FWIS3

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:21 pm**

Just days before the presidential election the FBI director James Comey releases a vague statement that they may have additional information about the Clinton Email controversy. And the now the part where it gets even weirder. He doesn't actually have any of the emails in question. So they don't even know what is in them. The emails are on a computer that was shared by Anthony Weiner (A wanker who was sexting underage girls while running for public office) and his wife, an aide to Clinton, Huma Abedin. Director Comey decided to release this statement anyway because according to him he didn't want to be accused of participating in a cover up.

Instead he choice to violate the Hatch Act and DOJ policy not to discuss ongoing investigations. Oh, and did I mention the DOJ policy about not releasing stuff like this at least 60 days before a major federal election?

The Hatch Act is very clear about federal or government employees not engaging in partisan politics or attempting to influence elections. A complaint against Director Comey has already been filed by a former ethics lawyer of the Bush administration.

Comey was advised by DOJ officials NOT to release his statement or any information. He did it anyway. :shock:

No matter how things go I am betting that Director Comey will be retiring very soon. :twisted:

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:11 pm**

I think so, too. The question is, should he be dismissed and charged?

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:09 pm**

It's amazing to me how damn speculative people can be with absolutely no real evidence of specifics. We hardly know any details about much of anything, let alone the nature and content of them, but it seems to me like a lot of commentators are approaching it as an ink blot test anyway. I guess the biggest question is whether that's enough to sway the election- frankly though? The best that the Republican side can hope IMO is some people end up staying at home.

It also occurred to me btw that it's a pretty shitty execution of an October surprise in many respects, for the simple reason that early voting is now a thing. I know the majority of folks will still vote Nov 8, but I for example can't change my ballot at this point because it's mailed in, which is the same for over 12 million voters by now.

Coincidentally, I saw the documentary Weiner this weekend, which is excellent and provided great insight into that former power couple. Definitely recommended, even though obviously this latest stuff this year isn't included.

Posted: **Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:41 pm**

geonuc wrote:I think so, too. The question is, should he be dismissed and charged?

I work for an organization that still believes in battlefield executions (at least in theory). I am probably not a good litmus test for that question. But, I did stay in a Holiday Inn. :mrgreen:

I am definitely convinced he violated the Hatch Act. The penalties are not as severe as you might think.

On December 19, 2012, Congress passed the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012 (the Act). The Act modifies the penalty structure for violations of the Hatch Act by federal employees. The changes became effective on January 27, 2013. Under the modified penalty structure, an employee who violates the Hatch Act is subject to a range of disciplinary actions. This includes removal from federal service, reduction in grade, debarment from federal employment for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, reprimand, or a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000. (Before enactment of these amendments, an employee was subject to removal, or in some cases, a suspension of no less than 30 days for Hatch Act violations). The modified penalty structure applies to violations that occurred before, on, or after January 27, 2013, unless OSC has already initiated a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board as of that date, or an employee has already entered into a settlement agreement with OSC

So the answer to the first part of your question is yes. If he violated the Hatch Act he can be removed from Federal Service. i.e. dismissed.

As for being charged. Well, if he is charged with a violation of the Hatch Act... As for any other charges I am not sure he actually broke any other law(s). He did violate DOJ policy. Which of itself could be grounds for dismissal. I know the president appoints and the congress confirms the director. I am not sure who would actually fire him. The president probably could have a private talk with him about a "severe loss of confidence" and suggest that he step down or retire. But, it is a delicate time. Technically, if Comey stalls long enough a different president gets to make the decision. Of course, it's looking a lot like Clinton could be that president. Not exactly a very hopeful outcome for Mr Comey. :twisted:

Reading the Hatch Act it is clear that federal employees are covered. But, there are exemptions including our congress critters in D.C. It is conceivable that Comey could argue that he is not subject to the Hatch Act. That is a court case that would be very interesting.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:16 am**

You're right. I seems the Hatch Act doesn't provide form criminal prosecution.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:37 am**

When I first heard this I figured he was trying to avoid being seen as favoring Clinton by a the Current Congress. However I didn't know there were specific laws he probably stepped on. So it looks like he was trying to avoid painting himself into a corner, and instead jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:09 pm**

Well sigma, if you didn't know the guy is also a die hard Republican. I can definitely believe in this current political climate that this guy is thinking to himself that he's genuinely a good person who's trying to save us from Hillary or similar. Your interpretation is far more generous, IMO.

