FBI Boss Blows Past Policies, Guidelines, His Own Staff To Bring Back Clinton Email Investigation

from the marching-to-the-beat-of-his-own-ridiculous-drummer dept

So, months after clearing Hillary Clinton's slate by deciding she was stupid rather than malicious, James Comey has again gone rogue, declaring there's something worth investigating in emails recovered from a sleazy ex-politician's computer. (Thus subverting the norm of recovering emails from a sleazy, CURRENT politician's computer…)

The timing is, of course, suspect. The FBI really isn't supposed to be announcing investigations of presidential candidates this close to Election Day. As Marcy Wheeler points out, there are guidelines Comey appears to be violating.

Jamie Gorelick (who worked with Comey when she was in DOJ) and Larry Thompson (who worked with Comey when Comey was US Attorney and he was Deputy Attorney General, until Comey replaced him) wrote a scathing piece attacking Comey for violating the long-standing prohibition on doing anything in an investigation pertaining to a political candidate in the 60 days leading up to an election.

It's not the law, but it's something. And until Comey decided to merge Weinergate into Emailgate, this guidance has been followed:

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

It would be a bit much to claim Comey wants to see Trump in the White House. But he apparently has no qualms about violating internal DOJ gentlemen's agreements, which should raise questions -- as Wheeler notes -- about what other policies or guidance Comey considers optional.

The reason you can't put this down as a move meant to damage Clinton's campaign is because that narrative already got used up when Comey refused to recommend prosecution for actions most other government employees wouldn't have walked away from. Suffice it to say, the reaction to Comey's latest announcement depicts partisanship at its best/worst.

So of course the Republicans that had been claiming Comey had corruptly fixed the investigation for Hillary immediately started proclaiming his valor and Democrats that had been pointing confidently to his exoneration of Hillary immediately resumed their criticism of his highly unusual statements on this investigation. Make up your minds, people!

While certain voters sort out their love/hate relationship with James Comey, the next question about broken rules applies to the emails themselves. The FBI seized Anthony Weiner's laptop to search for evidence of alleged communications between Weiner and a 15-year-old. In the course of doing that, agents came across emails between Clinton aides and Huma Abedin, Weiner's estranged wife.

Apparently without knowing the content of these emails, Comey went ahead and decided to alert Congress to the new details of the investigation. Oddly, this happened before the FBI even had a warrant to search those emails -- though it received one over the weekend. Even with the warrant in hand, it's not entirely clear the agency has the right to do that under the Fourth Amendment. The laptop's search and seizure isn't at all related to the (supposedly closed) Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Orin Kerr examines the issues thoroughly at the Volokh Conspiracy. As he sees it, the FBI can't legally expand its investigation for several reasons. Court decisions have suppressed evidence in cases where searches have uncovered evidence of other criminal activity not related to the investigation at hand. These emails are clearly unrelated to the messages sent from Weiner that the FBI was looking for.

The FBI may try to avail itself of the "plain view" exception, but this claim would be dubious at best.

The plain view exception does not allow evidence to be seized outside a warrant unless it is “immediately apparent” upon viewing it that it is evidence of another crime. Just looking quickly at the new evidence, there needs to be probable cause that it is evidence of a second crime to justify its seizure, which would presumably be necessary to apply for the second warrant.

Assuming the FBI hadn't already taken a peek, all that was known about these emails was that they involved a top Clinton aide. There could be no determination at that point that they contained classified or sensitive material. The Fourth Amendment doesn't (or at least shouldn't [stupid courts]) allow communications to be searched first in hopes of justifying the search after coming across some probable cause. The FBI needed to establish that first and it's unclear how it would do it without actually seeing the content -- though the fact that a court granted the warrant raises some questions about why.

Unfortunately, case law is nowhere approaching "settled" on the limits of digital searches. "Plain view" in regards to digital files is much harder to pin down. Some decisions have made it clear the government can't seize devices and look through everything in hopes of finding evidence of other criminal activity. Fishing expeditions are discouraged, but not every court has felt compelled to suppress evidence gathered in this fashion.

However that all shakes out, one thing is clear: James Comey is running the FBI like it's a one-man shop. He's managed to anger other FBI officials with his autonomous decisions and declarations. Marcy Wheeler notes in her post that the DOJ has shown it can't control Comey, and Comey himself -- in his letter to Congress -- suggested that if he didn't come forward with this, someone inside his agency would have leaked the information. So, the DOJ can't control Comey. Comey can't (or won't) control his own people. And Comey will continue to do things his way, no matter what collateral damage he may cause.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 3:37am

    Correction: He’ll continue to do things his way until Hillary Clinton wins the election, at which point he’ll resign. I get the feeling he’d rather save face than get booted in the ass after Inauguration Day.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:50am

      Re:

      That's the biggest mess of all. After Comey's done this how can he ever work under Hillary Clinton?

      And yet if Hillary Clinton fires him for this stupid move that looks like purposely trying to undermine her election people will scream corruption.

      So we can only hope that either Comey quits after the election, or Obama fires him after the election so Hillary won't have to.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:26am

        Re: Re:

        This entire presidential election has turned into a soap opera.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:01am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "President Obama doesn't think Comey is trying to influence the election"
          - Josh Earnest, White House spokesman

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            michael, 31 Oct 2016 @ 3:55pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Whitehouse spokespeople exist for PR, not to speak the truth about anything at all. We all know Obama hates Comey."
            -Abraham Lincoln

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Hillary's spokespeople exist for PR, not to speak the truth about anything at all..."

              John Podesta, Head Brown Nose & Shit Cover


              ... this message is approved by Peter J. Kadzik who will oversee this storm from the DOJ and who has "Kept [John Podesta] out of jail."

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Padpaw (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 2:14pm

        Re: Re:

        We are already screaming corruption of the Government though. We have been for years possibly decades now.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    aerilus, 31 Oct 2016 @ 3:45am

    I've been reading Tech-dirt religiously for years. lately as the articles have become more and more biased, I have been reading less and less. with this piece of drivel I don't think will be checking in with this website any more. I'm sure I won't be missed and you guys know your numbers better than I do but I just wanted to convey you have lost a longtime reader and fan.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:16am

      Response to: aerilus on Oct 31st, 2016 @ 3:45am

      Troll, and a generic one at that. Come on, you can do better.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:38am

      Re:

      And a good bye note does what exactly?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:32pm

        Re: Re:

        Well it sends a message to the author/s, that their bias is not only detectable, but embarrassingly prominent. Mike and Tim's jimmies are literally throbbing like hammer-smacked cartoon toes at this point. About the only thing that'll relieve their pent-up bulging blue-jims at this point is to have Hillary string them up in a basement, and jack-smack the fuck out of their jim-jims as they blow their load of festering bile all over everything they could possibly taint as Chelsey swings like a sadistic phuck-tarded monkey from what's left of them.... I mean, it really must be a mental disease when someone who is normally on the ball with regard to even minute injustices in today's world, suddenly thinks it's ok to falsely imprison innocent film producers as long as their senile shaky-assed pet piece of shit gets elected.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:58am

      Re:

      This isn't a partisan piece, it's a hit-piece on Comey, who seems to be a bit of a nutter.
      It's not as if Techdirt have been inconsistent on Comey. Mike and friends have been complaining about him for years...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:35am

      Re:

      Yea, same here. Between these kinds of articles and this particular authors constant bigotry toward Christians, I have cut back on my reading as well. When I first started reading here, I thought Mike was crazy with his views on patents and copyright. He has since won me over. But lately this blog has turned to politics and other subjects which isn't why I came here. Of course it is his choice so I will cherry pick the articles I read from now on and leave this kind of drivel to tabloid reporters like Timmy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        HegemonicDistortion (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:13am

        Re: Re:

        You're either trolling or don't understand what you've been reading here for years. The subject matter Techdirt covers is inherently about politics. Patents, copyright, surveillance, privacy, security, etc., etc. -- all politics.

        As for the poor maligned American "Christian," who seems to consider it his moral duty to force others to live according to his narrow beliefs, consideration of that subject would only lead to being blinded for a couple of weeks while I wait for my eyes to roll forward again.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:22am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So your bigotry comes out too. You do realize that liberals are not for freedom. They too, maybe more than most, wish to foist their beliefs on others and control them. I suspect you know this but don't wish to accept it because of course your beliefs are right and everyone should live by them.

          The most interesting aspect of the non-religious is they fervently believe in evolution. A theory that says it is perfectly acceptable for an individual or group to control, abuse, kill or do whatever they wish to other individuals or groups. All in the name of the strong will survive. But when that happens they cry foul. So what do you actually believe? Or is crying part of your attempt to manipulate and control others?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "The most interesting aspect of the non-religious is they fervently believe in evolution"

            Incorrect. Lots of non-religious people don't believe specifically in evolution, and there's a huge number of religious people who do believe in the theory. It's not incompatible with religion, nor even specifically with the Christian creation myth.

            "A theory that says it is perfectly acceptable for an individual or group to control, abuse, kill or do whatever they wish to other individuals or group"

            Ah, there's your problem. The theory of evolution says nothing of the sort. Partially because that's not the actual theory, and partly because a scientific theory says nothing about whether it's "acceptable" that something happens. It just describes reality. It's not acceptable that natural disasters kill thousands of people, but that doesn't mean that a seismologist is saying they're a good thing if they study the subject instead of saying "God did it".

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:54am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Ah, but there is no way to measure acceptable without a God. Sure, people groups can define acceptable and force that on others. But those definitions shift like the sand in the wind and are determined by whoever gets in power. But if we are one big cosmic accident, then all things are truly acceptable. Just look at the US in the 1600 to 1800's. Slavery was acceptable. Not to all, but to most. And according to you, for that time and place, it was acceptable since society said so. I mean, without a God, who is to say it isn't?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:37am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Ah, but there is no way to measure acceptable without a God."

                There is, but science does not attempt to answer that in the first place. The science says "speciation most likely occurred via natural selection". The moralities of that and whether the same processes should be deliberately carried out by humans are questions left to other disciplines. Acceptable or not, that doesn't matter to the facts.

                "But if we are one big cosmic accident, then all things are truly acceptable"

                Says you. There are many things I find unacceptable, but which religion allows. No matter where we came from, I still have to share the planet with other people, and I prefer it if none of us suffer needlessly while doing so. I don't have to believe in the supernatural for that, although it's telling when someone says to me that they require it to stop them doing bad things.

                "Slavery was acceptable"

                ...and accepted widely by people who believed in God. Which completely undermines what you appear to be trying to say.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:03am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Your yard stick for acceptability is exactly that, yours. Everyone else has their own. The fight is to see who gets to make their yard stick THE yard stick. Some people don't mind to make others suffer. Others don't like it. But whether it is "right" or "wrong" cannot be determined as there is nothing to measure it against. In fact, if we are a cosmic accident, it is neither right or wrong as there is no true definition of right or wrong. So you arriving at your own conclusions and how you arrived at them is meaningless as all things are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:21am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "Your yard stick for acceptability is exactly that, yours. Everyone else has their own"

                    The same applies to religious people, too. Some might defer to what their religion says if they disagree, others have created their own sect instead of following what they disagree with. Henry VIII was a good Catholic until he decided he wanted to do something religion said was unacceptable, and many have followed his example. It's no good having religion as your moral compass, when it's clearly so fluid in its instruction.

                    "But whether it is "right" or "wrong" cannot be determined as there is nothing to measure it against. "

                    A civilised society would have people who communicate with each other and decide as a society what is and isn't acceptable. Each person has their own morals, but we can usually agree on boundaries between ourselves despite the presence of immoral people. That's true even if those people are religious.

                    "So you arriving at your own conclusions and how you arrived at them is meaningless as all things are meaningless in the grand scheme of things."

                    Including you and your assertions here by that measure. You're not superior just because you got your worldview from an old book rather than personal observation.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:27am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      While religion may be fluid, the bible is not. It clearly proscribes right from wrong. It is also clear that we cannot keep the commandments and thus the need for a Savior.

                      "You're not superior just because you got your worldview from an old book rather than personal observation"

                      Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. You finally get it. Without God, we are all just fighting to get what we want. We all foist our beliefs on others in an effort to control them. Your views are just as invalid as everyone else's views.

