Comey admits he made his late announcement because he thought Hillary would win

[Rookie Yinzer]

when the man himself did nothing wrong.

He actually did many things wrong including going over the head of his boss Loretta Lynch several times. He could have waited until he actually reviewed the emails to Congress before getting Republicans like Jason Chaffetz all wet between their legs with news of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation. They ended up reviewing all the e-mails before Election Day anyway, and when they announced there was nothing new it didn't even stick because it only made it look like Obama's FBI Director was just covering for her again. It was pointless and reckless. I don't care if Hillary was up 20+ points in the polls. You just don't do something like that.

The impasse here is over the definition of "wrong." I have a lot of trouble putting blame on Comey for acting totally reasonably given the information available to him and to everyone at the time. I'll admit that objectively, what he did turned out to have been factually wrong and had unfair consequences. I meant morally wrong, which I probably should've clarified. Let me explain.

Sure, his actions turned out to be incorrect, awkward, and potentially damaging, but they did not in any way decide the election. It turned out to be pointless, and in hindsight one could call it "reckless." Just like the basket of deplorables comment turned out to be pointless, and the 47% comment turned out to have been reckless, and Dukakis' tank photo turned out to have been harmful.

If Hillary had run a more competent campaign overall, we would be talking about this in a totally different context, because Comey may well have been fired out of spite by President Clinton. If the Clinton campaign wasn't marred by the DNC and her personal inability to energize a lightning rod, she would've been elected regardless of whether Comey came out with it before or after the election.

He should have spoken with Deputy AG Yates before publicly disclosing the information. Period. He acted recklessly and undermined his female superiors over and over and made a decision based on political reasons. He was wrong.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

when the man himself did nothing wrong.

He actually did many things wrong including going over the head of his boss Loretta Lynch several times. He could have waited until he actually reviewed the emails to Congress before getting Republicans like Jason Chaffetz all wet between their legs with news of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation. They ended up reviewing all the e-mails before Election Day anyway, and when they announced there was nothing new it didn't even stick because it only made it look like Obama's FBI Director was just covering for her again. It was pointless and reckless. I don't care if Hillary was up 20+ points in the polls. You just don't do something like that.

The impasse here is over the definition of "wrong." I have a lot of trouble putting blame on Comey for acting totally reasonably given the information available to him and to everyone at the time. I'll admit that objectively, what he did turned out to have been factually wrong and had unfair consequences. I meant morally wrong, which I probably should've clarified. Let me explain.

Sure, his actions turned out to be incorrect, awkward, and potentially damaging, but they did not in any way decide the election. It turned out to be pointless, and in hindsight one could call it "reckless." Just like the basket of deplorables comment turned out to be pointless, and the 47% comment turned out to have been reckless, and Dukakis' tank photo turned out to have been harmful.

If Hillary had run a more competent campaign overall, we would be talking about this in a totally different context, because Comey may well have been fired out of spite by President Clinton. If the Clinton campaign wasn't marred by the DNC and her personal inability to energize a lightning rod, she would've been elected regardless of whether Comey came out with it before or after the election.

He should have spoken with Deputy AG Yates before publicly disclosing the information. Period. He acted recklessly and undermined his female superiors over and over and made a decision based on political reasons. He was wrong.

Of course, Loretta Lynch and Sally Yates are role models of non-partisan law enforcement.

Lynch and Yates would have advised Comey on this issue to do what was in the best interest of Hillary Clinton and not what was in the best interest of the Nation.  If the two coincided, it would be pure luck.  Lynch has no honor, and Yates is full of herself, imagining herself on some future national ticket. 

[JG]

when the man himself did nothing wrong.

He actually did many things wrong including going over the head of his boss Loretta Lynch several times. He could have waited until he actually reviewed the emails to Congress before getting Republicans like Jason Chaffetz all wet between their legs with news of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation. They ended up reviewing all the e-mails before Election Day anyway, and when they announced there was nothing new it didn't even stick because it only made it look like Obama's FBI Director was just covering for her again. It was pointless and reckless. I don't care if Hillary was up 20+ points in the polls. You just don't do something like that.

The impasse here is over the definition of "wrong." I have a lot of trouble putting blame on Comey for acting totally reasonably given the information available to him and to everyone at the time. I'll admit that objectively, what he did turned out to have been factually wrong and had unfair consequences. I meant morally wrong, which I probably should've clarified. Let me explain.

Sure, his actions turned out to be incorrect, awkward, and potentially damaging, but they did not in any way decide the election. It turned out to be pointless, and in hindsight one could call it "reckless." Just like the basket of deplorables comment turned out to be pointless, and the 47% comment turned out to have been reckless, and Dukakis' tank photo turned out to have been harmful.

If Hillary had run a more competent campaign overall, we would be talking about this in a totally different context, because Comey may well have been fired out of spite by President Clinton. If the Clinton campaign wasn't marred by the DNC and her personal inability to energize a lightning rod, she would've been elected regardless of whether Comey came out with it before or after the election.

He should have spoken with Deputy AG Yates before publicly disclosing the information. Period. He acted recklessly and undermined his female superiors over and over and made a decision based on political reasons. He was wrong.

Of course, Loretta Lynch and Sally Yates are role models of non-partisan law enforcement.