I finally found the letter he sent btw, and it's so absurdly short. Like, even I can tell he really wasn't compelled to send it. Definitely strange, and definitely if anything I'd argue this entire episode will hurt regardless of its outcome or who wins the election.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:28 pm**

Rommie wrote:Well sigma, if you didn't know the guy is also a die hard Republican. I can definitely believe in this current political climate that this guy is thinking to himself that he's genuinely a good person who's trying to save us from Hillary or similar. Your interpretation is far more generous, IMO.

I finally found the letter he sent btw, and it's so absurdly short. Like, even I can tell he really wasn't compelled to send it. Definitely strange, and definitely if anything I'd argue this entire episode will hurt regardless of its outcome or who wins the election.

I wasn't aware of that. Ok.the guy's a 'Pub, but he was appointed to the job by Obama. I know the 'Pubs have managed to get rid of almost all reasonable people from their ranks. But you'd think that since he was appointed by someone from the other side, that there would be some expectation of reasonableness.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:56 pm**

Sigma_Orionis wrote:When I first heard this I figured he was trying to avoid being seen as favoring Clinton by a the Current Congress. However I didn't know there were specific laws he probably stepped on. So it looks like he was trying to avoid painting himself into a corner, and instead jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

That was my thinking, too. I was thinking damned if you do/don't scenario. Release this close to election causes problems. Don't release and comes out with something, then problems for not releasing before election. Though right away there were the stories he was told not to release and others have pointed out related laws.

Not sure how much this will have a bearing on election results. The die-hards on both sides won't change votes. Fence sitters may still hold nose and vote for either or a third party candidate, vote ballot but not cast a vote for President or stay home. Been an ugly campaign from all sides.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:08 pm**

Rommie wrote:Well sigma, if you didn't know the guy is also a die hard Republican. I can definitely believe in this current political climate that this guy is thinking to himself that he's genuinely a good person who's trying to save us from Hillary or similar. Your interpretation is far more generous, IMO.

I finally found the letter he sent btw, and it's so absurdly short. Like, even I can tell he really wasn't compelled to send it. Definitely strange, and definitely if anything I'd argue this entire episode will hurt regardless of its outcome or who wins the election.

Comey has stated that he is no longer a registered Republican.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:40 pm**

One thing is certain, it got even weirder.

Paul Krugman also thinks that Comey got bullied by Congress

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:13 pm**

Sigma_Orionis wrote:One thing is certain, it got even weirder.

Paul Krugman also thinks that Comey got bullied by Congress

There is no doubt that Chaffet's fingerprints are all over this. But, Comey is a big boy who is or should be accountable for his own actions.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:44 pm**

SciFiFisher wrote:
Sigma_Orionis wrote:One thing is certain, it got even weirder.

Paul Krugman also thinks that Comey got bullied by Congress

There is no doubt that Chaffet's fingerprints are all over this. But, Comey is a big boy who is or should be accountable for his own actions.

Particularly if there are laws regarding this.

Posted: **Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:16 pm**

my sister, who dearly loves a conspiracy, is convinced that comey was paid off. until this incident, comey had a well-deserved reputation for standing up to political pressure.

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:30 am**

code monkey wrote:my sister, who dearly loves a conspiracy, is convinced that comey was paid off. until this incident, comey had a well-deserved reputation for standing up to political pressure.

Never attribute to malice, what can equally be attributed to stupidity.

I'm very much an anti-conspiracy guy, but it was at least a stupid decision.

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:34 pm**

Motivation is a very interesting and complex issue. I think intent or motivation is one of the hardest things in the world to prove. Comey could be the victim of his own sense of righteousness.
In the memo and in comments he has made he alluded to not wanting to appear to be part of a cover up. Apparently, he is trying to convince everyone that this was the bigger crime vs the actual mayhem he caused.

I can speculate, and will, about his intent and motivation. But, the actions are pretty clear. He definitely appears to be attempting to influence the presidential election. A clear violation of the Hatch Act. And a violation of DOJ policy. And he chose to ignore guidance from his acting and actual bosses. Was he bought? Only following the money will tell us that.

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:40 pm**

They can't be happy over the latest document dump, either. Relating to the pardons granted in 2001.