                      But fortunately that is not how it is. There is a God and he has laid out how we should live. If you actually studied it, you would see most of your beliefs about it are wrong and that he is a merciful God. After all, he provided salvation free for the asking. Now that is good news!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:41am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "While religion may be fluid, the bible is not"

                        Which is part of the problem. The passages that are demonstrably untrue can't be edited to fit modern understanding. The different religions do a great job of picking and choosing what they happen to believe in, but why should I accept it as an unimpeachable source when those following it can't agree with each other?

                        Look, it's great as a series of metaphors and parables, and there's some good lessons in there. But, its contents have as much to do with the reality of the world we live in as Harry Potter. The damn thing isn't even internally consistent, let alone fit with objective reality, and that's even after you realise it's been heavily edited and inaccurately translated over the years.

                        "Your views are just as invalid as everyone else's view"

                        Again, including yours, by your own standards.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:21am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "
                          "Your views are just as invalid as everyone else's view"

                          Again, including yours, by your own standards."

                          You guys actually agree on this point. Aside from that; This is very interesting and is giving me something to think about.

                          If there is no universal standard, then the standard is what the person with the biggest stick or the majority makes it. If there IS a universal standard, and God's word thru the Bible is that standard, then the stick and the majority are irrelevant as the standard is set and already exists.

                          One method bends to the chaos theory, and will evolve and change with the mood of the humans as the majority or stick carriers. The other is already written, however inconsistent and ancient it may be, and our input, aside from deciding to accept it or not, is irrelevant.

                          Tell you what, I'm going to give this some more thought. We can talk about this some more if you guys want but lets just not do it with a knock at my door at 7:30 am on a Saturday mmm k?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:54am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            "Again, including yours, by your own standards."

                            Actually no, you missed the point. If there is no God, then the bible is just there for one people group to control or be controlled by another.

                            Since the bible is the true word of God, then we know there is are absolute truths and right and wrong.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:12am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Did you even read what I wrote?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2016 @ 10:29am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                You don't seem to understand that you've been labeled an excessively literal bible thumper and beat up with rational arguments.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Wyrm (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 3:57pm

                              Sounds fun, so I had to pitch in just an option you left out:

                              • What if there is a God, but He didn't inspire the Bible?

                              Also, what if there is no God? You seem to reject that idea without even trying to prove it.

                              Then again, you seem to reject science and logic too, so nothing surprises me.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:53am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Yes, the bible is consistent with itself. It can seem to not be when taken out of context. But when read in context, taking into account who it was written to, when it was written you will find the real meaning of the passages are consistent.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:31am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            taking into account who it was written to

                            Yes, primitives who couldn't figure out where the sun came from or why it rained.

                            People who needed the parent-child relationship for their morality (aka fear of punishment).

                            If you're one of those little-brains, then fine. But to say all of us require such a simple-minded formula is incorrect.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:26am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Without God, we are all just fighting to get what we want. We all foist our beliefs on others in an effort to control them. Your views are just as invalid as everyone else's views.

                        Why would we be fighting each other without God? Are you implying that God is the ONLY thing keeping you from say beating your neighbor over the head?

                        How pathetic!

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:51am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I am saying that God is the one who says we should not be beating our neighbors over the head. In fact, Jesus said to lover your neighbor as yourself. Pretty good idea if you ask me.

                          But there is nothing stopping an atheist from beating their neighbor over the head.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:27am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            So, absent God, you would be beating your neighbor over the head?

                            That's the question I'm asking.

                            Because if that is in fact true, then you're advocating the principle that fear of punishment is the only thing keeping you in line. That makes you the functional equivalent of a child.

                            I have no belief in God whatsoever, and I wouldn't even consider beating my neighbor over the head. Seems like you're more full of shit than the usual "god trolls" here.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:57am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              So it must be fear and not love of God that makes Christians want to obey them? You seem to be the one with a simple mind, only considering one possibility. Or is it the only one that fits your narrative?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:05am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                When you consider the purpose of hell is punishment, then yes, it MUST be fear. Otherwise, hell would simply be a place where god isn't. The bible does not describe it in this way - there's always a punishment aspect to it, beyond the absence of god.

                                And it's not my narrative that I'm referencing - it's your bible/faith/whatever-keeps-you-happy-as-far-as-a-title-goes. So in terms of how I consider the possibilities, it's your horse shit I'm using a reference.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:37am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              I bet your mind would change if your neighbor did something terrible to you.

                              Fear is only the "beginning" of wisdom, not the end of it. Those with Wisdom understand that fear is not just the issue of concern over receiving punishment. There is a concern for absence of acceptance. A fear of misunderstanding.

                              So to put this into context, the fear of God could potentially stop a Christian from exacting revenge on a neighbor for a perceived transgression, instead of offering forgiveness. Whereas a non-believer would not have such a mechanism to prevent them from exacting revenge against a neighbor except laws of the land or their own moral code.

                              The primary idea behind religion in general is that there is a moral authority and there is retribution for those not paying it any mind. Essentially, Karma! For Christians, God is the enforcer of Karma. There is a generally understood rule that being evil invites evil. And the whole fear thing is a constant reminder of this. As witnessed throughout humanity, we have very short memories and if we are not constantly reminded that doing certain things only harms us, we would keep doing them with abandon. People will stare death in the face and still not change their ways. Yet the whole time they still whine about their miserable existences all the same.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:50am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                You said:

                                But there is nothing stopping an atheist from beating their neighbor over the head.

                                And now:

                                Whereas a non-believer would not have such a mechanism to prevent them from exacting revenge against a neighbor except laws of the land or their own moral code.

                                Pretty simple-minded statement to make, if you ask me. But then again, it's what I typically encounter when trolling religious wingnuts. You're unaware of your own ignorance.

                                Take a stab at which group - the religious or the atheists - is responsible for more death throughout history, primarily in the name of their favorite god. Then come back and tell me how being evil invites evil.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2016 @ 12:45am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Again, I'll repeat - if you honestly believe that the only thing stopping you from doing that is that you believe something else is stopping you, that says a hell of a lot more negative things about you than any atheist.

                            This is part of the reason why some religious people are scary. Atheists find an internal way to be good people, some religious people seem to think they will commit all sorts of atrocities if they weren't specifically prevented from doing so. That's terrifying, although it does explain what happens when they're convinced that their god does actually want them to do horrific things.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              That One Guy (profile), 1 Nov 2016 @ 1:29am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              It's funny in a way when you think about it, how revealing that sort of argument is of the character of those making it.

                              What they think they're saying is 'You can't have a system of morals without a god', or 'If you don't believe in a god you can do whatever you want without limits!', but what they're actually saying is 'If I didn't believe I would do all these horrible things that I'm mentioning, because I can't think of a single reason not to that isn't based upon my religious belief.'

                              Simply making the argument reveals that the one making it is either a liar, repeating what they've heard without thinking about it first, or a horrible, horrible person.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Eldakka (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:20pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        While religion may be fluid, the bible is not.

                        Yes, it is.

                        While the 10 commandments may have been written directly by God, no such provenance exists for the bible as a whole.

                        The bible is a book written by man. Containing all the flaws that implies.

                        It may not have changed much recently, in the last 500 or 600 years, but the bible that you read today is not the same as the bible from 1800 years ago, which was different to the one from 1600 years ago which was different from the one from 1400 years ago.

                        The Vatican, prior to the protestant splits, decided what is "the bible", and they have edited it, included and excluded certain parables and stories and whatnot as suited their own personal beliefs and wordly goals.

                        And, like any book or set of laws, it is open to interpretation. Entire wars have been fought over different interpretations of the same few lines of text. So even if the words written down don't change, what they mean or how they're viewed does change.

                        When people go to war, conduct genocide, pogroms, murder, torture, exile, because of different interpretations of the same language in the same book? That's madness.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:05am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  As for slavery being acceptable to Christians, you merely have to read the bible to see if it was acceptable to God. The short answer is no, it wasn't. So the Christians claiming it was might very well have been a wolf in sheep's clothing using whatever means necessary to obtain what they wanted. Which is ok if there is no God. But the fact that you know there is an ultimate truth and ultimate right and wrong, shows you know there is a God.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:11am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Leviticus 25:44-46
                    As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

                    Colossians 4:1

                    Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

                    Ephesians 6:5

                    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

                    Exodus 21:20-21

                    “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

                    Titus 2:9-10

                    Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:37am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I would say that you have failed to understand.

                      The Bible is a collection of stories and writings about humanity. About how we constantly get things wrong and about how we constantly ignore God and about how some of the times have changed. No one can purport to know the 100% truth of all of these things, however, it is fairly clear that God is not pro-slavery in the way that we think of slavery. Remind yourselves that the meaning of words are not always clear from translation.

                      And of course do not forget that master on earth will become slaves in heaven. Do not think that these things are here to edify the servant and the master about their positions in life. They serve as a warning from God that those whom will abuse their position or authority will be dealt with in kind.

                      In fact if you have wisdom and learned anything from the Bible then this is what you will have learned.

                      Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, because he can destroy the body AND soul, which cannot be destroyed by others.
                      Love God with all your heart, and love thy neighbor as you do yourself. ~ The Two Great Commandments
                      If you treat slaves poorly then so shall you become a slave and treated poorly as well.
                      If you serve well, then you will become the master.
                      A good master is a servant to the slaves!
                      Judge not lest though be judged in the same manor in which thou judges others. If you have Faith, Justice, & Mercy then so shall it be applied to you!

                      The bible is like the biggest "you reap what you sow" instruction manuals around! Complete with stories about humanity constantly fucking shit up!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:15am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Wave your hands faster, you're almost off the ground.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:16am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Wisdom is trampled by the ignorant and neither is it revealed to them.

                          Many places in the bible states that despite many having ears and eyes they will not see, perceive, or understand.

                          You are a testament to this like many others. You have knowledge and intelligence but no wisdom.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:29am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            But I understand that the Bible was used by both pro and anti-slavers. Arguing from the Bible is easy because it means whatever the reader wants it to mean. Ergo, I find it useless as a means of understanding the physical world.

                            But as a way of life, the Old Testament is just as usable as ISIS is a way of life. The God of the Old Testament, as Lewis Black puts it, "Is a bit of a prick". "The New Testament God is really a nice guy, but the Old Testament God? Holy Shit, He was out of control!"

                            But I think the New Testament is a much better way of life. "Maybe the birth of His son calmed Him down".

                            http://skepticaljew.blogspot.com/2011/04/lewis-black-on-creationism.html

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:55am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              People that USE the bible to justify their ways or ways of thinking is but a crutch for their sanity.

                              We all know what is evil and good, we will be judged therefore there is no escape. Those with wisdom transcend the Words of the Bible, it is but a starting point for those seeking truth, not those hoping to stumble upon them.

                              Passages in the Bible can be used to justify all manor of evil because they are easily taken out of context. If you seriously think the the God of the Old Testament is out of control and the New Testament is a nice one, then you obviously failed at reading comprehension.

                              The exact timelines are not given but Christ was there BEFORE God created man in His image, therefore your comment is an ignorant one.

                              The best that could be said is that until Christ, God had a different plan for salvation, a way for those to prove they were "worth" eternal life. After Christ, the acceptance that He is the savior is a part of that test. Christ is called the Lamb because he suffered as a man and He had to die on the cross experiencing severe abuse so that no one could say He was not worthy of judging them. Christ is the Savior because He will be the only way we can be saved from God the Father's wrath that is to come. As far as I can tell... God has stopped judgement for now. That is Christ's job now, God is only waiting for Christ to gather His flock, and after that is done...

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:06pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Passages in the Bible can be used to justify all manor of evil because they are easily taken out of context.

                                You'd think a perfect god could've avoided confusion about what he was saying...

                                Christ is the Savior because He will be the only way we can be saved from God the Father's wrath that is to come.

                                All this does is reinforce the fact that the old testament god was and continues to be a prick, no?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:14pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  You do fail at comprehension hard.

                                  God is not in the business of wanting followers that have to be told to be good every step of the way. He wants followers that will seek out good and follow it of their own accord. I thought this was 101? Maybe you know less than I assume that you should?

                                  There IS NO CONFUSION. Only people in the midst of their iniquity are confused. I really cannot explain how clear the truth is, because you can bring a horse to water...

                                  No there is no escape, there is excuse, we all know what is evil and what is good. Most people will travel the well worn path that leads to destruction and few there will be that finds the path leading to salvation.

                                  The problem is that people just will not look for it. So yea, God gave us free will, it is just no possible to make you see or believe the truth. You can still walk off a building and refuse gravity all the way until it kills you if you like, but I cannot EVER force your believe in gravity at all. That is your choice 100% of the way!

