What do you think of Comey's decision to reopen the case against Hillary.

The right wing zealots will sink to anything right now to help their candidate along at this point.
Clinton herself said fine bring it forward and lets look at it, but the last time I looked the FBI was keeping hush about it,wonder why?
Believe me if it was something that could crush her they would have brought it forward and it would be all over every news station in your country by now.

Yawn. There is no there there.

Whitewater…
Vince Foster…
Benghazi…
Birth certificate…
Teleprompter…
Email…

As usual, it’s nothing of consequence.

And we will be hearing about it forever from conservatives who have nothing substantive to say.

You all may be right in that it may not be significant. That seems however, unlikely. If after the election Comey merely says ‘never mind’, That would end his career in public service. Hell, if Hillary is elected his career is likely over anyway.

It is amusing to note that Comey was the darling of the Democrats when he decided not to pursue prosecution and the goat for Republicans. Now both parties have reversed their impression of Comey. Amazing how fickle politics can be.

It seems certain that the announcement will have some impact on the election. The real question is how much?

He received new evidence, so he reopened the investigation. That’s literally his job. The only thing that makes this political is his decision to make it all public. Of course, he’s in a very difficult situation here. Any decision he makes has the potential to affect the election. He can talk now and be accused of rigging for Trump, or he can wait and be accused of rigging for Hillary. So he keeps ducking his head and making non-committal statements that both sides can spin as they please.

@Jaxk “You all may be right in that it may not be significant. That seems however, unlikely.”

The content of Comey’s letter seems carefully designed to let him say “never mind” when everything is said and done, so I don’t think it is unlikely at all. In fact, it’s almost like he’s trying to say “I haven’t looked at any of it yet, so this is just to tell you I’m about to start looking again.” He’s leaving both options wide open. But I suspect he knows full well that one party is only interested in the “I’m reopening the investigation” line, while the other is only interested in the “there might not be anything there” line.

“Amazing how fickle politics can be.”

I’m just going to have to assume you forgot the tilde because I doubt any of us are really that surprised at how this played out. Ethical relativism is standard operating procedure for both parties.

I agree that the announcement was carefully worded to give him an out. The problem is that the announcement made it significant, regardless what it was. I have no idea whether reopening the investigation will result in any change to the prosecution of Hillary but I’m fairly certain that somebody will down. We’ll have to wait to find out but that’s my guess.

I doubt if it will matter. You have to ask yourself “what possible revelation concerning Clinton can render Trump the lesser of the 2 evils? I don’t have the imagination required to answer that question.

Another confirmation that Sanders should’ve been the Democratic nominee. Of which there are far too many to count.

He didn’t “re-open” it. He said they had come across new emails which may be of interest.

Come needs to ‘fess up to Congress that he should not have made a blank statement that may affect an election with no evidence at all. And then he should resign, after he apologizes to the American people.

The circus of rings has added one more!

_ he should not have made a blank statement that may affect an election with no evidence at all_

Yep. I used to work in a prosecutor’s office. If no charges had been filed, there was nothing to say publicly. Gossiping like Comey would get you fired.

@Jaxk Off the top of my head I wondered if he thinks this is the best shot he has at saving his own ass.

Yeah, @zenvelo raises an important point. “Reopened” is spin from Chaffetz and not an actual description of what happened from Comey.

@si3tech – That may very well be the case. It gives Comey another bite of the apple. Of course it only works if the evidence he now has is significant. Unfortunately if Hillary is elected, we’ll never see what he has.

@Jaxk Of course it only works if the evidence he now has is significant

I would say more significant than any other evidence produced to date. Nothing to date has resulted in any prosecution.

It doesn’t need to be more significant since the prosecution rests on the totality of evidence. It only needs to be enough to push it over the line. Remember that they already have significant recklessness. They only need intent.

@Jaxk If there is evidence of a crime, an indictment can be made.

There is no reason to speak beforehand.