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:43 pm**

SciFiFisher wrote:Just days before the presidential election the FBI director James Comey releases a vague statement that they may have additional information about the Clinton Email controversy. And the now the part where it gets even weirder. He doesn't actually have any of the emails in question. So they don't even know what is in them. The emails are on a computer that was shared by Anthony Weiner (A wanker who was sexting underage girls while running for public office) and his wife, an aide to Clinton, Huma Abedin. Director Comey decided to release this statement anyway because according to him he didn't want to be accused of participating in a cover up.

Instead he choice to violate the Hatch Act and DOJ policy not to discuss ongoing investigations. Oh, and did I mention the DOJ policy about not releasing stuff like this at least 60 days before a major federal election?

"No hard and fast rule"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... es-justic/

Just smelly

The Hatch Act is very clear about federal or government employees not engaging in partisan politics or attempting to influence elections. A complaint against Director Comey has already been filed by a former ethics lawyer of the Bush administration.

I'm wondering about this: "No intent is needed. The fact that Comey put in motion actions that could affect the election is in and of itself a violation of the Hatch Act. Period."

That can't possibly be true, can it? Do they mean those specific actions, in that context? I don't see any specific violation of the Hatch Act, the usual organizing or promoting restrictions.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:39 am**

grapes wrote:
SciFiFisher wrote:Just days before the presidential election the FBI director James Comey releases a vague statement that they may have additional information about the Clinton Email controversy. And the now the part where it gets even weirder. He doesn't actually have any of the emails in question. So they don't even know what is in them. The emails are on a computer that was shared by Anthony Weiner (A wanker who was sexting underage girls while running for public office) and his wife, an aide to Clinton, Huma Abedin. Director Comey decided to release this statement anyway because according to him he didn't want to be accused of participating in a cover up.

Instead he choice to violate the Hatch Act and DOJ policy not to discuss ongoing investigations. Oh, and did I mention the DOJ policy about not releasing stuff like this at least 60 days before a major federal election?

"No hard and fast rule"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... es-justic/

Just smelly
The Hatch Act is very clear about federal or government employees not engaging in partisan politics or attempting to influence elections. A complaint against Director Comey has already been filed by a former ethics lawyer of the Bush administration.

I'm wondering about this: "No intent is needed. The fact that Comey put in motion actions that could affect the election is in and of itself a violation of the Hatch Act. Period."

That can't possibly be true, can it? Do they mean those specific actions, in that context? I don't see any specific violation of the Hatch Act, the usual organizing or promoting restrictions.

Yes it can be true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act ... Amendments

These federal and D.C. employees may not:
use official authority or influence to interfere with an election

As an employee (director) of the FBI Comey is actually subject to a stricter part of the Hatch Act

If you follow that link it will ask you if you are a federal employee - check yes to be directed to the correct section.

Most people think that as long as they are not waving banners, campaigning for a candidate, etc and etc then it's OK. It's a bit more complicated than that. For example, as a uniformed officer of the U.S. Army I am not allowed to put on my uniform and say "I endorse Candidate X.". Because that gives the appearance that the U.S. Army is endorsing Candidate X. And it is trying to use official authority or influence to interfere with an election. What Comey did is exactly that. He doesn't have to intend to influence the election. His actions and his position as the Director of the FBI were influencing and using official authority in a manner that could affect the outcome of a national election. ergo... violated the Hatch Act. This is why there is a policy about stuff like this. This is why his bosses told him it was a bad idea.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:40 am**

It just seems so utterly corrupt for a public official to be interfering with an election like this, it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I haven't changed my opinion that Trump is going to win next week.

I really hope I'm wrong.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:52 pm**

squ1d wrote:It just seems so utterly corrupt for a public official to be interfering with an election like this, it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I haven't changed my opinion that Trump is going to win next week.

I really hope I'm wrong.

Yeah, I really hope you're wrong

Posted: **Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:17 pm**

So the investigation is over (again). Most of the emails were duplicates of earlier ones or of a personal nature. Comey now again stands by the July decision. I guess Trump will be upset with the FBI again, while the Dems will be happy. So in the end, just many bad decisions, by Clintons and FBI. The election is now a couple of days away. The rest of us will live with what you americans decide. :cheer:

Posted: **Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:19 pm**

Not everyone will live.

Posted: **Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:56 pm**

Thumper wrote:Not everyone will live.

lol

Posted: **Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:57 pm**

Thumper wrote:Not everyone will live.

FWIS3

And Now It Gets Even Weirder

And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder

Re: And Now It Gets Even Weirder