                                  You make the decision, and if you decide poorly, you pay dearly!

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:30pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    I'm just wondering what this all loving god has his almighty panties in a wad about.

                                    Seems a bit pretentious for someone with his level of awesomeness to be pissed off all the time.

                                    You seem to think he doesn't care about wanting followers that are needy - then what's got his shorts in a knot? Perhaps its you praying folks bothering him all the time?

                                    Because if it ain't me, then it must be...

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:50pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      "Seems a bit pretentious for someone with his level of awesomeness to be pissed off all the time."

                                      Have you bothered checking out what humanity does to itself? I mean, you can't seriously be that out of touch can you?

                                      We...
                                      enslave people, beat, and murdered them,
                                      create vile laws to oppress,
                                      fought wars over money and land,
                                      treated others like complete shit,
                                      we lie with little thought or consideration,
                                      we steal from others and hate to share,
                                      constantly ask... what's in it for me,
                                      emotionally harm others because we are selfish.

                                      I don't know about you, but if I became God for a day... boy would there be some changes in a quick fast hurry!

                                      If you don't think God should not be exceptionally pissed of, then you just do not get out much or walk everywhere with your fingers in your ears going la-la-la-la-laaaaa

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:57pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        We... enslave people, beat, and murdered them, create vile laws to oppress,

                                        There's plenty of places in the bible that condone, or even order this. Got plenty of references if you'd like.

                                        fought wars over money and land,

                                        If you're talking about the middle east, this is primarily because of you god people arguing over whose god has the bigger dick.

                                        treated others like complete shit, emotionally harm others because we are selfish.

                                        Like the way the christians in the country treat the LGBT community?

                                        we steal from others and hate to share,

                                        The church always wants to be involved in every decision making process, yet pays no taxes...

                                        Tell me more...

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 1:17pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          I am pretty sure this has all gone right over your head, you have my apologies.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 1:23pm

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            How funny! I thought the exact same thing as you.

                                            Is that all you've got left as far as a response to me pointing out that in terms of god being pissed off, it's by his own people or his own doing?

                                            Or, in simpler terms - your god is the cause of it's own anger.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:30am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            You are a testament to this like many others. You have knowledge and intelligence but no wisdom.

                            Coming from someone who needs to get his morality from an imaginary man, I'm guessing that statement won't carry much weight.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:41am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              To question.

                              What is the difference between a person whom says I received morality and the person that says I created mine?

                              Either way, each can still say to the other, you are wrong! Either way, each has chosen to follow something. Either way, it was their choice.

                              You are indeed correct, you can decide how much weight my statement makes for you, but you cannot decide for others, even though you might desire that power very much. You should become a politician, you can be the next Trump or Hillary!

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:52am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Either way, it was their choice.

                                Religious indoctrination typically begins with children.

                                Atheism typically occurs when one reaches an age of maturity.

                                Tell me again about choice...

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:02pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  The opposite has also occurred as well. It is a choice no matter how much you refuse to believe it.

                                  Atheism typically occurs when one grows to Hate God. I have yet to ever meet an actual non-believer, just someone angry with God. Sure... I meet a lot of claimers, but after enough discussion, the truth about their anger comes out. It is usually phrased like so.

                                  "If God were real, then how could he let evil happen to a child?"

                                  That, fellow humans, is the very fundamental beginning of ignorance. We are living proof of what happens when God is out of the picture, this is proof of it. Those with wisdom look upon the world and despair because of it!

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:17pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    Atheism typically occurs when one grows to Hate God.

                                    I find it hard to hate something that doesn't exist.

                                    Sure... I meet a lot of claimers, but after enough discussion, the truth about their anger comes out. It is usually phrased like so.

                                    "If God were real, then how could he let evil happen to a child?"

                                    How interesting...with me, it's typically "how is it that we laugh at adults who believe in santa claus and the easter bunny, but we're perfectly fine with them believing in something with the same functional equivalence?"

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 1:02pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      "I find it hard to hate something that doesn't exist."

                                      I would typically agree, but this has not been my experience. I am sure there is someone that truly exists in this state, I just doubt that I have met them. I can certainly accept that I have misjudged others on this point.



                                      "how is it that we laugh at adults who believe in santa claus and the easter bunny, but we're perfectly fine with them believing in something with the same functional equivalence?"

                                      I have yet to meet any adults that actually believe in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. And no, I am not concerned with that either if I did meet them. A lot of people have their coping mechanisms with life, sure I wish I could help them, but I can only do that if they ask for it.

                                      I think the whole laughing at them aspect is the same "low brow" mentality that a bully has when they decide to make fun of people they think are "less than them" physically or intelligently.

                                      The worst thing to do is laugh or pick on others for their beliefs, because it smacks of the utter most disrespect. That being said, I also have a serious lack of respect for people that allow that to piss them off either. I have mine, I am only sad that I will not be able to convince more to seek the truth.

                                      We all have our crosses to bear, adding burdens to each other for kicks or stupidity is a very terrible habit that humanity has.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 1:16pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        The worst thing to do is laugh or pick on others for their beliefs, because it smacks of the utter most disrespect.

                                        Well, hopefully one day you'll have a child who grows up believing in santa claus. At least you won't be burdened with having to tell them he isn't real...you know, out of respect.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 1:26pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          I do not believe in Santa Clause, why do you think I do?

                                          Not picking on someone or making fun of their beliefs has nothing to do with what I do believe in. I though you were intelligent enough to determine this? I do not teach that Santa exists and neither do I contribute to that deception either. I simply offer my thoughts, you may accept them or not. It is your choice. If a child asks directly I simply tell them that I do not believe in those things, but I certainly will not harass them or give them trouble over it. The first job of an adult is to stop being childish.

                                          But do not worry, I can certainly tell you are definitely attempting to get a childish rise out of me. You should consider acting a bit more adult about things of this nature. You are not the first and will not be the last person I will contend with that acts this way.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 1:29pm

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            I do not believe in Santa Clause, why do you think I do?

                                            Why not? Children across the country feel strongly enough to do so. And talk about omnipresence - he's in every department store at once!

                                            You should consider acting a bit more adult about things of this nature.

                                            I'm so sorry...please apologize to your imaginary friend for me as well.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:54am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                What is the difference between a person whom says I received morality and the person that says I created mine?

                                The first person had to be told what it was by another.
                                The second person had to figure it out on their own.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:08pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  The point either way is that it is the persons choice to decide what to think, the comments about what is the different is just an illusion, not even really designed to trick you, and it appears as though you were taken by it.

                                  It does not matter whom told you or if you thought of it yourself. We are born with knowledge of good and evil and cannot escape judgement. Therefore it is the decision of what you have decided to go with that "regardless of source" will be the millstone tied around your neck.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:27am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "As for slavery being acceptable to Christians, you merely have to read the bible to see if it was acceptable to God. The short answer is no, it wasn't"

                    So, are you saying that the Christians who supported slavery weren't reading their own bible, or are you saying they didn't understand their own religion? Either way, that seems rather a strange claim when you're trying to say that you need such things to be moral enough to reject slavery. The documented, verifiable proof says that Christians supported slavery in the time period you referred to. It was clearly acceptable to at least some of them.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:47am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "So, are you saying that the Christians who supported slavery weren't reading their own bible, or are you saying they didn't understand their own religion?"

                      Actually yes, you might not have read about human history but when it is in YOUR FAVOR, a lot of people tend to conveniently forget about what is right and wrong.

                      The Bible itself says that mankind reasons with itself to justify all manor of sin and evil. So yea, the "Christians" that supported slavery were not very "Christianly" at all. Just like how people either turn towards God to beg for help or curse His name when times are bad but forget all about Him when times are good!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:38am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Science is the study of natural phenomena. So, religion has no part in it as it involves supernatural phenomena.

                And there were plenty of religious folk pointing to the Bible as proof that slavery was OK before the civil war.

                For me, evolution (which I don't believe in, it's as obvious as gravity) shows that diversity is needed in a species if there is any hope if something bad (tm) happens, diversity helps in the species perpetuating.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:56am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "Science is the study of natural phenomena. So, religion has no part in it as it involves supernatural phenomena."

                  This sort of cocked up ignorance is infuriating.

                  Science and Religion are NOT at odds. Only in the minds of the tards on both sides of the isle claiming superior knowledge or sovereignty over the subject matter.

                  Freeman Dyson says it pretty well...
                  "Troubles arise when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance, they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. Media people should tell the public that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, and the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect, so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions."

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:59am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    I can't help you if you don't like the very definition of science and religion.

                    Science, The study of natural phenomena
                    Science corrects when new information is presented.

                    Religion, The study of supernatural phenomena.
                    It tends not to correct itself when new information is presented.

                    Any issues is your problem, not the rest of the world's.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:16am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Religion is NOT the study of fucking anything. It is the organization of a group of people with a similar belief.

                      re•li•gion (rĭ-lĭjˈən)►

                      n.
                      Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
                      n.
                      A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
                      n.
                      The life or condition of a person in a religious order.


                      Also, the humans are responsible for the correction when new information is presented, not either of the institutions. However I will agree that Science tends to be far more self correcting than religion. But I have found that neither do a particularly good job. Both are full of ignorance, misinformation, and jack-holes that drag them down rather than improve them!

                      Humans are the cause of the problems not the institutions!

                      Of course you have a famous quote by Max Planck to consider as well!

                      "Science progresses one funeral at a time." -- Max Planck

                      Get it out of your noggin that Science and Religion are at odds, it is nothing more than a farce foisted upon the weak of mind! I am a Christian (non-denominational) and have zero problems with Science, though many "scientists" piss me off trying to usurp the institution for their own social/political gains. No different than the cock-holes that run many of the several Churches for nothing more than their own social/political gains.

                      I have grown exceptionally tired of the fighting between science and religion. It nothing more than Repukes and Demtards. A crowd of tools working against each other instead of with each other, lambasting each for their sins while ignoring their own!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:21am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        I don't think they are at odds. Just a particular faction of some religions are at odds
                        https://ncse.com/media/voices/religion

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:05am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          O yea, I definitely agree with you there, but you seem to conveniently have omitted scientists as well. There have been more than enough shameful and wrong scientists that have done just the same.

                          But it is human nature to build factions to war with another faction. You can't even get people to behave themselves when it comes to two different sport teams.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:24am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            But the nice thing about scientists/science is that if one fakes data, ect, is that another one will call them out.
                            It's a really bad move to try to decieve/fake data in science. It ruins one's career.

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruko_Obokata

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:30am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Yes, that is definitely one improvement that Science has over Religion when it comes to time frames about accepting new data, but both still do that.

                              There is a reason that there are multiple denominations to the religions. some people just cannot accept what they have been told and join or create and off shoot.

                              The benefit of Science is that researching and learning new things is encourage, where as Religion discourages the new learning and teach people to accept what is taught instead.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:00am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                So untrue as to call into your question for saying it. Where does religion ever say we shouldn't learn? In fact, it was people who believed in God that thought we could study the world and learn how it works. Atheists thought everything was in chaos and there was no order to it.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:10am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  it was people who believed in God that thought we could study the world and learn how it works

                                  Shortly before the church killed them for daring do so.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:53pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    then they came to America to do that far away from the murderous church.

                                    We still made progress. It is amazing how people constantly keep missing out on histories lessons!

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:08am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Religion is not at odds with science. In fact, the very reason we have science is because people believed there was a God and that he is a God of order and not chaos. Thus the universe could be studied and understood. The non-believers thought we could not understand this world.

                  Just look at Louis Pasteur. People though spoiled milk was due to spontaneous generation of life. He proved it was not and he was a Christian. He knew life did not just generate out of thin air. One has to wonder how long the non-believers would have gone with spoiled milk without him?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:38am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Ah, there's your problem. The theory of evolution says nothing of the sort. Partially because that's not the actual theory, and partly because a scientific theory says nothing about whether it's "acceptable" that something happens. It just describes reality.

              And there is your problem -

              1) which theory of evolution?

              2) demonstrate any any theory of evolution that makes any prediction about any life-form that exists today that is not teleological.

              3) demonstrate that any theory of evolution is science and not philosophy. No arguments from authority please.

