Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Wednesday May 10 2017, @12:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the comey-and-gone dept.

FBI Director James Comey Sacked

The Washington Post reports that:

FBI Director James B. Comey has been dismissed by the president [...] a startling move that officials said stemmed from a conclusion by Justice Department officials that he had mishandled the probe of Hillary Clinton's emails.

Previously:
Clinton Told FBI She Relied on Others' Judgment on Classified Material
FBI Recommends No Prosecution for Clinton

F.B.I. Director James Comey Is Fired by Trump

President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey:

President Trump has fired the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, over his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, the White House said Tuesday.

[...] Under the F.B.I.'s normal rules of succession, Mr. Comey's deputy, Andrew G. McCabe, a career F.B.I. officer, becomes acting director. The White House said the search for a new director will begin immediately.

I never liked Comey (see this cluster of stories), but I doubt there will ever be an FBI Director I like.

Related:
We're Stuck With Comey

Earlier in the day...

FBI Director Comey Misstated Huma Abedin Evidence at Last Week's Hearing

ProPublica reports that most of FBI Director James Comey's testimony to Congress last Wednesday related to Huma Abedin's mishandling of classified emails was inaccurate, and that FBI officials are privately acknowledging the mistake(s) but are still considering their next move:

FBI director James Comey generated national headlines last week with his dramatic testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, explaining his "incredibly painful" decision to go public about the Hillary Clinton emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop.

Perhaps Comey's most surprising revelation was that Huma Abedin — Weiner's wife and a top Clinton deputy — had made "a regular practice" of forwarding "hundreds and thousands" of Clinton messages to her husband, "some of which contain classified information." Comey testified that Abedin had done this so that the disgraced former congressman could print them out for her boss. (Weiner's laptop was seized after he came under criminal investigation for sex crimes, following a media report about his online relationship with a teenager.)

The New York Post plastered its story on the front page with a photo of an underwear-clad Weiner and the headline: "HARD COPY: Huma sent Weiner classified Hillary emails to print out." The Daily News went with a similar front-page screamer: "HUMA ERROR: Sent classified emails to sext maniac Weiner."

The problem: Much of what Comey said about this was inaccurate. Now the FBI is trying to figure out what to do about it. FBI officials have privately acknowledged that Comey misstated what Abedin did and what the FBI investigators found. On Monday, the FBI was said to be preparing to correct the record by sending a letter to Congress later this week. But that plan now appears on hold, with the bureau undecided about what to do.

[...] According to two sources familiar with the matter — including one in law enforcement — Abedin forwarded only a handful of Clinton emails to her husband for printing — not the "hundreds and thousands" cited by Comey. It does not appear Abedin made "a regular practice" of doing so. Other officials said it was likely that most of the emails got onto the computer as a result of backups of her Blackberry.

Also at Washington Post (alternate analysis), The Hill, The New York Post, and USA Today.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @04:37AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @04:37AM (#507310)

    Your entire analysis rests on the assumption that Bernie could survive the spotlight.
    As his wife's problems show, he's got problems too.
    Furthermore, he regularly underperformed with minorities.
    Clinton absolutely thrashed him in southern states.
    And that's because his message of economic populism sounds just like the same old white people shit that never did anything good for brown and black people.
    Non-white turnout for Bernie would have been worse than Clinton.

    And I'm tired of arguing with you. Your clinton derangement syndrome makes you impervious to logic. Not unlike all the pepes that smell of mayo.

  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 10 2017, @04:42AM (9 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday May 10 2017, @04:42AM (#507318) Journal

    I know Trump voters who would have voted for Bernie.

    The DNC intentionally frontloads all the Southern states, minimizes debate opportunities, colludes with the media to suppress information about Bernie and despite all that, and only manages to coronate Clinton by purging voter roles and reversing popular opinion with Superdelegates. If ever there was a party more deserving of a good ass fucking, I can't think of it.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @05:04AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @05:04AM (#507331)

      > reversing popular opinion with Superdelegates.

      Your delusions are hardcore dude.
      Clinton won the primary by a margin of almost 4 million votes. [wikipedia.org]
      That's more than her popular vote margin in the general out of like 1/5th the total voters.
      No superdelegates were necessary.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @03:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @03:42PM (#507584)

        Must have been all those illegal votes Trump is always talking about.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 10 2017, @03:49PM (3 children)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 10 2017, @03:49PM (#507590)

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/clinton-does-best-where-voting-machines-flunk-hacking-tests-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-allegations/ [counterpunch.org]

        Basically all the superdelegates pledging for Clinton early also had the obvious effect of tilting support to her from the bandwagon.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @07:13PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @07:13PM (#507684)

          Basically all the superdelegates pledging for Clinton early also had the obvious effect of tilting support to her from the bandwagon.

