see 1992 and their alleged ringer Perot).

[MachineGhost]

No mystery about Comey -- he had to release the news before the insurrecting agents leaked it. It was a coincidence of bad timing but it would have been far better for the FBI's sinking credibility not to release it after the election. I don't think rickb fully understands how pissed off and angry the FBI body politic is at upper management, i.e. Comey, Lynch and Obama. Slick Hilly would have been indicted and thrown in prison for decades if she was anyone else. Puppet torchbearers always get a pass it seems.

[rickb]

(which certainly seems to be truth), to what a vile criminal Hillary is (which seems to be nothing but a BIG LIE).

Are you Reub from an mirror universe? Are you at/under 35? Let's view some of the scandals of the esteemed Clinton family:

Foundationgate (Ongoing)
Emailgate (2015)
Benghazigate (2013)
Ponzigate (2008)
Lootergate (2001)
Pardongate (2001)
Filegate (1998)
Monicagate (Late 1990's)
Chinagate (1996)
Drugdealergate (1996)
Troopergate (1994)
Hairgate (1993)
Fostergate (1993)
Travelgate (1993)
Bimbogate (1992)
Whitewatergate (1980's)
Commoditygate (Late 1970's) (I really love this one... she turned $1K into $100K in just 10 months with no futures trading experience. At all.)

I won't mention Bodygate because that doesn't seem to have panned out with any veracity according to the lamestream media.

So, do you seriously think a person is a "vile criminal" only if they're first indicted and sentenced??? There's very valid reasons President Clinton came to garner a reputation in political circles of being nicknamed "Slick Willie" and I call his wife "Slick Hilly".

Oh please. Most of these have nothing to do with Hillary, and if there was any there there with any of them she would have been already been indicted. The right-wing propaganda machine (Fox News) has repeated "Hillary is corrupt" so many times that any Fox News watcher sincerely believes it to be true - no evidence required.

This thread is actually about "emailgate". What is the crime she is alleged to have committed here? My understanding is she violated State Department policy by using her own email address (and server) for non-confidential work related email (as did Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice). An extremely hostile FBI investigated for over a year and found no reason to prosecute. On a corruption / criminal scale from 1-10, this is basically a 0.

Compare this to the Bush White House Email Controversy. Bush knowingly, deliberately violated the Presidential Records Act (law, not policy) by using private email addresses provided by the RNC, and deleted 22 million emails from/to a variety of White House staff after they were requested by Congress to explicitly hamper ongoing Congressional investigations. On a corruption / criminal scale from 1-10, this is more like a 9.

The Republican claim that Hillary is the most corrupt politician ever is quite simply hilarious. And, in this election, the appropriate comparison is to Donald Trump. Let's see:
* he's a serial sexual predator
* he's almost certainly a tax cheat
* he has more shady business dealings than you can shake a stick at (Trump U, stiffing contractors, stiffing investors, etc etc)
* he clearly, repeatedly illegally used funds donated to the Trump Foundation for his own personal benefit
* he raped his first wife Ivana (in their divorce proceedings she initially used the word "rape" but later "softened" it to "felt violated" - which in my book is a synonym for rape)
* he was accused by a woman of raping her when she was 13 years old (who even now, 20 years later, is too terrified to publicly come forward about it because of threats against her even though [she says] there were two witnesses)

If your criteria for voting were least corrupt / criminal, the choice was entirely obvious (i.e. not Trump).

BTW - I'm over 60.

[rickb]

It's amazing that Hillary supporters can be so blind to her misdeeds. I am not a Republican [nor Democrat] but I voted for Trump with eyes wide open as to who he is.

Regardless, it's nice to have another view besides the usual echo chamber.

She wasn't running for sainthood. And, I'm not saying she's squeaky clean. What I am saying is that there's literally no comparison between her misdeeds and Trump's. We're really talking about character here. On balance, I believe she's a goodTM person - whereas he's not.