              If you want to argue that any model of evolution is a matter of philosophy, then fine, but science, no. I no more consider any Intelligent Design model to be science either, that too is a philosophical model. These philosophical viewpoints can give rise to specific experimental regimes, but this does not make these specific viewpoints science. Even the question of what is science is still being investigated. Is Popper's view the finish or the start?

              I like science (scientific method) and the tool it is in understanding the nature of the universe about us. But this concept that is prevalent today of it being an authority that is not to be questioned is as backward as anything those who use its authority to ridicule.

              We (as in mankind, humans, people, scientists, politicians, ordinary folk, smart people, etc), in actuality, know little of the universe about us and what we do know gets overturned on a weekly basis. Just read the various science news sites like Phys.org or Science Daily. It is interesting to note that, if you carefully read and follow up the various articles and sources that are mentioned, even these sites show that Science has become the new religion and dogma now rules.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:41am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:01am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

                Evolution is observable under lab conditions, and it also clearly apparent from observation of the real world (for example, microbes mutating to defend against threats from new medicines that they could not possibly have encountered. This is not a philosophy, it's observable reality.

                If you disagree with that, ask your doctor for a cure for the original strain of any virus you contract rather than the one that's been made to treat the mutated strain you contracted. Let me know the results and how philosophical the outcome is.

                "We (as in mankind, humans, people, scientists, politicians, ordinary folk, smart people, etc), in actuality, know little of the universe about us and what we do know gets overturned on a weekly basis"

                ...and? Unlike religion, that just means it's able to take on board new information and use that to challenge old ideas. I certainly prefer that state of things compared to the old "here's a 2,000 year old book we know has been translated, edited and changed along the years, and not even the people who think it's completely true can agree on how to follow it, but it's our only possible authority regardless".

                Plus, there's rarely such a complete shift if the underlying work was valid, especially for concepts that have been studies for over a century. The fundamentals of Newtonian physics weren't thrown out just because Einstein came up with explanations for its know flaws, and quantum physics doesn't throw out what Einstein came up with even though he originally rejected it was possible.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:11am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Mutations are not really evolution. They are natural selection at best. Evolution calls for a change in kind which has never been observed in a lab or in the fossil record. You would do well to go to YouTube and watch the many videos on the subject if you want to see the truth. It is amazing at the atheist scientists actually admit they will accept no evidence that points to God. Talk about not following the scientific method!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:19am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    The 5 mechanisms of evolution are
                    1) Natural selection
                    2) Mutation
                    3) Genetic Drift
                    4) Genetic Migration.
                    5) Genetic hitchhiking

                    "Kinds" is a made up word from creationists because science disagrees with their particular flavor of the Bible. It becomes meaningless when compared to biology.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:32am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      So a dog can become a cat?

                      Ever wonder why every new discovery of a dinosaur is either one we already know about or a new "kind"? Ever wonder why the fossil record did not record "evolution"? Ever wonder why 65 million year old fossils can still have soft tissue?

                      Did you see the recent article where an aluminum object dating to 250,000 years old was found with bones dating to a few thousand years? Pretty much everything about historical science is based on many, many assumptions. Assumptions that are dis-proven over and over but still clung to because accepting the alternative explanation is too unthinkable.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:51am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "So a dog can become a cat?"

                        No. If you understood what evolution actually says, you might understand why.

                        "Ever wonder why every new discovery of a dinosaur is either one we already know about or a new "kind"?"

                        Huh? It's always going to be something we know about or don't know about. What's the 3rd option in your head?

                        "Ever wonder why the fossil record did not record "evolution"?"

                        Because it doesn't record everything, and evolution taking place over millions of years will not be pristinely recorded in a single place?

                        "Did you see the recent article where an aluminum object dating to 250,000 years old was found with bones dating to a few thousand years?"

                        No. Do you have a link? A good article would probably have explained why the discrepancy occurred. Was it some issue relating to the fundamental practice of dating an object, or a mistake by a lab technician? I'd wager the latter, and that would in no way challenge the discipline of science.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:56am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        So a dog can become a cat?
                        Nope, but don't worry science (evolution) doesn't say it will. Now creationism pretty much does (everything in an instant, as is).

                        But cats and dogs have a common ancestor but I never looked that up.

                        But there is a fossil record of evolution.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Fossil_record

                        When I looked into both evolution and creationism, I found the later to not tell the truth. I thought both at one time were on even levels, so when I took college courses in science (physics, astronomy, cosmology, physical anthropology), I found creationists were not telling the truth about what science was saying. Case in point, your article about "Cats and dogs".

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Ryunosuke (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:31am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Dogs, look at dogs. Do you really think a just and caring God would make a chihuahua when it is food for other dogs?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:35am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You seem very confused as to what evolution is. I think I can guess why:

                    "You would do well to go to YouTube and watch the many videos on the subject if you want to see the truth"

                    Oh yes, random YouTubers, they never make mistakes, lie or try to spread confusing propaganda to further an agenda! There's certainly no laymen who completely misunderstand the subject pushing laughable, easily disproven claims! So much better than using primary sources or people know to have expertise in the field!

                    "It is amazing at the atheist scientists actually admit they will accept no evidence that points to God. "

                    They generally accept verifiable, falsifiable, reproducible evidence that can be tested according to the scientific method. When was this offered?

                    No, "I don't understand it therefore God did it" is not acceptable "evidence"

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:01am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "Oh yes, random YouTubers, they never make mistakes, lie or try to spread confusing propaganda to further an agenda! "

                      Ah, so YouTubers do this but not scientists? ;)

                      If you wish to think scientists are true beings of light and do not have an agenda, that is your prerogative. But if you wish to be educated, get a book called "The Achilles Heal of Evolution" and you will find many quotes of scientists looking more to disprove God then prove evolution. The YouTube videos quote many more scientists in their own papers and writings. But no, they aren't biased, there scientists!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:32am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Science has set up the scientific method to keep biases to the best minimum. It's not foolproof, but it works.

                        As for evidence of evolution, there is more verifiable evidence that one can search and read about.
                        https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C29&as_sd tp=
                        About 5,120,000 results
                        And here is some free sources...
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
                        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
                        ht tp://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
                        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
                        http://ww w.evolutionsociety.org/
                        http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ecol-evol/
                        http://ie2.uoregon.edu/
                        https://www.unl v.edu/anthro/evolution-lab
                        and way more than you can read in a lifetime.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2016 @ 12:57am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "Ah, so YouTubers do this but not scientists? ;)"

                        Scientists are qualified and peer reviewed, and a large part of the peer review process is proving other scientists *wrong*, since falsifiable evidence is a huge part of the process. They're not always correct, and their are certainly frauds and charlatans, but I'll believe them over random YouTubers, especially since you fail to name any of them or why they should be trusted.

                        "The Achilles Heal of Evolution"

                        I just did a quick search on that book, spelled correctly of course. I'm not finding anything obvious under that titles but I do see lots of references to something named "Evolution's Achilles' Heels". Accuracy really isn't your forte, is it?

                        Anyway, at a quick glance, it comes from a bunch of creationists who have had their arguments debunked many times and tend to misrepresent the science to confuse the gullible. Not a reliable source. Do you ever read what scientists say first hand, or do you rely on what creationists claim they say?

                        "The YouTube videos quote many more scientists in their own papers and writings"

                        In context? Lots of liars and charlatans on the creationist side are known to totally misrepresent what the scientists are saying through selected, edited or even made up quotes, for example. Quoting isn't enough - give me context and a link to the primary source. Any YouTube video that doesn't provide these is asking me to believe what they say at face value, which is not good enough when you're addressing what you claim someone else is saying.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      nasch (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:36pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      There's certainly no laymen who completely misunderstand the subject pushing laughable, easily disproven claims!

                      Of course not! For example:

                      https://youtu.be/FPpH-_k3PQU?t=2m46s

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:50pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Dear Baron von Robber and PaulT, neither of you answered the specific questions. Baron von Robber, you pointed to long past not current species. PaulT, as has been noted in later responses to you, mutation is not evolution, as the basic premise of all evolutionary theories is that new species arise from previous. If various animals can interbreed with viable non-sterile offspring one can validly claim that these are not different species. Even the term *species* is in a state of flux as to what it actually means. Are wolves, coyotes and dogs different species or the same species as they have been found to interbreed and produce viable offspring.

                Any work in the laboratory that involves genetic manipulation to produce new types/kinds is not evolution but genetic manipulation. It involves an intelligent directed forcing of changes to the genetic structure of an organism. If you consider this experimental manipulation as evidence of evolution then you have simply deluded yourself. Such experimental manipulation is just that, experimental manipulation. It says nothing about whether evolution or intelligent design is science.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2016 @ 1:05am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "neither of you answered the specific questions"

                  There were specific questions? I must have missed them in the rambling nonsense I was reading here yesterday.

                  "mutation is not evolution"

                  No, it's one of the mechanics through which it occurs. You have a problem with that?

                  "If various animals can interbreed with viable non-sterile offspring one can validly claim that these are not different species"

                  So, they breed before speciation occurs. Which is why there is a specific term for this happening and numerous terms in biology to describe difference between individual animals. What's the problem?

                  "Are wolves, coyotes and dogs different species"

                  There are many biology references available online for you to read and find the definitions of the words your using and every Wikipedia article on an animal breed will give you the biological classification from kingdom to genus and species. Why not read those and educate yourself?

                  This is one of the problems with your type - you think you're getting somewhere by "just asking questions" as if nobody's thought of the answers before, while honest people will look for the facts.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2016 @ 7:25am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "mutation is not evolution"

                    No, it's one of the mechanics through which it occurs. You have a problem with that?

                    You make the unverified assumption that evolution is a fact. Mutation does not even imply that evolution is a fact.

                    "Are wolves, coyotes and dogs different species"

                    There are many biology references available online for you to read and find the definitions of the words your using and every Wikipedia article on an animal breed will give you the biological classification from kingdom to genus and species. Why not read those and educate yourself?

                    The problem here is your lack of actually following what is currently being researched about this specific example. It is a current puzzle for biologists. If you offer the advice to someone to read up on a subject, then you had better make sure that you have actually read up on the subject first.

                    This is one of the problems with your type - you think you're getting somewhere by "just asking questions" as if nobody's thought of the answers before, while honest people will look for the facts.

                    And your problem is that you assume a particular viewpoint on behalf of your questioners without actually taking the time to check if their questions are for your enlightenment and not theirs.

                    The questions raised are based on what facts are being presented and not just pulled out of the air. I find it interesting that people such as yourself assume that they have all the facts for their particular world view and assume anyone who has a different viewpoint as being both ignorant and unable to think for themselves.

                    Honest people do look at the facts and ask questions and gather more information as time progresses. Honesty is not the purview of any specific philosophical/religious point of view. Nor is dishonesty the purview of any specific philosophical/religious point of view.

                    I'll finish my part in this too and froing and leave you to your specific ideology as there is no real point in continuing.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2016 @ 8:15am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "You make the unverified assumption that evolution is a fact"

                      No, I go with the evidence at hand and that points squarely toward the theory of evolution being correct as surely as the theory of gravity. If you have evidence that proves otherwise, you're free to present it. Except...

                      "If you offer the advice to someone to read up on a subject, then you had better make sure that you have actually read up on the subject first."

                      ...no, like most of your kind, you're not willing to back your own words up. You'll demand I "research". Then, when i do so and my conclusions don't match yours, you'll claim I did it wrong. You'll never provide sources or citation, or even explain what the hell your questions are meant to be driving at. No, you have to pretend to be superior even under the knowledge that your claim is not solid enough to withstand criticism.

                      That's why I trust scientists more than religious folk. They're not perfect, but they're usually not afraid to discuss ideas and risk having their conclusions challenged in a reasonable manner.

                      "The questions raised are based on what facts are being presented and not just pulled out of the air"

                      You've proven unable to explain what it is you're referring to, and what you have asked is so misguided it's made you appear to not know the basics of the subject discussed. If you're saying that you in fact know so much more, why are you afraid to present that knowledge or present a question that at least hints to your sources?

                      "I find it interesting that people such as yourself assume that they have all the facts for their particular world view and assume anyone who has a different viewpoint as being both ignorant and unable to think for themselves."

                      I find it interesting that you would lie about my assumptions (I certainly stated no such thing). But, in the absence of other evidence I believe my assumption of sheepish ignorance is justified based on the evidence you have presented. You could again present evidence as to why I'm wrong. Alas...

                      "I'll finish my part in this too and froing and leave you to your specific ideology as there is no real point in continuing."

