(02-06-2018 11:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 10:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 07:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And one would imagine that Comey would have signed off on those changes, no?

By the way, the person who changed the language is the same person who pushed for and helped draft the memo about reopening the case because of the Weiner emails. That act was just as bad for Clinton and the one you mention was good...

Yes, weird. Now, do we have to takr that as incontrovertible evidence of absolute fairness at the top levels of the FBI. I think we have so many weird and conflicting things, we need an investigation by a special counsel to determine the truth. If the FBI and DOJ have acted appropriately, they have nothing to fear, right? On what grounds could anybody oppose that investigation if they had nothing to hide?

Maybe this will clear up some smoke:

IG's investigation

"The Washington Post subsequently reported that Horowitz is examining why McCabe seemingly did not move forward for several weeks on a request to examine new emails in the Clinton investigation that were found on former congressman Anthony Weiner's (D-N.Y.) computer."

Or maybe it will just add to it.

I don't think we have any weird and conflicting things - that's my point. I see no conflict between changing language on the Clinton investigation and reopening the investigation once the Weiner emails are discovered.

Both of those actions have been explained by Comey and both made sense. IIRC, Comey said they did not find enough evidence to show intent in the actions, and he wanted to avoid a situation where the FBI appeared partisan by not sharing new information which they had learned and which had resulted in the case being reopened.

Both of those thoughts are not in conflict - they are only in conflict if you think both actions happened because of partisanship.

But go ahead and look into this more and make sure the reasoning is sound - I just don't see smoke because Comey has provided his rationale already, which makes sense.

Why would they need to change the wording from "grossly negligent" (a chargeable crime) to extremely careless" (not a chargeable crime) if intent could not be shown and therefore they supposedly could not charge them anyway. Intent is not an element of the crime, negligence is. Why was this important and who thought it important and what were they trying to accomplish?

These are questions for an investigation to answer, which is the rationale for the collusion Russian investigation that targets no russians. If the Mueller investigation is because of smoke that needs to be cleared, then this qualifies as much if not more.

Which is worse, that a foreign country tried to meddle with our elections or that a presidential campaign tried to meddle with our elections using government agencies as their tools?

I think we need two investigations, or none.

In this regard, the whole point (which has been made in this thread recently) was that intent IS the distinction between criminal and non-criminal. Intent in this aspect is THE element of the crime, from my understanding. So that is why the language was changed - because they felt that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest intent, and therefore charge Clinton with a crime.

Now if you're wondering how the word "negligent" got into the first draft, I can understand that. But I don't see this being smoke, just a correct revision to a draft.

And your final question presumes a lot which hasn't been proven, and the latter keeps seeming more and more like a conservative pipe dream as more information comes out. At least there is proof Russia has, and continues to, try and influence the American public.

Intent is NOT an element of the crime.

Of course my final question presumes a lot that hasn't been proven. Just like the Mueller is not based on proven facts of collusion, but is an investigation to determine proof. That some of these things seem suspicious (smoke) but have not been shown to be proven is the exact basis of both the Mueller investigation and the one I would like to see.

Of course Russia has, and continues to try to influence elections. Nobody is saying otherwise, except the Russians, maybe.

Tell me, can you think of a better to throw a monkey wrench into the process than for Russian sources to mislead an antiTrump investigation working on oppo research for the campaign of one of the major parties. Much more effective than buying a few FaceBook ads, much more effective than publishing her yoga schedule. And they get paid for it, too.

what have they gotten for their efforts? A continuing major controversy in the media and a front page investigation undermining american confidence in our electoral process. I bet glasses of vodka are hoisted in Moscow every time Schiff calls a press conference. Pretty good return for an operation in which they got paid by , ultimately, the Clinton campaign.