[Pointedstick]

Why are we still talking about Hillary Clinton? She lost the election. Does anyone care about Mitt Romney anymore?

As to the question in this thread's title, the obvious answer is, "no, duh." What incentive would Trump have to to use his justice department to prosecute the guy who helped hand him the election? And what incentive would outgoing lame duck Obama have to tarnish his still-very-popular legacy by mean-spiritedly going after Comey? It's not like it would reverse the election results, even if in some bizarro universe Comey was convicted. What's the point?

Always consider the Realpolitik. Laws are always selectively enforced, especially among top players in the government itself. I get that you're mad, rickb, but what you're fantasizing about has no upsides to anyone in reality. It only feels good in your mind because you're spiteful and angry and want to hurt someone over what happened.

[MachineGhost]

She wasn't running for sainthood. And, I'm not saying she's squeaky clean. What I am saying is that there's literally no comparison between her misdeeds and Trump's. We're really talking about character here. On balance, I believe she's a goodTM person - whereas he's not.

Okay, if you don't think she's a career criminal despite decades of evidence (and I pay no attention to Faux News or Republican politics), her chosen and still ongoing association with a known serial rapist and pedophile (hint: It's not Trump) reflects that she is clearly unfit for office because she has chronically, terribly, utterly, bad and incompetent judgement as her recent scandals illustrate, nonwithstanding that there was clearly classified-at-the-time information on her server and on Huma's (who also has bad judgement but she severed that tie, smartly) laptop. Lesser people than in her position are currently serving long prison terms for doing less. That it was decided she was not to be indicted doesn't mean she's in the clear and not a criminal. Just because she's a woman and you fall for her public poker game face doesn't mean she's really a good person.

I voted for Trump not because of his personal failings which are downright appalling, but because he's the lesser of two evils and I believe applying common sense, free market principles are what the country needs to become great again, not more statist overregulation and unintended consequences formented by ignoramuses who leave it to someone else to clean up their mess. Democrats generally have ZERO economic sense, ZERO sense of behavioral finance, literally ZERO clue about how the real world really works, not just in business and economics but also about their religious Big Government ideology.

BTW, I consider Bush to be a criminal too, especially a war criminal. Him being dumb and manipulated by Cheney is no excuse any more than Hitler's henchmen could use such.

You familiar with that phrase: the road to hell is paved with good intentions? That fits Slick Hilly to a T. And that assumes she actually is a good person rather than a self-centered, selfish, greedy Baby Boomer, corrupt careerist political bitch that went from "broke" to a multi-millionaire in no time flat using a beyond corrupt foundation that screwed over poor Haitians. Even Bob Woodward of Deep Throat fame thinks so. He would know.

She lost. Get over it. Watch Trump like a hawk and vote his ass out if he doesn't make good on any of his promises to drain the swamp.

[clacy]

It's amazing that Hillary supporters can be so blind to her misdeeds. I am not a Republican [nor Democrat] but I voted for Trump with eyes wide open as to who he is.

Regardless, it's nice to have another view besides the usual echo chamber.

She wasn't running for sainthood. And, I'm not saying she's squeaky clean. What I am saying is that there's literally no comparison between her misdeeds and Trump's. We're really talking about character here. On balance, I believe she's a goodTM person - whereas he's not.

The Clinton's sold their power and influence for hundreds of millions of dollars. They are dirty, dirty people, because they did it under the guise of public service.

[I Shrugged]

Amen. The Clinton Foundation would have brought down Hillary's presidency, IMO.

[rickb]

Why are we still talking about Hillary Clinton? She lost the election. Does anyone care about Mitt Romney anymore?

As to the question in this thread's title, the obvious answer is, "no, duh." What incentive would Trump have to to use his justice department to prosecute the guy who helped hand him the election? And what incentive would outgoing lame duck Obama have to tarnish his still-very-popular legacy by mean-spiritedly going after Comey? It's not like it would reverse the election results, even if in some bizarro universe Comey was convicted. What's the point?