Lynch and Yates would have advised Comey on this issue to do what was in the best interest of Hillary Clinton and not what was in the best interest of the Nation.  If the two coincided, it would be pure luck.  Lynch has no honor, and Yates is full of herself, imagining herself on some future national ticket. 

Yeah. I really doubt that Yates was imagining herself on some future national ticket back in summer 2016. But you do you.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

when the man himself did nothing wrong.

He actually did many things wrong including going over the head of his boss Loretta Lynch several times. He could have waited until he actually reviewed the emails to Congress before getting Republicans like Jason Chaffetz all wet between their legs with news of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation. They ended up reviewing all the e-mails before Election Day anyway, and when they announced there was nothing new it didn't even stick because it only made it look like Obama's FBI Director was just covering for her again. It was pointless and reckless. I don't care if Hillary was up 20+ points in the polls. You just don't do something like that.

The impasse here is over the definition of "wrong." I have a lot of trouble putting blame on Comey for acting totally reasonably given the information available to him and to everyone at the time. I'll admit that objectively, what he did turned out to have been factually wrong and had unfair consequences. I meant morally wrong, which I probably should've clarified. Let me explain.

Sure, his actions turned out to be incorrect, awkward, and potentially damaging, but they did not in any way decide the election. It turned out to be pointless, and in hindsight one could call it "reckless." Just like the basket of deplorables comment turned out to be pointless, and the 47% comment turned out to have been reckless, and Dukakis' tank photo turned out to have been harmful.

If Hillary had run a more competent campaign overall, we would be talking about this in a totally different context, because Comey may well have been fired out of spite by President Clinton. If the Clinton campaign wasn't marred by the DNC and her personal inability to energize a lightning rod, she would've been elected regardless of whether Comey came out with it before or after the election.

He should have spoken with Deputy AG Yates before publicly disclosing the information. Period. He acted recklessly and undermined his female superiors over and over and made a decision based on political reasons. He was wrong.

Of course, Loretta Lynch and Sally Yates are role models of non-partisan law enforcement.

Lynch and Yates would have advised Comey on this issue to do what was in the best interest of Hillary Clinton and not what was in the best interest of the Nation.  If the two coincided, it would be pure luck.  Lynch has no honor, and Yates is full of herself, imagining herself on some future national ticket. 

Yeah. I really doubt that Yates was imagining herself on some future national ticket back in summer 2016. But you do you.

Bill Clinton imagined himself running for President when he was navigating how he would avoid the draft.  Sally Yates was far closer to that goal than Clinton was back then.

I think we've already have a Sally Yates 2020 poll here, or something like that.

[JG]

when the man himself did nothing wrong.

He actually did many things wrong including going over the head of his boss Loretta Lynch several times. He could have waited until he actually reviewed the emails to Congress before getting Republicans like Jason Chaffetz all wet between their legs with news of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation. They ended up reviewing all the e-mails before Election Day anyway, and when they announced there was nothing new it didn't even stick because it only made it look like Obama's FBI Director was just covering for her again. It was pointless and reckless. I don't care if Hillary was up 20+ points in the polls. You just don't do something like that.

The impasse here is over the definition of "wrong." I have a lot of trouble putting blame on Comey for acting totally reasonably given the information available to him and to everyone at the time. I'll admit that objectively, what he did turned out to have been factually wrong and had unfair consequences. I meant morally wrong, which I probably should've clarified. Let me explain.

Sure, his actions turned out to be incorrect, awkward, and potentially damaging, but they did not in any way decide the election. It turned out to be pointless, and in hindsight one could call it "reckless." Just like the basket of deplorables comment turned out to be pointless, and the 47% comment turned out to have been reckless, and Dukakis' tank photo turned out to have been harmful.

If Hillary had run a more competent campaign overall, we would be talking about this in a totally different context, because Comey may well have been fired out of spite by President Clinton. If the Clinton campaign wasn't marred by the DNC and her personal inability to energize a lightning rod, she would've been elected regardless of whether Comey came out with it before or after the election.

He should have spoken with Deputy AG Yates before publicly disclosing the information. Period. He acted recklessly and undermined his female superiors over and over and made a decision based on political reasons. He was wrong.

Of course, Loretta Lynch and Sally Yates are role models of non-partisan law enforcement.

Lynch and Yates would have advised Comey on this issue to do what was in the best interest of Hillary Clinton and not what was in the best interest of the Nation.  If the two coincided, it would be pure luck.  Lynch has no honor, and Yates is full of herself, imagining herself on some future national ticket.  

Yeah. I really doubt that Yates was imagining herself on some future national ticket back in summer 2016. But you do you.

Bill Clinton imagined himself running for President when he was navigating how he would avoid the draft.  Sally Yates was far closer to that goal than Clinton was back then.

I think we've already have a Sally Yates 2020 poll here, or something like that.

Yes. And that's why he ran for Congress as soon as he got out of college while Sally Yates never showed any interest in running for office in her life. I'm not saying she never will but there are very little evidence she was thinking of being on a national ticket by 2016 and that would impact her impartiality and credibility as deputy AG.

And anyone who goes against Trump gets a 2020 poll here, so that hardly means anything.