@Jaxk Significant recklessness is not the same as criminal negligence. Comey chose his words carefully back in July. He knew what he was doing when he chose not to use any terminology with legal significance, and he knew what he was doing this week when he chose to use the words “assessing new evidence” instead of “reopening the investigation” (no matter how Chaffetz chose to spin it). We won’t know if there’s anything there until Comey decides to make it public.

@Call_Me_Jay – When Comey first laid out the case he did it in a fashion that left both sides scarred but not terminally wounded. I believe that was his way of staying as neutral as possible in the election. Now he has new information that could tip the scale. If he discloses the information it could be a terminal wound. If he withholds the information he decides the election with his silence. An untenable situation. So he issues an obscure letter that states there is something that may have significance but may not. Again, he is trying to walk a very fine line. I personally agree with both Trump and Clinton in hoping he discloses whatever it is, as soon as possible. Unfortunately I don’t think that will happen.

@SavoirFaire – I’m going on memory here here but I think the statute says ‘extreme recklessness’. What Comey said was ‘Extreme carelessness’. A distinction without a difference.

There IS a distinction between recklessness and carelessness. And this is surely why no indictment of Clinton has appeared. It is ludicrous to assert that Clinton deliberately engineered her correspondence to be vulnerable to hackers, and any attempt to prosecute her for the email screw up would require such a premise.

@Jaxk Language choices are extremely important when it comes to the law. The distinction might not matter practically or politically, but it is extremely important legally. Comey knew exactly what he was doing when he picked his words. This isn’t to say that he doesn’t think she’s guilty. It’s just to say that he made a conscious decision to leave legal terminology out of his public statements.

@Jaxk When Comey first laid out the case he did it in a fashion that left both sides scarred but not terminally wounded.

“Laid out the case” is for the courtroom, for the judge and jury.

Comey is broadcasting rumors and innuendo to the press and public.

Perfectly timed election year bullshit. If any of this was ever serious they would’ve dragged her ass into court by now. Anyway, this stuff doesn’t get a candidate eliminated from the race anymore. However, if they could just interview a couple of her badly treated illegal alien gigolos who sleep on grass mats at the foot of her bed, that might do it.

Comey’s just trying to keep things above board. He is forced to expose any scintilla of information involving Clinton in order to avoid the anguished cries of favoritism and cover up from conservatives desperate for the “hail Mary” “miracle” indictment. Unfortunately for those on the right, the time has pretty much passed when some sensational Clinton exposure might have made a difference in the contest between Hillary and Trump. Trump’s antics have been so severe and outlandish since the “lock her up” craze initial head of steam that by comparison no amount of Clinton dirt is going to cancel out his negatives. The Donald’s relentless exertions toward alienating anyone of sanity and reason have effectively left “crooked” Hillary in a position where she would probably win this election even if indicted. In fact, Clinton doesn’t really need to bother with campaigning. If she were in a coma and already locked away in a grey rock federal prison, she could dependably rely on Trump to talk his way to his own destruction and her assured election by default.

@stanleybmanly – There is some truth to what you say. This election has been quite unique in that who ever is the subject of discussion loses ground in the polls. Hillary, being the consummate politician, has recognized this and kept the discussion all about Trump. Trump, being egotistical, has addressed every piece of dirt thrown at him and kept the discussion about him. We’ll see if Hillary is able to ignore this latest revelation and turn the discussion back to Trump. You are being a good surrogate by trying to turn even this discussion back on Trump. We’ll have to wait and see if this works.

You needn’t worry. You KNOW Trump will turn the focus back on himself. He just cannot control himself. It is as though he doesn’t care if the news is damning or positive as long as it’s about HIM. He won’t allow a negative news item involving Clinton to persist through a news cycle without his exerting every possible effort to “top” it with some scandalous doings of his own.

The difference between Clinton & Trump is that the Trump camp must be engaged in efforts to have Clinton investigated and hounded, while the Clinton folks need do nothing but wait for Trump to spout up like Old Faithful.