GOP calls FBI head Comey to testify this week

originally posted by: JustXeno
Can anyone here explain the difference to me between "Extreme carelessness" and "Gross negligence" as used by the FBI in regards to the email case.

Extreme carelessness is the politically correct term of Gross NEGLIGENCE.

In the same manor that violations is now the politically correct term for CRIMES.

After all Clinton's party is the master of calling one thing another.

a reply to: neo96

Actually the second term is the legal one used by lawyers.

a reply to: neo96

Yh I knew it was the same I'm not that dumb(honestly )

I was kind of hoping Introvert would be able to spin it to mean something completely innocent for me.

You know, even though this is not happening in my country, I just get so angry when some members say "let it go...".

Like what the actual f##k?

LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN, and your response is let it go?! Let it go, just because some high politician did it?!

There are no words to describe how retarded that is. If you're not willing to fight for what is right, and to defend your laws, then what's the point of anything you do in life?

There's this thing called civilian disobedience. It's your duty to use it

a reply to: BlueAjah

I keep seeing this and I hope your right. It would certainly explain why and how he worded his statement the way he did. He KNEW the DOJ would take his recommendation and he KNOWS even if he did recommend charges that they would surely put on the kid gloves.

Does anyone know whether CSPAN will air Comey's hearing, or will it be locked down with bits and pieces leaked afterward?

originally posted by: bbarkow

Does anyone know whether CSPAN will air Comey's hearing, or will it be locked down with bits and pieces leaked afterward?

Too early to say at this moment.

I sure hope it is completely televised.

It's must see tv.

Not that I don't think something smells funny here and not that I don't think the FBI made the wrong decision... and certainly not that I don't want some questions answered.

But the thought of the ineffectual Republicans leading yet another ineffective witch hunt, regardless of the reality of the witch amongst us, nauseates me.

I look forward to getting some answers but I am not holding my breath. I've had enough wishful thinking this election cycle to last a lifetime.

What I am expecting, however, is endless partisan bickering and buck-passing on both sides, leading to no answers and no solutions. As usual.

At least I can breathe easy, on that point.

originally posted by: Nikola014
You know, even though this is not happening in my country, I just get so angry when some members say "let it go...".

Like what the actual f##k?

LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN, and your response is let it go?! Let it go, just because some high politician did it?!

There are no words to describe how retarded that is. If you're not willing to fight for what is right, and to defend your laws, then what's the point of anything you do in life?

There's this thing called civilian disobedience. It's your duty to use it

I think you are confusing the general American public for a thinking people and a people who like to put their necks on the line to make sure stuff gets done.

I can say this because I am just as bad at acting on all the big talk as most the people I know. We all need a serious wake up call and we all seriously need to start banding together here.

I'd say MotherMayEye has given the best advice in this thread. We cannot forget the affronts to us by those in power, no matter which side of the aisle. But until we start working together as a cohesive "us" against the all powerful "them", it is an exercise in futility pointing all these fingers.

a reply to: atomish

But until we start working together as a cohesive "us" against the all powerful "them", it is an exercise in futility pointing all these fingers.

That's why we've been seeing all the community organizing tactics. A fractured people is easier to manipulate. It's been going on ever since Zero took office, and it has worked like a charm.

originally posted by: bbarkow
a reply to: atomish

But until we start working together as a cohesive "us" against the all powerful "them", it is an exercise in futility pointing all these fingers.

That's why we've been seeing all the community organizing tactics. A fractured people is easier to manipulate. It's been going on ever since Zero took office, and it has worked like a charm.

I'd argue that these kinds of divisionary tactics have been employed long before Obama took office but there is certainly a noticeable, undeniable increase in such activity the past several years. The reasons for this are for another thread.

But you are right, it has been quite effective. Sad but true.

If she wins does that mean she will have to sit at the same table that Monica Lewinsky once sat under?

Comey will go before Congress on thursday to explain his position and answer questions. Lynch quickly closed the investigation for obvious reasons. There is a possibility she will also be called at some point on this issue.

Should Trump win the case into Clinton can be reopened.

If politics were involved in Comey's decision / Lynch's decision I would hope for impeachment hearings.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Your theory has some merit.

It's going to be interesting how Comey gets "treated" by a Congressional Committee.

Some possibilities:

1. Republicans keep his cover and treat him as if he is the problem.

2. Republicans (in so many words) will thank him for exposing some high impact Hillary lies.

3. Democrats will be confused because they can't acknowledge the Hillary lies and they can't make it look like she should have been charged with anything illegal.

originally posted by: sg1642
If she wins does that mean she will have to sit at the same table that Monica Lewinsky once sat under?

Probably not.

The furniture has been changed and replaced by now.

originally posted by: bbarkow
a reply to: BlueAjah

It's like he said "screw it" and changed the last few minutes of his "recommend indictment" speech.

It's the spoken form of the classic denial form letter. You confirm some points, talk up the situation for the recipient, and then after saying things they want to hear in order to soften the blow, you tell them no.

I didn't catch the whole teaser, but it sounds like at least Fox will have the hearing live.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
A good outcome would be for Congress to assign a special prosecutor after Comey fills them in.

A prosecutor for what? The Justice Department isn't going to move forward with the case. Lynch put it in the hands of the FBI and said if they wanted to go forward she wouldn't stand in the way. The FBI, and Comey who had all the power (and Comey has historically been very anti Clinton) had to begrudgingly admit that they had nothing to move forward with.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If politics were involved in Comey's decision / Lynch's decision I would hope for impeachment hearings.

That would be epic.

Congress could fire them on the spot if they wanted RIGHT ?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: bbarkow
a reply to: BlueAjah

It's like he said "screw it" and changed the last few minutes of his "recommend indictment" speech.

It's the spoken form of the classic denial form letter. You confirm some points, talk up the situation for the recipient, and then after saying things they want to hear in order to soften the blow, you tell them no.

I think Comey believes she should be convicted. That was clear from his language. He just knew it was never going to happen from the current DOJ. So, he exposed her lies and incompetence so the public knows, and so that she might not become President. And he took a chance that she will come to justice through some other means. He did not have to lay it all out like he did. That was intentional.

If he sent it to prosecutors now, he would never have been able to expose the truth. And they would have sat on the case for a long time or exonerated her as "innocent".

Maybe Congress will assign a special prosecutor after Comey fills them in. Maybe they will be able to take some other kind of administration action. Comey made it clear from his language that this was not the end of things when he said:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Not "deciding now", but hopefully later.

If Trump is elected, because the case went no further now, it could be reopened again. And Hillary could face justice from a DOJ that is not corrupted by Obama and Hillary. I hope that is a nagging fear in the back of her mind, but she is too narcissistic to believe it could happen.

I think we will find out in tomorrow's Congressional session if Comey's intentions were honorable, as I am theorizing.