                      Yep, when challenged, run away.

                      "Honest people do look at the facts and ask questions and gather more information as time progresses"

                      Yes they do. That seems to be a large part of why they often cease to be devoutly religious and stop depending on myths to live their lives.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            “You do realize that liberals are not for freedom. They too, maybe more than most, wish to foist their beliefs on others and control them.”

            I get your complaint here—you think government should stay out of people’s lives and generally give people more freedom to do whatever. The problem your position has is its lack of consideration for rights.

            Give this a read and you’ll likely see what I mean: https://weeklysift.com/2015/12/21/small-government-freedom-vs-big-government-rights/

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Say what? Rights are not granted by government, they are something we have for the mere fact of being born. Which is one right being deprived of many. Apparently you believe rights are granted by government which means they are no rights at all.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:45am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                “Rights are not granted by government, they are something we have for the mere fact of being born.”

                I can disprove that assertion with a single word: Copyright.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > A theory that says it is perfectly acceptable for an
            > individual or group to control, abuse, kill or do whatever
            > they wish to other individuals or groups.

            As opposed to only kill people your christian god commands you to. Impressive.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:03am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "As opposed to only kill people your christian god commands you to. Impressive."
              Allahu Ackbar Infidel!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2016 @ 4:46am

        Re: Re:

        They're not bigoted towards Christians. And believe me, I know what it looks like, because I'M BIGOTED TOWARD CHRISTIANS.

        Well, and anyone else who believes in the insane concept of a "god" -- so don't feel picked-on, I despise anyone and everyone who is so feeble-minded, so weak, so stupid, that they actually believe in these myths and fairy tales. Frankly, I don't consider you human: you're a mere inferior primate, insufficiently evolved to be worthy of inclusion in the species. You should be stripped of all rights and property, enslaved, and -- when you eventually are unable to do useful work -- harvested for your organs and discarded. You have no value. You're not a person. You're just a bag of meat.

        So THAT, you miserably uninformed worthless parasite, is what bigotry looks like. Of course you probably lack the intellect required to discern the difference between real bigotry and the ersatz kind that you fabricate in order to feed your persecution complex.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 1 Nov 2016 @ 5:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Frankly, I don't consider you human: you're a mere inferior primate, insufficiently evolved to be worthy of inclusion in the species. You should be stripped of all rights and property, enslaved, and -- when you eventually are unable to do useful work -- harvested for your organs and discarded.

          And you probably think you're the one with superior morality. Disgusting. People like you give atheism a bad name.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      William H. Taft, 31 Oct 2016 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      I find what you have said is exactly my feelings regarding Techdirt as of late- well said.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Steve R. (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:58pm

      Comey Should have Recommended that Hillary be Indicted

      Worst TechDirt article. Back in July, Comey laid out the case against Hillary. For some reason he did not recommend that she be indicted despite the overwhelming evidence documenting Hillary's guilt.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:37pm

        Re: Comey Should have Recommended that Hillary be Indicted

        Worst TechDirt article. Back in July, Comey laid out the case against Hillary. For some reason he did not recommend that she be indicted despite the overwhelming evidence documenting Hillary's guilt.

        So... what makes this such a bad article?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2016 @ 1:13pm

          Re: Re: Comey Should have Recommended that Hillary be Indicted

          Comey didn't recommend indictment in July because he was pressured by the Loretta Lynch(DOJ), who had just met with Bill Clinton on her private airplane. Now, he is under pressure from his staff because he tarnished the FBI by being a political stooge.

          He can't win in this situation. Either he reveals now and Dems are mad. Or he reveals later and Reps are mad. No win. So might as well lay it all out there.

          The tactic to blame the messenger is typical though of the Hillary campaign. She hasn't a single good quality.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Leila Steward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 3:48am

    Thats Politics

    He will do things until Hilary Clinton wins the election. That's how politics works.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    art guerrilla (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:40am

    um, no, simply, no...

    i don't care what 'tradition' (ie insider feather-bedding) is, THE VIOLATION OF THE ELECTION is if we DON'T get informed of these investigations...
    OBVIOUSLY, such investigations are fraught with peril of interfering, BUT, the FAR BIGGER CRIME, is the crime they got away with not letting us know about, then the 'crime' of putting a cloud over someone that may or may not be justified...
    no, this 'tradition' is just more of the same bullshit of shielding and obscuring the eee-vil men (and woman) do, NOT to preserve some Sweet Polly Purebred's well deserved reputation for saintliness... this is ALL ABOUT protecting the guilty insiders, NOT preserving some sanctity of investigations, etc...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:20am

      Re: um, no, simply, no...

      I would completely agree except that would really give the DOJ and the FBI a free pass to seriously impact elections in this country. They could simply announce investigations 30 days before every election and smear any candidate they did not like. Don't like Trump? Well, just kick off an investigation over sexual abuse of children a week before the election.

      That is a lot of power to let our law enforcement agencies wield. They have not been very trustworthy in the past.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:54am

        Re: Re: um, no, simply, no...

        There's a fine case of shooting the messenger. The thing tampering with the election is the acts regarding the emails by Clinton and their content, not the announcement they exist.

        Who's worse? The whistle blower or the perpetrator? If it's the whistle blower, that's a sure sign of a systematic problem with the american political process.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: um, no, simply, no...

          There's a fine case of shooting the messenger. The thing tampering with the election is the acts regarding the emails by Clinton and their content, not the announcement they exist.

          You really don't see the problem with making announcements like this right before an election? What is the purpose of the investigation, justice or destroying a political candidate? If the former, it can wait a few weeks.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Padpaw (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: um, no, simply, no...

            all candidates are more vulnerable now than they will be after the election. When they could probably shut down an investigation into their own parties criminal acts.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2016 @ 11:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: um, no, simply, no...

            I think it is a problem for everyone. If we are innocent until proven guilty, inform me when there is a conviction.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:31am

      Re: um, no, simply, no...

      I think the reason for the policy is to prevent malicious, politically-motivated investigations from being conducted just to derail a candidate's campaign.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:37am

      Re: um, no, simply, no...

      The problem is that it is prejudicial against the person. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence but throwing out random innuendos obviously violates that. And there is no chance of even adjudicating this before the election. At this point, it's not much more than baseless accusation.

      Law enforcement launches many investigations that go absolutely nowhere. Unless there is actual, damning evidence of a crime it is better to stay out of it.

      If there was a crime, there are ways to deal with it after the election (eg impeachment)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:44am

        Re: Re: um, no, simply, no...

        The problem I have with waiting for impeachment is that the claim would undoubtedly be made that the alleged crimes occurred BEFORE she was president, therefore an impeachment would be invalid. It wouldn't be the furthest legal stretch our government has made.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:54am

        Re: Re: um, no, simply, no...

        Impeachment is the politicians get out of jail free card, as it removes their crimes from the jurisdiction of the courts.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:40am

    Inccorrect Interpretation

    The emails don't have to contain classified for them to demonstrate a crime. It would be sufficient for the emails to demonstrate intent to (or gross negligence in) distributing classified, since the FBI already knows that classified was distributed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:17am

      Re: Inccorrect Interpretation

      Also if the emails did have classified information most likely the subject line will state the level of classification. That indicator is more than enough to get a warrant.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2016 @ 12:19pm

      Re: Inccorrect Interpretation

      The emails should never be in an insecure location and also the emails and all equipment ie, server, were supposed to be handed over to the State Dept. the day HRC left office. Not years later and only partially. She is in violation with just this. Intent is not part of the statute.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:40am

    Yup

    Yup, This is AWESOME!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:45am

    There's already been a Hatch Act complaint filed

    Richard Painter, who was the chief ethics lawyer during George W. Bush's administration, is the one responsible for it. What's interesting is that he argues that specific intent is not required, that is, the Hatch Act isn't written to take that into consideration. Not being an attorney skilled in this area, I can't say whether that's a correct interpretation or not -- but IF it's correct, then Comey is going to face his own investigation soon enough.

    Having of course spent much of the weekend (like everyone else) reading about this, I really don't see why anyone would care. Of COURSE Weiner's devices have email to/from Abedin. Of COURSE they have email about the campaign. Of COURSE they have all kinds of email to/from other people involved in the campaign. And of COURSE -- because it's Weiner -- they have email that probably relates to his inability to control his libido. Hardly a shocking revelation: I expect that the same is true of dozens of other people in/around the campaign.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:36am

      Re: There's already been a Hatch Act complaint filed

      Hatch act is a joke. If it was legitimate, the PRESIDENT OF THE US couldnt fly clinton around on Air Force 1 and stand next to her at her fund raising attempts. Do you really only see 1 side?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:52am

    Comey was screwed no matter what he did. If he withheld the new information the right would be screaming foul, if he sent it to Congress the left would be screaming foul. I would have done the same thing if I were him. To hell with "guidelines and gentlemen agreements". If he found something that gave him the legal obligation to reopen the case, then he needs to reopen the case. Not sweep it under the rug until after the election. If it came to pass the allegations were true, and he withheld until after the election, I would claim the election was a fraud.

    Now with that said, if they find he didn't have good reason to reopen the case, he needs to be prosecuted for election tampering. But if what I'm reading in the news is true, that there is evidence the DOJ blocked an investigation into the Clinton Foundation after a high ranking FBI investigators wife received a half million dollar campaign donation from a long standing Clinton supporter, which is apparently what the emails suggest, grab your popcorn guys.. this one is going to be good. *que game of throne's style epic musical intro*

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Quiet Lurcker, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:37am

      Re:

      "If he found something that gave him the legal obligation...."

      Sorry, but that ship has sailed. No matter what he did, Comey was tampering with the election. That started happening the the minute the investigation was announced.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:49am

        Re: Re:

        "No matter what he did, Comey was tampering with the election."

        No need to be sorry, I agree with you. If he kept the info to himself he was withholding, if he announced he was breaking the "guidelines". He was screwed no matter what he did for sure.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If he kept the info to himself he was withholding, if he announced, he was breaking the "guidelines". He was screwed no matter what he did for sure."

          Missed a comma between announced and he... sry.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dan (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:02am

      Re:

      The case was never closed. Comey's first announcement was only that. The case is ongoing, always was. This was an update announcement. If this is illegal election tampering, then it's further proof that Washington is untouchable by law enforcement, or have any remaining accountability.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:11am

    Several Misunderstandings, Here

    First, since it's quick: the DOJ doesn't control the FBI. The DOJ has been unable to rein in the FBI's investigation because the DOJ never had the power to do so to begin with. All it can do is refuse to bring charges for any particular case. This particular case has been quite controversial. The DOJ has always opposed the investigation, while there was debate within the FBI. Some within the FBI have stated that the case was allowed to continue beyond when it should have reasonably been closed, while others complain that the investigation of the case was hindered by superiors within the FBI. Some witnesses say the DOJ opposed pursuing the Clinton Foundation because evidence was weak, others say the DOJ never paid much attention to the evidence at all. Throw in the matter of Lynch and the first husband and no intelligent person would presume to know whether it's the FBI or DOJ that has political motivations at this point.

    Second, as I understand it from more mainstream news outlets, there are two separate investigations going on inside the FBI: the investigation into Weiner, and the investigation into Clinton. These are totally independent investigations carried out by separate FBI teams. The laptop in question was acquired by the Weiner team in their investigation. They looked at the e-mails and decided they should have the Clinton team take a look, as they seemed relevant to the Clinton case. It is the Clinton team that until the warrant was issued today was unable to analyze the e-mails. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Weiner team did not have a warrant to view the e-mails for their own investigation, and everything I've seen has indicated that the decision to kick the e-mails over to the Clinton investigation was made AFTER surveying the e-mails in question (though obviously said survey was not performed by the experts on the Clinton case, so YMMV).

    Lastly, while it's indeed possible Comey might face investigation in the future for his decision to disclose, there really is no room for sympathy for Clinton here, as she created this very situation herself. The BBC quotes Podesta and another of Hillary's closest advisors:

    "We've taken on a lot of water that won't be easy to pump out of the boat", he wrote in September 2015 as Clinton staff feared that Vice President Joe Biden would join the Democratic primary race.

    "Most of that has to do with terrible decisions made pre-campaign, but a lot has to do with her instincts," he wrote, to which Mrs Tanden responded ""Almost no one knows better [than] me that her instincts can be terrible."