Always consider the Realpolitik. Laws are always selectively enforced, especially among top players in the government itself. I get that you're mad, rickb, but what you're fantasizing about has no upsides to anyone in reality. It only feels good in your mind because you're spiteful and angry and want to hurt someone over what happened.

So, your answer is that you can do anything you want as long as your side wins.

Got it.

I would never condone violence, but I've heard a "Republican style" response to sitting on the Merrick Garland nomination for a year might be to assassinate whoever the heck Trump ends up getting on the Supreme Court the next time there's a Dem POTUS (and, apparently, Senate). I mean, if anything is OK as long as you win - why not?

My point is that if we're a country of laws, laws should matter. Comey knew what he was doing. It's against the law. How can anyone (even "us centrists/moderates/libertarians ... unbiased to either political ideology") think it's OK for him to get away with this?

I'm sorry, but you're either principled or you're not.

[Pointedstick]

So, your answer is that you can do anything you want as long as your side wins.

Got it.

We are talking about politics here. Yes. That's how it works. When one side wins, they do everything they feel they can get away with. It's a razor's edge; go too far and the backlash can be intense. But generally, yes, that's how things work in the real world. Forget your ideas of how things should work. This is reality we're discussing. In reality, government employees who have committed criminal acts go unpunished if they are in high enough places or if doing so could undermine something important. Welcome to Earth.

You are falling into the same trap that libertarians fall into: seeking a source of truth and consistency you can rely on that will prevent you from sinking into depression and nihilism. In this case you are struggling with the notion that selective application of law undermines the moral justification for civilized society. I've been there. I've felt what you're feeling. I know what you're going through. And I want to help. I strongly recommend the following:

https://meaningness.com/preview-eternalism-and-nihilism
https://meaningness.com/stances-nature-toc
https://vividness.live/2015/10/12/devel ... ompetence/

This man's writings have helped me learn to calm my mind to a degree I never thought possible two years ago.

[rickb]

So, your answer is that you can do anything you want as long as your side wins.

Got it.

We are talking about politics here. Yes. That's how it works. When one side wins, they do everything they feel they can get away with. It's a razor's edge; go too far and the backlash can be intense. But generally, yes, that's how things work in the real world. Forget your ideas of how things should work. This is reality we're discussing. In reality, government employees who have committed criminal acts go unpunished if they are in high enough places or if doing so could undermine something important. Welcome to Earth.

You are falling into the same trap that libertarians fall into: seeking a source of truth and consistency you can rely on that will prevent you from sinking into depression and nihilism. In this case you are struggling with the notion that selective application of law undermines the moral justification for civilized society. I've been there. I've felt what you're feeling. I know what you're going through. And I want to help. I strongly recommend the following:

https://meaningness.com/preview-eternalism-and-nihilism
https://meaningness.com/stances-nature-toc
https://vividness.live/2015/10/12/devel ... ompetence/

This man's writings have helped me learn to calm my mind to a degree I never thought possible two years ago.

What Kegan stage would you say Trump is at? I'm thinking 2.

[MachineGhost]

My point is that if we're a country of laws, laws should matter. Comey knew what he was doing. It's against the law. How can anyone (even "us centrists/moderates/libertarians ... unbiased to either political ideology") think it's OK for him to get away with this?

I'm sorry, but you're either principled or you're not.

Neither side is principaled so its sort of pointless to worry about Comey breaking some law just because Slick Hilly wants to blame him for losing the election, which is typical behavior for those that refuse to acknowledge any self-blame. What about the laws Bush & Cheney broke? What about the laws Clintons broke? Regan? Carter? Nixon? Blahblahblahblah. Laws are only for the little people. And only if you get caught.

And whatever this Hatch Act is that Comey "should" be proseecuted under is like the pot calling the kettle black if it came from Slick Hilly's mouth. But hey, it takes one to know one, right?