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

You make it sound like Huma's evading capture or something. She's not appearing in public, which is the obvious decision to make. As for Comey under Trump, Trump could just keep him on because the expectation is to keep the FBI director unless you have a compelling reason not to. You're saying instead he'll keep him on as a tit-for-tat, that Comey did Trump a political favor in return for job security. I don't think he was promised anything or coordinated with Trump (or even likes Trump) in any way. There's no reason for Trump to reward his loyalty if he wasn't motivated by loyalty. In fact, Comey inserting himself into this election would give Trump some good cover if he wanted to can Comey -- Republicans won't criticize their own guy, and Democrats will think Comey deserves getting fired anyway.

I can understand that, but Comey also moved the election when he 'cleared' Clinton in June. He can't help impacting the election. It's not his fault the FBI had to investigate a major party candidate. His choice now might even have been a mistake. But, the Clinton campaign would not have been subject to his involvement if not for choices Clinton had made. She skirted the rules for document handling. She willfully deleted emails that should have been discoverable. Now the FBI has to investigate. And the information is very pertinent to people's decision-making (why wasn't she transparent? why didn't she submit to the investigation? were those 33k emails really harmless wedding emails?). People will make irrational voting decisions because of this, though they were probably going to make irrational decisions anyway. There are emails Clinton had willfully hidden from Congress and law enforcement and after the June statement voters resigned themselves to never getting to the bottom of it. They'd pretty much talked themselves into voting for her despite her defiance. Now, there's hope again that we can find out the truth (however mundane). Sure it moves the election. But, for the worse? People were letting their confirmation bias inure them to the really big question mark of Clinton's candidacy. They were falling asleep at the switch and letting Clinton bury this concern even though she's taking the most important job in the country. Comey took the band aid off and let everyone feel afresh the uncertainty Clinton created with her subterfuges. Electorally, I think it's deserved. I don't think we should ignore the fact that Clinton tried so hard to not let anyone know about the business she conducted as a public servant.

For myself, I decided months ago that her behavior, especially the deleting of emails, would mean I would not vote for her. This new information -- that some of the unrecovered emails might now be recovered -- isn't very impactful for me because it was the deletions that upset me, not the unknown contents.

The Hatch Act is a good, sensible law. Comey may be guilty of breaking it, though we'd need an indictment to find out. What I really don't appreciate though is the campaign decision to control the damage by throwing Comey under the bus. They want to tell me I should ignore the fact that Clinton has resisted cooperating with an FBI investigation because Comey broke the Hatch Act? No. If Comey broke the law, Congress can impeach him. We can prosecute him. It's not a reason to forget about what Clinton did. I resent this messaging.

(None of this is to say that anyone should be voting for Trump, not vote for Clinton, that the two candidates are equally bad, or that this election is an insufferable farce. Trump is obviously a terrible choice for president and no one should be voting for him. I'm not voting for Clinton, but everybody else should (after some very sober reflection on the fact that she stonewalled Congress and destroyed evidence). If the FBI, with or without Comey, eventually finds something prosecutable in Weinergate, I'm sure they'll bring it, even if Clinton is president.)

 

Sure, but that was an actual investigation. I'll just quote what Obama said today.

 

Huma certainly has been nowhere to be seen or heard from other that the weak excuse from her lawyer. The excuse reminds of an officer pulling over a drug addict who has drugs all over his car and the drug addict claims he has no idea where the drugs came from. If HIllary's on the up and up and there's nothing in the e-mails, why would Huma need to hide out?

No, I'm just saying there's no reason to get rid of him and especially since he's doing the right thing now. Trump wouldn't can someone who rightfully exposed corruption. The benefit to Trump is just another reason he wouldn't can the guy but not the overriding one.

Republicans are criticizing Trump now and he's not in the kind of trouble Hillary is. Dem's should be outraged with Hillary for her crooked dealings but they just don't care.

 

If she is with the campaign, the press will hound on her. That's a distraction the campaign don't want now. It's common sense politic.

Your statement tell me how crazy bias you are. Are you voting for Trump?

 

I'm not surprised by this. I don't think that Trump is directly coordinating with Russia or with Wikileaks for that matter. I think this is a matter of a confluence of opponents of the Clintons with Russia seeing an opportunity to cause mischief in the US electorate along with getting a president who may be sympathetic to them.

 

Except Trump has said that if he was President Clinton would be in jail. How would he do that considering that the head of the FBI has previously cleared Clinton of charges? If Trump is serious about putting Clinton in jail he would have to have the FBI recommend charges and if they didn't then the only pressure he could put is to fire Comey.

Sure many Democrats are upset about Clinton that said compared to what Trump has and might done he's seen as far worse.

 

I just voted for Johnson about an hour ago. It was a vote against the Trump and Clinton. It certainly wasn't a vote for Johnson.

The Press should be hounding Hillary more than they are. I'm sure Huma could do a softball exclusive interview with CNN to drum up sympathy. She's not appearing anywhere so that she doesn't say something incriminating or contradictory of the facts, if the FBI has the goods on her.

 

He could work with Congress to appoint a special prosecutor. Comey's decision wouldn't have been definitive hadn't Lynch compromised the investigation meeting with Bill Clinton.

 

Huma wasn't really doing interviews or being the public face of the campaign ever. It isn't like anything really changed.

 

Glad you didn't vote for Trump.

Seriously dude. The most logical and simple reason why Huma isn't with the campaign is it's not a distraction they need. All the other "stories" in your head is "fooling" you. Set it aside and wait for the facts to come out.

 

Hillary thanks you for your vote.

 

She won't be thanking me for an electoral vote.

 

Enough facts came out before and she should have had charges brought against her then. The WikiLeaks revelations are adding additional evidence against her campaign. Either way, this and the foundation are going to dog Hillary for years to come.

Huma needs to be covering her own ass. She signed a document saying she turned over all documents which obviously didn't happen.

 

yea well except for the fact that everything has changed and yet she hasn't

 

She was a "distraction" with her husband taking dick picks and sending them to kids and she was still at events. What's changed is like her boss she is computer illiterate and screwed up Hillary's plot to deceive the FBI.

 

What? When her husband was doing his misdeeds that was on him, and had nothing to do with her. She wasn't a distraction.

 

I don't have any problem with what Obama said. I'd say the same thing that I said here though -- now that's it's in the public domain, voters should not discount the information because of how they got the information (to the extent they believe Comey was honest in his presentation of the facts). If Obama has a problem with how Comey acted, he's within his rights to fire him.

I'm not a card-carrying member or anything, but I'm usually voting for democrats and I've just spilt a lot of ink criticizing Hillary for this. You might be selective about who you are listening to.

She'll just say what has already been said -- she was unaware the emails were backed up on this device. I don't think she is in any legal jeopardy.

I'm sorry for my part of totally derailing this thread about Trump and Russia.

 

So Bill's personal and foundation conduct aren't a distraction to Hillary?

 

Will you accept the FBI finding after they completed their investigation? Or will you only accept it if someone is indicted?

 

You know the answer.... he has already said Clinton should have been indicted based on the first investigation.