NY Times: US Officials DOUBT Donald Trump has direct link to Russia

I dont think he had a choice. If he didn't NYPD would have came out with it, and FBI assumed that would be much worst than FBI coming forward with it. It was a calculated risk that can help mitigate the damage and further delay the investigation.

 

Imagine that, the Democratic National Committee putting a Democrat on the ticket. OUTRAGE!!!!

 

It was based on the findings of incomplete facts. More pertinent facts came in the form of evidence that had not been turned over as a witness had sworn to. He had strong evidence that a witness failed to turn over material documents as requested. The witness in question was the right hand person and hub of communications for the individual under investigation.

If Loretta Lynch hadn't gone against policy and clear direction, she could have handled this in the manner you are crying over. Lynch should have been fired on the spot for meeting with Bill Clinton like that.

 

Reading your last few posts tells me you definitely have an agenda.

 

I'm doubtful the NYPD would make a public statement. That would be suicidal for them. But even if the NYPD does go public, even in the form of a leak, not sure why it should matter to the FBI? The FBI can do their job without announcing what they are doing, as they often do. This is not an issue of what the FBI should investigate, but the way they announce it. After all, the FBI have stated that they would not comment on the Russian hack issue to not appear political.

I still don't see any good reason why you would go against established policy and tradition in this case. Just doesn't add up. But I will chalk it up as poor judgement for now..

 

Sure, but it was based on the known facts at the time.

And again, further investigation is fine and if new evidences show up, unless there are policy against it, why wouldn't you look into them? That's not the issue. The issue is with how it was announced.

As for the new device - too early to comment. There are more questions than answers about it at this time and your statement are assumptions at this point. I'm sure the FBI will find out why her emails is showing up on the device that supposedly belong to Weiner, not her.

 

1. If NYPD makes a statement or leaks, it will seem the FBI is withholding info.
2. IF FBI let it out themselves in a vague statement, it can leave room for plausible deniability.

You have to understand that Comey is out to save his butt now. ill advised as it is, this is how he went about it. Also, given all the hoopla lately what is the likely chance he actually gets charged with the Hatch act? Worst thing is he steps down.

 

Only way Comey keeps his job in 2017 is if Trump wins.

Conflict of Interest?

 

I'll admit I want what I want but wouldn't call it an agenda. I want Trump to lose, Hilary to win, but resign before she takes office so Kaine can take over. I want that because I put my country first not personal power and victory like Clinton and Trump do. They put themselves before the country and it disgusts me.

 

There's issue with how the whole investigation was conducted. As far as Comey, he was called in front Congress and asked to report back with new developments.

 

I think the conflict of interest began when he was made director of the FBI.

 

I thought about that and didn't think it would be an issue. FBI can said - we are aware and working on it. We don't comment on ongoing investigation. Quite a standard statement.

That's another explanation - him out to save his butt - that doesn't add up for me. Him following standard and policy is the normal course of action. If you mean saving his image among republican - ok, but then he's a big disappointment for worrying about what people said he should do, instead of doing his job without external influence.

The worse case to me is already happening. FBI is now partisan. Horrible for that to happen to such an agency.

 

Trump directly invited Russia to illegally obtain US government information as part of a live news conference.

 

SamBodine If you're referring to when Trump joked about the Russians hacking a server that was scrubbed clean and no longer online, you're gonna look stupid.

 

Trump directly invited Russia to illegally obtain US government information as part of a live news conference.

 

Or another possible explanation -- that he felt not saying something was having a distortive impact on the election because it was premature and incomplete, and gave voters the impression that the FBI is not concerned about the legality of Clinton's behavior when indeed they do still have some significant misgivings. That he's realizing now that the statements he made in June were a mistake and he's trying (clumsily) to fix them.

I understand the objection about impacting the election, but I also find the objection -- stop providing information to voters -- a little funny. Ideally (and Clinton did ask for this), there is more disclosure soon because this amount of disclosure is inadequate, but I like to have whatever information I can get. Maybe the difference is that, unlike apparently both Republican and Democrat, I don't think Comey is trying to bend the election one way or the other. I think he's trying to do the right thing but found he's painted himself into a corner.

As for his job security, I think he still has better hopes with Clinton than with Trump. I think Trump wants his own people (the best people) in these key jobs and won't care that he treads on the autonomy of the FBI to do it. Because the FBI Director has this (nonbinding) 10-year term, it looks particularly vindictive for Clinton to can him. She'll be able to if his credibility is in complete tatters 2 months from now, but otherwise it'll be a bit of black eye to terminate him early.

 

If Trump actually wins, he'd likely keep Comey since the FBI investigations would have been a major factor in him winning. Unless there is nothing in 65K e-mails that Huma allegedly has no idea how they got there, Hillary's in a world of **** for a while. Huma's in hiding so I'd speculate she has reason to worry about what is in those e-mails.

 

He joked????? Hahahahaha. You believe it was a joke? LOL

That was Trump's third attempt to explain his comments. If it was a joke why did he come out at first and say that he would hope the hackers would turn it over to the FBI. That comment came from a Trump tweet before he ever claimed he was joking. It was only after that revision didn't work that Trump came out and tried to claim it was a joke. Why would anyone believe that?

 

I believe it was a dumb comment to make. Joke, dumb comment what difference does it make? Trump does that all the time. That's why I don't want him as President. My point is that you can't invite someone to hack something that no longer exists.

 

But what kind of information are you providing, when you aren't providing anything other then, oh we have to look at these emails - we have no idea yet what we will find. It could be nothing. It come be something. If you don't know what it is, how can you speak? The FBI making a statement is powerful and will absolutely have an effect on the election. That's why there are policy to not make statement like this.

I find him being painted into a corner not convincing at all. The path for him was already open by history and all he have to do was to follow it. He chooses not to for whatever reason.

I doubt he's going to be asked to resign under Clinton. He might step down himself if there are internal issues due to this, or if something come up that show he was absolutely partisan. But if not, I think he's going to keep his job.