    In the email exchange, Mr Podesta also complained that Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall, and former State Department staffers Cheryl Mills and Philippe Reines "sure weren't forthcoming here on the facts here". Mrs Tanden responds "Why didn't' they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy."

    She later answered her own question saying, "I guess I know the answer. They wanted to get away with it."

    There is a saying I expect you've heard before: never bet anything you can't afford to lose. Hillary bet big on getting away with her illegal private e-mail server. In a week we will know exactly how much she will lose as a result of that bet. And if it results in tears, they are well-earned.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jim, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:04am

      Re: Several Misunderstandings, Here

      I keep hearing ". Illegal email server". When is email illegal? Has it been declared 2000? When the hard drives went missing from where? No, that was the records preservation act, and said to the effect, emails are wanted and needed to be preserved, for historians. Private servers, no, even the Republicans, did not change that one, or they would be in jail, remember, the majority party, still uses that server, to make their plans. Those plans become our laws, and our secrets, with the same classifications. Illegal to use a server? Other then the one assigned? No, no, and no. Waste of government time? Maybe, but, would you want to mix family and business email?
      Apparently, everyone is still trying to convict Weiner, and they finally got around to his email? Boy, that's dragging out forever. Oh, and his wife was hills chief of staff, now we are getting somewhere. Politics. There have been department heads fired previously for the same thing. It's nothing new. Been done for the same type of thing, and it's not just a sixty day issue. It's a 365 day issue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:27am

        Re: Re: Several Misunderstandings, Here

        You're right that private servers per se are not illegal. But you're forgetting something critical: the classified information sent and received by Clinton and her aides and stored on that server. It is a federal crime to transport or store classified information outside governmentally secured locations. While there has thus far been no repercussions of the information being stored there (i.e. thus far we know of no security breaches), that does not change the incontrovertible fact that a crime was committed.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:45am

          Re: Re: Re: Several Misunderstandings, Here

          Don't forget the records retention laws either. That's a whole separate area in which her private server was illegal.

          Most Transparent Administration Ever™

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Several Misunderstandings, Here

            And the most ironic thing of all: it was the violation of the records law that turned this whole thing from a finite investigation into an unlimited one. Once we knew positively that there was classified information stored on that server, record retention laws would have ensured that we knew at that point EXACTLY how much classified information there was. But because of non-compliance with those laws, ANY e-mails from that server are potentially classified, sending law enforcement on a huge scavenger hunt and leading DIRECTLY to the FBI's reopening of the case a week before the election, potentially derailing her presidential bid.

            As I said, this crisis is the work of her own hands.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:13am

    If i were Comey should Hillary become President then he best tail out of the country as soon as possible for permanent residence elsewhere because i doubt that Hillary will allow him to keep his job and will therefore fire him because he dared to investigate her and he may be met with an accident or disappearance because i doubt she is the kind of person not to get revenge on someone going by her past actions.

    Comey's best hope is for Trump to be President even if he doesn't want or like Trump to be President. Trump should he become President will no doubt give Comey a slap on the back for a job well done and reward Comey.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dan (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:06am

      Re:

      The day that a law enforcement officer's primary concern is keeping their job, they need replacement regardless.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:04am

        Re: Re:

        And that is why politically electing people outside what is strictly necessary is extremely dangerous to the system. I mention:

        SCOTUS and other political promotion of judges, as well as prosecutors draws into question the intentions of the cases and their results...

        Sherifs and other local law enforcement officers (see Joe Arpaio ie.). Their political affiliations and thereby their attachment to "laws as they should be" is sometimes disturbing their duty to uphold the laws as they are.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          SCOTUS...

          Sherifs[sic]...

          So you don't like appointments, and you don't like elected offices either. How do you think government positions should be chosen?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            same way we pick which fair maiden gets fed to the dragon, draw lots.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2016 @ 5:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Either by a merited system or by chance. The charm-test that politics is about is not suitable for administrative positions

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 1 Nov 2016 @ 5:50am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Either by a merited system or by chance.

              You want to pick Supreme Court justices out of the phone book.

              If it's by merit, who decides who merits the job?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                The Wanderer (profile), 2 Nov 2016 @ 5:58am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The suggestion I've seen floated is that we should pick the candidates for election to any given office randomly ("out of the phone book", as you say), let them campaign for a while as they will, then let the electorate vote on those candidates, with a "none of the above" option; if "none of the above" wins, or possibly if none of the options gets a (sufficient) majority, we discard that slate of candidates and repeat the process with a new random slate of candidates.

                There's some difficulty trying to mesh that with offices where there's a good argument to be made that direct election leads to undesirable incentives on the part of the office-holder, and I don't have an immediate solution to suggest for that, but I did think the initial idea was interesting.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Wendy Cockcroft, 2 Nov 2016 @ 6:58am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Shouldn't people be encouraged to choose based on the qualifications for the role? Sheriffs ought to have a basic idea of the laws they're enforcing, for example. If I was in a position to do so I'd make it mandatory for anyone aspiring to public office to pass an exam in law (the US equivalent of a national vocational qualification) to prove their competence. There should also be a pastoral component with training in de-escalation, etc. Basically, people ought to be able to do the job because they know how, not because they're popular.

                  I had to get a qualification to be an administrator, I've got NVQs in admin, customer service, and FM. Why shouldn't there be some kind of course to take for people aspiring to public office? Some kind of civics qualification?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 2:12pm

      Re:

      they have already established the precedent to use drone for assassinations of people they don't like in foreign countries without a trial. He will most certainly be killed off if she became president. I think there is a website dedicated to showing how many have "mysteriously died" after trying to expose the criminal acts of both clintons. Think there is about 80 dead people on that list and what they did to end up "randomly dying"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    HegemonicDistortion (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:14am

    I'm absolutely no fan of Comey's, but just look at the way FBI agents are leaking to the press about who the emails are supposedly between and even how many there might be. There was no chance he could have held this off even if it would have been the right thing to do (which I'm not convinced it would have been).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:30am

    Now this is funny

    The FBI really isn't supposed to be announcing investigations of presidential candidates this close to Election Day.

    Yes, because investigating crimes by political candidates would be wrong. Now nailing a peasant to the wall for jay walking is perfectly acceptable. But holding the leaders of the country accountable is unacceptable. But then again, there is nothing she can do to prevent her sheeple from putting her in the White House.

    clearing Hillary Clinton's slate by deciding she was stupid rather than malicious

    Yet another ridiculous statement by the sheeple. First, Comey listed off all crimes she committed. Crimes a peasant would be in jail for. Then in a fist, he said that she shouldn't be prosecuted which is something the DOJ should have decided, not the FBI. Of course the Obama appointed leader of the DOJ said they would just go along with the FBI.

    Until the sheeple hold leaders accountable, power hungry, corrupt politicians like the Clinton's is what we will get.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:45am

      Re: Now this is funny

      Oh come on man. Just because they shouldn't announce an investigation doesn't mean they shouldn't do the investigation. Its people like you who can't grasp the difference between two different concepts who caused those guidelines to be created in the first place. Its always the people complaining about sheeple who are the most naive and easily manipulated.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:04am

        Re: Re: Now this is funny

        Since the Dir. of the FBI is appointed by the President, Hillary can have him removed from office in January. Same with the DOJ and why the IRS got a free pass from them under Obama. Seems the sheeple think justice can be done at the top when it is just the fox guarding the hen house. Don't be so naive.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:59am

      Re: Now this is funny

      "Yes, because investigating crimes by political candidates would be wrong."

      No, because announcing such things this close to elections leaves no time for the claims to be adjudicated in a court of law.

      Consider how it would play with Republicans if, today, October 31, 2016, the FBI announced that it was investigating allegations that Donald Trump raped a 13-year-old girl. (There's already a lawsuit about this in progress.) Now, maybe the FBI is already investigating this. Maybe they're not. But IF they announce it today, while that investigation is still going on, there won't be time in the next 8 days to settle it, no matter how it turns out, e.g., complete exoneration or sufficient evidence to bring charges. And it will affect the outcome of the election, there's no doubt of that.

      That's why the "gentleman's agreement" exists. It's to stop October surprises like this because it's recognized by the grown-ups in both major political parties that it serves neither justice nor the electoral process to do so.

      The problem here isn't the Clinton investigation (although I suspect there's nothing there.) The problem here isn't the Weiner investigation (although I suspect there's something there). The problem is that the Comey has really, REALLY damaged the FBI's reputation for credibility and independence -- which is why people at all levels of the agency are furious with him. Because no matter how this turns out, the next time and the next time and the next time after that, the FBI's announcements will be viewed through this lens. He's just undercut -- badly -- decades of restraint, some of it exercised by directors who really didn't want to, but did anyway, because they recognized it was necessary.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:07am

        Re: Re: Now this is funny

        See my comment above. If the investigations are not done before the election, the new President will just remove the Dir. of the FBI. The gentlemen's agreement is so the neither party will be held accountable. You don't put me in jail, I won't put you in jail. Meanwhile sheeple support the candidates thinking that justice will be done.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:24am

          Re: Re: Re: Now this is funny

          That is rather conspiratorial. The main issues with opening an investigation so close to an election is exactly to avoid conspiratorial thoughts on what it is that they are investigating.

          We will have to see, but unless FBI can release the evidence and/or conclude the investigations before the election, the public will have to rely on a rumour started by a republican FBI-director... How is that for "the system" being impartial?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            seedeevee (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Now this is funny

            This is not a new investigation.

            The FBI now has evidence that Huma Abedin lied when she said she handed over all copies of her e-mails. They have proof on that computer.

            Hiding the illegalities of HRC's "Chief of Staff"is not in the public interest.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 2:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now this is funny

              Where is the official source on that? Just Sean Spicers conspiracy theory?

              ¨While we don’t know the facts, while we don’t know what’s going on, we have continued to see a pattern..."

              The problem of what comical Comey did is exactly this type of solicited speculation.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:41pm

          Re: Re: Re: Now this is funny

          If the investigations are not done before the election, the new President will just remove the Dir. of the FBI.

          And if there isn't time to complete the investigation before the election? Should they announce the investigation before, thus possibly influencing the election, and then complete the investigation between the election and inauguration? How is that better than announcing it after the election?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:14am

        Re: Re: Now this is funny

        So in other words, anybody in politics gets a free pass until they are in charge of those who would prosecute them. That has got to be the most extreme case of regulatory capture I have heard of in my life.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Padpaw (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 2:19pm

        Re: Re: Now this is funny

        You mean the same FBI that keeps getting caught lying to the public about the fake terrorist attacks it creates. Only reveals they were fake when someone leaks the info

        Somehow I think they had no credibility before this email scandal. Probably has to do with the constant false flag attacks mentioned above.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bt, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:37am

      Re: Now this is funny

      So we're sheeple are we?

      Nice how that word ties misogyny and together with Palinism. Proud traditions of stupidity, thy new name is Trump.

      As we all know, there were no emabassy attacks before Benghazi, and no republicans ever used private email servers to cover there tracks while planning a war in the middle east using fake intelligence - what's a few million dead Arabs anyway.

      Sure, both sides. After all, Hillary had 5 or 10 unclassified emails on her server. She must be executed for treason. And elect Trump, a moron who will simply delegate the whole jpb to someone else as any good MBA has been taught to do.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    NeghVar (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:39am

    Redemption

    Comey has reconsidered his initial decision and seeks redemption among his fellow agents, attorneys, prosecutors, and the rational American public for initially giving into the intimidation tactics of the Clinton Machine.
    The Clinton Machine is a lot darker and sinister than many of you believe.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BUUy1C0_4g

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:44am

      Re: Redemption

      Yes, it is amazing that the Director of the FBI is afraid of a politician. That should tell you the depth and breadth of the Clinton's influence and should scare anyone who would consider putting her in office.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dan (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:43am

    Gentlemen's agreement?!

    So, we should delay an announcement of progress of a criminal investigation because of a 'gentlemen's agreement'?! It's no wonder there is no accountability in Washington.

    And BTW, the investigation was ongoing, not closed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Eponymous Coward (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:04am

      Re: Gentlemen's agreement?!

      I served with Gentlemen, I know Gentlemen, Gentlemen are friends of mine. Hillary Rodham Clinton is no Gentlman.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:42am

      Re: Gentlemen's agreement?!

      We should delay an announcement until after the election because no findings of fact can possibly be found between now and then. Therefore, any announcements made between now and then can shape public perception without any actual facts being provided to back up the change in perception.

