So the Republicans can tell the FBI what to do? But the President did not influence the FBI at all in the investigation.
Oh I don't know ... they have quite a few really really poor analysts. Lawrence O'Donnell might be the biggest tool in the NBC family. But Joy Reid is pretty awful. She's incapable of stepping outside her tiny biased box for even one second ... even just as an exercise to analyze an issue from an opposing POV ...
I think the investigations continued well into his presidency... with him pardoning key figures in its closing weeks... https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_28.htm George Bush served as vice president through the Reagan presidency from 1981 to 1989. In January 1989, he succeeded Reagan as President. It was in his capacity as President that Bush committed what will likely become his most memorable act in connection with Iran/contra. On December 24, 1992, twelve days before former Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger was to go to trial, Bush pardoned him.1 In issuing pardons to Weinberger and five other Iran/contra defendants, President Bush charged that Independent Counsel's prosecutions represented the ``criminalization of policy differences.'' 1 President Bush also pardoned former National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, former CIA Central American Task Force Chief Alan D. Fiers, Jr., former CIA Deputy Director for Operations Clair E. George, and former CIA Counter-Terrorism Chief Duane R. Clarridge. The Weinberger pardon marked the first time a President ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness, because the President was knowledgeable of factual events underlying the case. ...... Following the pardons, Bush refused to be interviewed unless the interview was limited to his non-production of his diary and personal notes. Because such a limited deposition would not serve a basic investigative purpose and because its occurrence would give the misleading impression of cooperation where there was none, Independent Counsel declined to accept these conditions. A Grand Jury subpoena was not issued because OIC did not believe there was an appropriate likelihood of a criminal prosecution. Bush's notes themselves proved not as significant as those of Weinberger and Shultz aides Charles Hill and Nicholas Platt, and the statute of limitations had passed on most of the relevant acts and statements of Bush. The Bush Diary On December 11, 1992, Chester Paul Beach, Jr., associate counsel to President Bush, informed the OIC that a diary, kept by Bush, dating back to his vice presidency, had not been produced to Independent Counsel. It consisted of Bush's nightly dictation concerning the events of the day. Although the diary contained many personal and political observations, it also contained a substantial number of references to the events surrounding the Iran/contra matter and the subsequent investigation. Accordingly, the diary was responsive to at least two document requests sent to the White House by the OIC in 1987 and 1992. So, unless I'm misreading this, or unless this is a flawed narrative, you are correct. Or... how do you spell "it's okay if you're a Republican?"
Comey hasn't played it straight at any point with any of this stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...26de2537a9d_story.html?utm_term=.811b64576730 So, this is1. not abt Clinton-sent emails2. not about her server3. found on weiner device4. may be only 3 emails5. wtf— Sam Stein (@samstein) October 28, 2016 And yes, I'm speculating/theorizing as to why this has come out now, and has been released with such vague terms. I personally think it's to help the GoP keep seats -- especially Issa's.
That tweet has some wrong points. It was found on Huma's phone and there could be thousands of emails. You can't rule out that there aren't emails sent from Hillary or anything else at this point. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/u...ton-email.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 Comey been playing it straight, despite protests from HRC's camp. New information has come out and he's obligated to report it since they had closed the last investigation and this could impact that.
What's interesting about Dante's post and Matrim's post is that the NYT is pretty anti-Clinton, and WaPo is pretty pro-Clinton. So at this juncture, just speaking for myself, I don't know whom to trust.
Lawrence O'Donnell permanently resides about 6 miles up his own ass. He's still better than Joy Reid for the reason you said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry..._us_5814cff1e4b0390e69d094e3?vmmcstqjw21vpldi This is simply a case of a long-time republican trying to help out his brethren by shortening Clinton's coattails. After the election he'll retire into the private sector and a seven-figure salary from the Kochs.
Wait, didn't someone rant a few days ago about how the Federal employees were just doing a job? Now Comey is a political tool?
You are apparently unaware of the difference between civil servants and political appointees. Seriously, the Internet reflex of claiming hypocrisy where the two situations aren't anything alike is one of my pet peeves. Stranger made a very stupid post that's a waste of time, now I have to waste my time and yours pointing exactly how he's being stupid.
I'm shocked that Lynch is upset that the news got out, absolutely shocked. Her objectivity in the Clinton's is a bit questionable.
So Duckworth opened up a +18 lead over Kirk. I think this is the first polls since the insult. Oh Kirk ... The funny thing is he dropped 10+ points for saying something that Trump would probably consider too PC.
I would love to get inside Mark Kirk's head in that moment. What was he thinking? What possible reason could he have ever concocted for even a split second that "this is a good idea"? And I wonder how long it took him to realize that his political career ended in that moment, was it the second after or was it when he got chewed out by his campaign handlers and PR?
He got elected in a Wave in the midterms. His political career was always going to be just 6 years at the federal level. He's a Republican from Illinois
His thought process is that he's kind of racist. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/politics/mark-kirk-drive-faster-black-neighborhoods/ I also wonder how his stroke affected him, honestly.
Quick update/insight into the NC Senate race. It's really disheartening. Richard Burr has a few positive ads, but they're touchy-feely ads designed for very low information voters, not about anything he's done. His negative ads are all one of two things. Either he's attacking Ross for votes she took in the state legislature for or against the budget (cherry picking items in the $20B+ budget she's therefore "for" or "against") or twisting what she did with as head of the NC ACLU. Ross ain't much better. She's personally attacking Burr as corrupt, which I don't buy. He's an ultimate establishment pol, sure. And he's just filling space in the Senate, sure. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Burr voted against the bill that made insider trading by congressmen illegal. It was a bad vote. But instead of making it about the bad vote, Ross' ads are about how Burr's wealth has increased while in Congress. Well, he's been there 20 years, and there's inflation, and if he's frugal he's got a ton of extra money to invest, so I don't get it. She should just point to it as a bad vote and not tie it to a pretty banal increase in his personal wealth. For us liberals, a Ross win would be a big, big win, because she's very, very liberal to be representing a purple-tinted-red state like NC.
Wow. I missed that. Used to read the Peoria Journal Star every morning when I was a kid, pretty much through college. Not a bad paper.
This race might be the first casualty of Trump catching up to Clinton.. But again, its all about turn out. It's been a week or so since I've seen any updates, but weren't Democrats stomping Republicans in the early voting? Particularly compared to 2012 where Dems were above their averages, while Reps were below? Has there been any updates that I've missed? I have to admit, I voted last week and, as a result, my interest in the election has waned as far as checking out how down ballot races in other states are going.
Yes. In general, early voting helps Democrats while absentee ballots help Republicans. (That's precisely why the GOP goes after early voting, despite no evidence of fraud, but not absentee ballots, where there has been systemic fraud.) I'm going to give you a number without context, but I early voted yesterday and I was the 4xxx person to vote early at that station. My county has about a dozen early voting stations.