          If that were the case it would have caused voter suppression during the primary - why vote if it won't make any difference?
          And yet they were only marginally down from the 2008's historically high numbers (easily explained by Obama's popularity) and more than double the 2004 primaries.

          Yours is the logic of conspiracy - any fact in isolation that "proves" your predetermined outcome is highlighted, everything else is ignored.

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 10 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)

            by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 10 2017, @08:01PM (#507711)

            If that were the case it would have caused voter suppression during the primary - why vote if it won't make any difference?

            Oh really? You're sure? People vote for lots of different reasons, not all of them rational. Maybe the set of people who didn't bother to vote were balanced out by a different set that were driven to vote for some other reason.

            Yours is the logic of conspiracy - any fact in isolation that "proves" your predetermined outcome is highlighted, everything else is ignored.

            I know it must be really difficult for you when somebody disagrees with you. So much easier to just call them all haters and conspiracy theorists. After the DNC got caught blatantly throwing Bernie under the bus in their own leaked communications, it's hardly inconceivable that there was indeed collusion in regards to primary votes. Next you'll say that Snowden and the repeated admissions that they still kept doing it after being told multiple times to stop is no reason to distrust the NSA that they've stopped domestic spying.

            As I've pointed out before, you don't have a leg to stand on with slinging mud about people being "conspiracy theorists" when you won't even put a pseudonym behind *your* words. Anonymous Coward indeed.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:35AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:35AM (#507890)

              After the DNC got caught blatantly throwing Bernie under the bus in their own leaked communications,

              Yet another example of your conspiracy logic. They did no such thing. A couple of people were talking shit about Bernie in what amounted to office gossip. JFC, if that qualifies as "throwing Bernie under the bus" then you have never seen a bus.

              Quite acting like a hysterical little girl.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @08:19AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @08:19AM (#507428)

      I know Trump voters who would have voted for Bernie.

      No doubt you helped convince them to vote for Trump too.
      Clinton wasn't the problem. Your enthusiastic collusion with the republican party to smear a run-of-the-mill centrist democrat as being the devil incarnate is to blame.
      Not you alone, you had a lot of other hyperbolic buddies doing the same thing, making her out to be worse than trump.
      But if any one poster on soylent is culpable, its you and your useful idiocy. What a freaking tool.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @08:42AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @08:42AM (#507437)

        Clinton wasn't the problem.

        Are you serious? She supported mass surveillance, voted for the Iraq war, supported the TPP countless times, likely supported all the other nonsense like the TSA, and so on. Trump may have been the same on many of those issues, but that doesn't make any of those positions okay; it just makes them both evil, even if Clinton was less evil. Many of those issues are 'strike one, you're out' to me, so obviously I didn't vote for Clinton or Trump.

        While many people may exaggerate Clinton's evil, you understate it. Being a partisan hack isn't going to get you anywhere.

        Your enthusiastic collusion with the republican party to smear a run-of-the-mill centrist democrat as being the devil incarnate is to blame.

        I would say the blame lies squarely on people who voted for Clinton in the primaries and the DNC for being biased against Bernie (even though that alone didn't result in his loss). Stop putting forth run-of-the-mill centrist democrats (i.e. evil scumbags) and maybe people could be more enthusiastic. Sure, you could say that anyone who didn't vote for Candidate A is to blame for Candidate A losing, but if Candidate A is terrible, not voting for them is justified, so just assigning blame is meaningless.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @07:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @07:22PM (#507686)

          Are you serious? She supported mass surveillance, voted for the Iraq war, supported the TPP countless times, likely supported all the other nonsense like the TSA, and so on.

          Don't magnify your personal issues. None of that, not even the Iraq war, matter all that much to the average voter. Sure its a big deal to the hyper-motivated. But the fact that Clinton got more votes in the 2016 primary than there were total votes in the 2004 primary says that all of those things weren't such a big deal to a large number of voters. Your'e just doing exactly what I accused hemo of, hysterical exaggeration.

          Stop putting forth run-of-the-mill centrist democrats (i.e. evil scumbags) and maybe people could be more enthusiastic.

          Don't fool yourself. The energy might be with the progressive wing of the democrats. But the majority of the party is still with the centrists.
          This election was about trump, not the democrats.

          Being a partisan hack isn't going to get you anywhere.

          I voted for Bernie. I just don't have my head in the sand about how and why the rest of the party voted.