      In other words, the FBI could, in the run-up to any election, start any sort of investigation on any candidate they didn't want to win. The agreement is in place to prevent this from happening.

      Now in *this* case, the information is in regards to an already existing investigation, so the situation isn't as clear. Comey would have been in a much better position if he had simply stated that the Weiner investigation had uncovered further information potentially applicable to the Clinton investigation, and the FBI was continuing to pursue information. Instead, Comey came out with the details he suspected were about to be leaked, giving them a patina of respectability. THIS is what he did that was wrong. He also did other things that could be found to be wrong in the future, but until his actions are investigated more thoroughly (when Clinton is President), this is just as much circumstantial as what has now been published about Clinton.

      So it's not really about whether the DOJ or the FBI was dabbling in partisan politics, it's that they BOTH were, plus Clinton was doing things in an illegal manner, and the result is that all sides of this situation are irrevocably tainted. This is exactly why all government communications is supposed to go through government servers, and why there is supposed to be bureaucracy and separation of power. Due to so many mess-ups on so many levels, and so many abdications of protocol, almost everyone is stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, and cannot make a decision that is both correct and legal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:46am

    Waiting for the Gerald Ford no-look pardon play

    Knowing that there has been a history of animosity between HRC and BHO, I would find no end of amusement in an Obama-penned pardon for Hillary. The double-edged amazingness of it can't be overstated. Think of it:

    Sitting president issues pardon to presidential hopeful for any crimes she might have committed against the United States. HRC is then given the choice of the tiger or the strawberry: ride out all the investigations, be again shown to have been utterly careless (yet somehow not criminally negligent) and maybe dodge indictment, or accept the pardon and the political seppuku that comes with it.

    Please, santa, it's all I want.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Eponymous Coward (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:49am

      Re: Waiting for the Gerald Ford no-look pardon play

      Crap, failed to sign in before posting. I take full credit for the above nonsense.

      Seriously though, would she take a guarantee that the investigations would end if it meant tacit admission of wrongdoing?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:44pm

        Re: Re: Waiting for the Gerald Ford no-look pardon play

        Seriously though, would she take a guarantee that the investigations would end if it meant tacit admission of wrongdoing?

        Now, probably not. After the election she just might. Just my opinion obviously.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Whatever, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:48am

    Go, Comey go! Go, Comey go!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:02am

    Is this really a surprise?

    "But he apparently has no qualms about violating internal DOJ gentlemen's agreements, which should raise questions -- as Wheeler notes -- about what other policies or guidance Comey considers optional."

    Is it really a surprise coming from an agency that views the Constitution and Bill of Rights as optional and an obstacle to be worked around? An internal gentlemen's agreement didn't stand a chance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:10am

    Why is this article in techdirt? It is pure politics and has nothing to do with tech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:11am

    in all honesty, someone tell me the last time, if at all, that any government body or a security force actually gave a toss about obeying and following the law? all of the various offices are of the opinion that they are above the ordinarily accepted laws and are, in fact, laws unto themselves! not a single body cares what is said or done that should prevent them from doing what they do, in the ways they do it!
    perhaps wrong here but in my opinion, the by far worst offender is the force with a name that describes what it should stand for and how it should act, the Justice Department, but in actual fact is the worst of a very bad bunch! it completely ignores the very thing it is supposed to stand for itself, while pursuing anyone else, members of the public etc with a tenacity that it should be ashamed of, bending, even breaking laws on the way to achieving what it always wants, a conviction, regardless of whether the person concerned is guilty or not! and dont forget it prevents the accused and their lawyer(s) from being in contact with each other, withhold evidence until actually in trial and have witnesses suddenly 'disappear'! this is the USA we have today and it isn't a country to be proud of in the slightest!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:18am

    Prosecution for classified spillage

    RE: "prosecution for actions most other government employees wouldn't have walked away from" That not true. I work in DoD and can tell you that spillage of classified information onto unclassified systems (email and others) is a frequent occurrence and I've never seen anyone prosecuted for it. In fact, I've never even seen anyone loose their security clearance for it. Usually, it's just an honest mistake or being ignorant of the classification rules. The rule that define what is classified and what is not can be extremely complex. My reaction to the FBI's decision not to prosecute was that Clinton's spillage fell into the standard "carelessness" category of the typical spillage event.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:38am

    Comey was right to do what he did. Why is techdirt placing headlines that are slanted left all of the sudden? Try some facts instead of trying to slant a story from the first line. As far as people talking about the HATCH act, would the president flying around hillary in AF1 and standing next to her be considered criminal according to the hatch act? He is directly using it position in office to try to influence the election.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:41am

    Very funny, after advising that Clinton didn't do anything (that could be proven) that would warrant a criminal trial, the Dems. loved him and the Republicans hated him.

    Now, the Dems hate him and the Republicans love him.

    God, can't you fucktards see how transparently lame you actually are? You make excuses for your candidate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:42am

    Public oversight and accountability to the law are only for Republicans. -- Techdirt

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:46am

    "has no qualms about violating internal DOJ gentleman's agreements"

    Gentleman being the operative word. It's not surprising.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:46am

    Just think

    If Clinton had encrypted the emails using strong encryption without a law enforcement backdoor, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Instead, Comey would be whining about going dark and maybe Clinton would be rethinking her nerd harder viewpoints.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:54am

    If Huma were an ordinary person, the FBI would be ransacking her house right now

    Whether Huma lied or was merely mistaken, the FBI no longer has any reason to trust her about what devices she has or doesn't have, and what files she has or doesn't have.

    The FBI should be ransacking her house, digging up her yard, and searching her safe deposit boxes, etc.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:11am

    Bring back the Clinton email investigation? It never went away. Them 'clearing' Hillary wasn't the end of it, just the the apparent end of the part that most people found interesting.

    I doubt they would have trouble as pertains to searches. I'd bet whatever warrant the Weiner investigation was to search emails on his computer in general, not specifically for emails sent to or from him. They'd pretty much need that to make sure he wasn't using different email accounts. Hell for that matter they probably had a warrant to search all files on his computer given the allegations. I really don't see them running into much trouble on this issue. I doubt they'll turn up anything much more interesting that the Clinton investigation already has, but it still bears a look.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:22am

    Comey didn't do anything wrong, as a Law Enforcement Officer, he acted in good faith (cough).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    dwind (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:23am

    What are the emails?

    From what I've gathered from comments by Comey, these aren't 'just emails' but maybe a dump or copy of Hillary's email server.
    If so, then major problem, like what are they doing in Carlos's private laptop? How did they get there? Did they use Carlos's system as backup? Did Huma put them in. She claims she never uses it? Did Carlos have an ID on clintons email server? I think this matters if they are confidential or not. The last thing I read said there was over 500,000 of these emails.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:34am

      Re: What are the emails?

      Exactly. Comey has planted these questions in the minds of people before an election. I hope he can answer them before people start to believe conspiratorial explainations...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:02am

        Re: Re: What are the emails?

        Comey didn't do that. The e-mails did. Where Hillary chose to store them did. Her staff choosing to screen/destroy did. Her [in hindsight] bad policy decisions did. Don't blame the whistle blower. She could have come out of this squeaky clean if she would have turned over the server without deleting anything to the government.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 9:20am

          Re: Re: Re: What are the emails?

          After the original case started, I don't think that would have been enough. She is a presidential candidate for Petes sake!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:24am

    Comey is in it for the long game

    Why is the FBI milking the dirt they have on Clinton for all that it's worth? Well, because FBI adores a power vacuum that they can expand in. And it's win-win this time: even if they don't manage getting a vacuous president, what they will achieve with a high degree of likelihood is have people vote out Trump but then, "in compensation", vote in another Republican House, never mind that Republicans have lost the necessary grip on politics to tell a presidential election from a clown show.

    So Hillary will not get anything done because of Republicans blocking everything every time (this time because of not wanting to side with anything from "Crooked Hillary" rather than "Kenyan Obama bin Laden").

    And as opposed to the "birthers" stupidity, they have something actually grounded in a bit of reality to smear Hillary with.

    The electorate will swallow this for all that it's worth, and the political impasse will continue.

    And that means that nobody will be able to keep the agencies in check as the technical possibilities and budgets surpass the laws and structures that were designed for reigning in decidedly less deadly game.

    So while I feel pretty confident that this game will not be enough to put Trump at the helm of the Titanic, it will result in seriously deflated handling ability for Clinton as the likely winner of this turd race, and the death spiral for civil liberties will continue mostly unchecked.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:27am

      Re: Comey is in it for the long game

      "And as opposed to the "birthers" stupidity,"

      This was actually started by Hillary when she was campaigning against BO.

      "it will result in seriously deflated handling ability for Clinton"

      Yes please!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:05am

      Re: Comey is in it for the long game

      "the death spiral for civil liberties will continue mostly unchecked."

      That was a given no matter who won or how. Not one candidate, including all of the ones that have dropped out so far, supported all of our rights.

      Bernie was against guns, aka against your right to self-defense.

      Rand was against abortion.

      Ben Carson was against sanity.

      Trump is against the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments.

      Hillary is against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th.

      Even Gary "Supposedly-Libertarian" Johnson supports the frikkin TPP.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:24am

    Our two options for president are between a criminal and a lunatic. I can't decide what's worse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:09am

    Notifying the Congress to amend his earlier testimony of "the investigation is concluded" may or may not be partisan. Everybody's reaction to it certainly seems to be...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:20am

    "Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office..."

    So if Trump jumped behind the wheel of a car and started mowing people down with his SUV, the government's "gentleman's agreement" would force them to keep mum about it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:32am

    Entertaining consistency

    Generally, I find law enforcement's handling of search/seizure to be excessively heavy-handed whenever anything electronic is involved (seize everything on the premises with a microprocessor and hold it for months, because maybe you'll find an incriminating file on one of the devices, and there's obviously no lesser way to obtain and preserve that evidence). However, I find it amusing that such heavy-handedness may actually harm a member of the political elite. I am not naive enough to believe that such harm, however slight or severe it turns out to be, will actually result in law enforcement becoming more even-handed in how they handle searches, but at least we get to watch someone privileged feel the sting of a bulk seizure.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stan (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 8:53am

    Redundant?

    "...sleazy ex-politician's..."

    Isn't that redundant?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:39am

      Re: Redundant?

      Not with the "ex". There is a whole opera "Tannhäuser und der Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg" about it. Nobody is beyond redemption.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:28am

    So we've got Benghazi, the email scandal, the wiener gate-payoff-FBI guys wife running for office scandal, the Bill sex scandal, the give the questions before the debate cnn scandal, and now... the illegitimate love child of Bill Clinton supposedly has a big reveal press conference tonight.

    I'm on my third popcorn maker!!

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/clintons-black-son-to-make-bombshell-announcement/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:40am

      Re:

      WND, where even a tinfoil hat isn't enough. :D

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:57am

        Re: Re:

        yeah yeah.. i know the source is jacked up, but the guy said he's going to hold a press conference and drop a bombshell... If they went and got a DNA test, and compared the results to the Lewinsky dress and the results were positive... it will be the biggest reveal since Darth Vader broke the news to Luke. ... *shovels popcorn into face*....

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:00am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Aye a DNA test would be needed. If it came back positive, would that make Clinton the Jefferson of our time? =D

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            OMG! YOUR SO RIGHT! It's brilliant! I wonder if we could get Mel Brooks to Direct? *shovels more popcorn into face*

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:32am

    Announcing an investigation so close to the election is wrong. If Hilary gets elected and later is determined to do something criminally, and is charged, there is less harm because we have a vice president that can take over. There is a process to succession of power in America. By announcing an investigation without even looking at the emails is steering the votes without any good information. From what I read, FBI do not inform the public that they are investigating anyone. They do their investigations, then let's the DOJ decide to prosecute or not. That is it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      seedeevee (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:06am

      Re: Kill the Babies

      Hillary never should have been elected and never would have had a vice-president if crimes were committed and known by the public.

      AG Lynch and the other politicians in the DOJ have been trying to kill these babies (e-mails/Clinton Foundation/etc.) in their cribs for years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    seedeevee (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:02am

    The Process That We Do

    Hillary is guaranteed a process that the Justice Department does - as AG Holder said.

    Nothing more. Nothing less.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:08am

    Metadata

    The plain view exception does not allow evidence to be seized outside a warrant unless it is “immediately apparent” upon viewing it that it is evidence of another crime. Just looking quickly at the new evidence, there needs to be probable cause that it is evidence of a second crime to justify its seizure, which would presumably be necessary to apply for the second warrant.

    Assuming the FBI hadn't already taken a peek, all that was known about these emails was that they involved a top Clinton aide. There could be no determination at that point that they contained classified or sensitive material.

    But they might be able to determine something just by looking at the metadata. If an email was sent by Hillary, and if that email was not turned over by Hillary previously, wouldn't that be pretty convincing evidence that she was obstructing the investigation? Enough to extend the warrant, at least, so they could look at the emails?

    The coverup is the crime.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 11:21am

    I'll tell you like I told your buddy (who has clearly put you in charge of the topic now that his buttocks is being handed back to him on a platter). Comey made it clear that the only reason they weren't going to prosecute is because they didn't have enough evidence to do so. This doesn't "clear a person's slate" or anything remotely like it. He wasn't assured a win, so he did not proceed - just like a thousand other prosecutors tend to do (even against people in the damn mob... that doesn't render people in the mob lawful citizens). The closer it gets to d-day, the more desperate you shits become - your ass-sucking is becoming hilarious.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:16pm

    if there's any good from all this it's that the whole country - and indeed the world - can clearly see what pink and grey hippo diarrhea the fbi has become.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Cat, 31 Oct 2016 @ 12:24pm

    TD = Biased Media

    Yeah I think I'm done with Techdirt if they're supporting this criminal and her criminal followers. Time after time after time, they get exposed for being criminals and yet TD staff still worship them.

    I mean the list of Clinton and Liberal criminal activity is virtually endless but of course TD won't report on it so I'll post a bunch of it here:

    Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pr essed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=2

    Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank:

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-comp any

    Hillary’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in Haiti:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/role-of-hillary-clintons-brother-in-haiti-gold-mine-ra ises-eyebrows/2015/03/20/c8b6e3bc-cc05-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html

    Hillary’s Foundation Hid a Foreign Donation of 2 Million Shares of Stock by a Mining Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/gifts-to-hillary-clintons-family-charity-are-scrutinized- in-wake-of-book-1429754883

    Hillary’s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for -control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

    Bill Clinton was Paid by a For-Profit Education Company Laureate While the Company Benefitted from an Increase in Funding from Hillary’s State Dept.:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-25/author-alleges-bill-clinton-just-quit-ed ucation-company-because-of-clinton-cash-

    The Clinton Foundation has Been Forced to Refile at Least 5 Years of Annual Tax Returns and May Audit Other Clinton Foundation Returns:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-taxes-exclusive-idUSKBN0NE0CA20150423

    At Least $26 Million of the Clintons’ Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation Donors:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-clintons-speech-income-shows-how-their-wealth-is- intertwined-with-charity/2015/04/22/12709ec0-dc8d-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html

    Bill Clinton Delivered Numerous Speeches Paid for By Individuals and Corporations with Pending Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-secretary-state/story?id=30522705

    Bi ll Clinton Lied about Hosting a Meeting with Frank Giustra and Kazakh Nuclear Officials at Clinton’s Home in Chappaqua, New York:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/23/tangled-clinton-web.html

    Clinton wanted war in Libya http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/

    Wikileaks email shows them crafting a narrative on Libya https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23898#efmARSAR6

    Clinton knew how difficult the transition would be https://archive.is/kYpqm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

    Libya is a failed state – Islamists were repressed by dictators http://fpif.org/four-years-after-gaddafi-libya-is-a-failed-state/

    Libyan weapons funnelled to Syria https://archive.is/ZOr78

    ISIS in Libya http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/10/17/us-airstrikes-against-isis-in-libya-doubled-in-less-than-mon th.html

    Clinton wants to arm the Kurds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_L-opHEVC8

    Dick Cheney on arming the Kurds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

    Hillary knows it will damage Turkey, but she doesn’t care after Erdrogan’s Islamist takeover https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7243
    Edrogan thinks its “inept” http://www.firstpost.com/world/hillary-clintons-proposal-of-arming-syrian-kurdish-fighters-political ly-inept-president-erdogan-3047986.html

    Hillary wants to overthrow Assad and destablise Iran to benefit Israel https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    Trump wants to arm the Kurds too http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=682_1469048373

    Who are the Kurds? http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/828209b9-b737-4253-88b2-af0e4e53dba1/Secularism–essential-to-Ku rdish-identity http://ekurd.net/related-articles/honor-killings-in-kurdish-society

    Hillary opposed Syrian ceasefire http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html

    Clinton lies about this https://twitter.com/JeanetteJing/status/699565125108260864

    No fly zone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczfN9RJp7w Senate armed services committee against the no fly zone 4:30
    Hillary thinks it will save lives http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/20/clinton-insists-syria-no-fly-zone-would
    She also knows it will take lives https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10/in-secret-goldman-sachs-speech-hillary-clinton-admitted-no-fly-z one-would-kill-a-lot-of-syrians/

    Senate armed services committee against the no fly zone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryoTN7VKSg
    http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-1.747305

    No fly zone in Aleppo https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/12/no-fly-zone-aleppo-war-russia-syria
    http://www. bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37621825
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-syria-ale ppo-besieged-russia-parliament-a7356486.html


    Hillary: Russia is rigging the election

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-press-russia-putin-227748

    Obama on Election Rigging

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLe9CW_jSw4

    DNC rigging

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-dnc-bernie-sanders_us_579381fbe4b02d5d5ed1d157

    h ttps://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056

    http://observer.com/2016/08/democrats-keep-party-rigged -with-wasserman-schultz-victory/

    https://www.rt.com/usa/356067-wasserman-schultz-boasts-clinton/

    https ://twitter.com/Parker9_/status/764974353574350848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D emocratic_National_Committee#DNC_National_Chairs

    Kaine chosen as VP in 2015

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2986#efmABHAB3AB6ACN

    Lawsuit

    http://observer.com/2016 /08/class-action-lawsuit-against-debbie-wasserman-schultz-moves-forward/

    http://observer.com/2016/10/ dnc-lawyers-argue-no-liability-neutrality-is-merely-a-promise/

    Superpac coordination

    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/hillary-superpac-coordination/

    DNC corruption – Project Veritas

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

    https:/ /www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

    Disrupter was on Clinton’s payroll

    http://nypost.com/2016/10/18/trump-rally-disrupter-was-once-on-clinton-campaigns-payroll/

    Bob Creamer fired

    https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/788484460652167168

    Foval fired

    http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/10/18/fired-staffer-busted-on-tape-in-project_veritas-video- no-longer-associated-with-au4change/?utm_content=buffer30640&utm_medium=social&utm_source=tw itter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/18/undercover-video- democratic-operatives-griffin-tell-lead.cnn



    Trump worried about a rigged election – who can blame him?

    http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498323094/dark-talk-of-a-rigged-election-signals-new-emphasis-for- trump-campaign

    Electoral fraud buses

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/widespread-voter-fraud-election/



    Hillary pro-open borders

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

    Dead voters

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/18/donald-trump-rejects-election-result-before-th e-votes-have-been-counted

    Voter fraud is real

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all- to/

    Could the election be hijacked?

    https://twitter.com/Darren32895836/status/788496038512304128

    Previous elections

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7R1_ixtlyc

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 1:06pm

    Can anyone doubt that if you take the teachings of the New Testament and the words of Christ to heart, the world would be a better place?

    Hell, if only one line were followed "Do to others as you would like them to do to you" the world would be a better place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 2:21pm

      Re:

      I find most true believers of faiths are quite tolerant people. Even towards others of opposing faiths.

      When you have the more fanatics of any group that turns words of peace into words of hate.

      Though I suppose satanists would be intolerant of anyone. So they are the exception.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      HegemonicDistortion (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 7:47pm

      Re:

      No doubt about it. Too bad American conservative Christians don't do that. Instead of helping the poor and other very Jesus-y things, they want to persecute others by pressing their religious laws into law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 1 Nov 2016 @ 7:47am

      Re:

      Minus the eternal torture bits, but you don't need a 'son of god' to tell you that it's generally a good idea to treat those around you good if you want to be treated good, that's a pretty basic concept.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 31 Oct 2016 @ 1:08pm

    Maybe we will get lucky and it will turn out he got payed off by trump.

    Trump will be arrested on some charge no doubt Hillary with any luck will be arrested instead of pardoned and we can move on to candidates not courting world war with russia instead.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 3:03pm

    this is virtually unprecedented in american politics. what we should do is call off the election for 60 days at the least. restart the process.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Norahc, 31 Oct 2016 @ 4:08pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 31st, 2016 @ 3:03pm

      Oh hell no!!! Another 60 days of campaigning and speeches? I'd rather pull y eardrums put through my anus.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Norahc, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:31pm

    How lomg ago?

    How long ago was this gentleman's agreement made? Thinking back to the Watergate Scandal and Assistant Deputy Director Mark Felt leaking information to the press in the guise of Deep Throat, it would appear this isn't the FBI's first foray into a presidential election.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:07pm

    I'm surprised no one has mentioned executive privilege.

    Comey can _say_ anything he wants this close to the election with absolutely ZERO fallout, and both Comey AND HRC know it. When the coupe is complete, executive privilege can negate the investigation, at which point it becomes Congress's problem to hire a special prosecutor, which isn't a problem since Congress is relatively cheap to buy.

    So the whole thing is kabuki theater. The two of them probably mutually agreed on this weeks ago. The goal is to to restore some sense of legitimacy to the FBI, and provide some cover for the FBI's role in the pending police actions against anyone who refuses to accept the outcome.

    Of course the FBI's making noise! How else are they going to distance themselves from the perception that they are involved in coupe d'etat?

    The goal here isn't to investigate. The goal here is to divert enough attention away from the FBI, so that when the FBI is shouting at people who are throwing rocks, the people have enough respect for the FBI that they put the rocks down. (YMMV)

    Personally I'm looking forward to attending the festivities. Not looking to be a blood donor, but like the song goes: "We went down to the demonstration, to get our fair share of abuse."

    It just comes with the citizenship.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    baywatch (profile), 1 Nov 2016 @ 8:46am

    Possibly the argument framed by the author here is flawed.

    Does the 4th amendment offer ultimate protection under espionage and wire tapping fisaish stuffs? I suspect probably not.

    Comey may be a bad leader making bad judgements but I doubt there is any hatch violations here, be pretty difficult to prove depending ultimate like on what is in those emails - which non of us know.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 1 Nov 2016 @ 9:01am

      Re:

      Does the 4th amendment offer ultimate protection under espionage and wire tapping fisaish stuffs?

      I don't know what fisaish is but statutes cannot supersede the Constitution.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2016 @ 10:36am

    Hillary Clinton is so corrupt that she will be the most corrupt United States president ever.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2016 @ 12:56pm

    Mrs Bad Decision is a no go

    Hillary Clinton has a long history of bad decisions. The email controversy is her own doing. Her whole campaign platform is "Bad Trump!", "Look, the Russians!", "It's someone else's fault!".

    If she had not been so intent on hiding her illegal deals and conflict of interest emails with the Clinton Foundation that she agreed to not have dealings with during her tenure as Secretary of State, she would not be in this situation. She and Trump are both bad choices. But Hillary is clearly relying on more cheating and dirty tricks to "win" the election. There is no proof other than a trumped up poll that she has any support from the people. Almost non-existent turnout at rallies. DNC hand-picked audience members at televised events. Apparently, George Soros owns about 1/3 of the voting machines and he is a Hillary Clinton campaign contributor.

    There are many videos showing that the voting machines can be hacked by just replacing the memory card which takes a few seconds.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t75xvZ3osFg&app=desktop

    I have zero faith in this election being carried out in an honest way. Also, absentee ballots are "the most" subject to fraud. And many states are using absentee ballots for the first time, ever. And ordering hundreds of times more ballots than were ever used in previous elections. There are so many holes in this soup can it has to be by design.

    And since Wikileaks has proven that the media is behind the HRC campaign, I trust nothing that is said that is in support of her. EVERYTHING Hillary says is a lie. Anything she says in public is her "public position". Not to be confused with her real "private position".

    The only safe vote this year is anti-establishment, for me that is Jill Stein.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2016 @ 1:57pm

    Check's in the mail

    Weiner's laptop is probably the laptop that Clinton said was "lost in the mail". Damn, didn't remember to 'file-off' that hardware id. lols.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Simmons, 4 Nov 2016 @ 12:26pm

    so, whats your point?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.