• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fbi director james comey tried to reveal russian tampering months before election

B

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
37,042
Reaction score
17,950
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FBI Director James Comey attempted to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election, but Obama administration officials blocked him from doing so, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Newsweek.
Click to expand...

FBI Director James Comey Tried To Reveal Russian Tampering Months Before Election

“He had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward. What do people think of this?’” says a source with knowledge of the meeting, which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson and the national security adviser Susan Rice.
The other national security officials didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies, the source says. “An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature. It comes from one person.”
Click to expand...

Make of that what you will.
 
Well, I can certainly imagine why they wouldn't want that information to come out too early. Hillary wanted to run against Trump. They felt Trump was the least likely to beat her.
 
tres borrachos said:
Anonymous source?
Click to expand...

Looks like it ... "two sources with knowledge of the matter".
There's a lot of that going around these days.
I can't even think of a good narrative to conjure up about what's in the piece.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Well, I can certainly imagine why they wouldn't want that information to come out too early. Hillary wanted to run against Trump. They felt Trump was the least likely to beat her.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but Trump already had it wrapped up by the Summer when Comey had this little meeting about the op-ed and that would have really ****ed Trump early and thoroughly if it could be tied to Trump. Making him even easier to beat.

I just don't get the thinking.
 
tres borrachos said:
Anonymous source?
Click to expand...

Well they're ok if you believe that the 'leaker' says... ;)

Now many things were going on during the summer besides an election. I kinda remember we already had sanctions against Russia for the Crimea mess, BUT we were both in Syria where bumping heads could escalate beyond the ability to control the violence.

It does appear the Obama Administration wanted it released as a combined news release but the intelligence community wasn't happy about releasing it at all.

Comey certainly had no reservations about throwing Hillary under the bus at the 11th hour, joining an alleged task force of hired hackers to flood the internet with false flag stories.

It is a true can of worms where the guardians of freedom seem to want to be king makers or breakers. Fickle bunch they are... :peace
 
bubbabgone said:
Maybe, but Trump already had it wrapped up by the Summer when Comey had this little meeting about the op-ed and that would have really ****ed Trump early and thoroughly if it could be tied to Trump. Making him even easier to beat.

I just don't get the thinking.
Click to expand...

Why...it doesn't have anything on Trump except for a general "Russia prefers him over Hillary". No ****?!? I figured that out without needing to be in the FBI.
 
Fishking said:
I think the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence our elections was known by that time. I'm not sure what the point of this is?
Click to expand...

Ya got me.
When I don't understand 'em I just report 'em.
 
Fishking said:
Why...it doesn't have anything on Trump except for a general "Russia prefers him over Hillary". No ****?!? I figured that out without needing to be in the FBI.
Click to expand...

I just don't see an obvious negative for the Clinton campaign or the Obama Admin by stopping the Comey op-ed.
 
bubbabgone said:
I just don't see an obvious negative for the Clinton campaign or the Obama Admin by stopping the Comey op-ed.
Click to expand...

Oh...as far as that goes, Hillary was able to skate out of an indictment and to also have the same person come out with an op-ed (op-eds are by definition opinion, not fact) would probably have a reverse effect. Remember, it was an anti-establishment year and to have the establishment go after the most establishment candidate ever probably wouldn't work.
 
So what prevented him from finding a way to do so?

The article makes it appear that the Dems at the meeting wanted MORE from Comey - not less.
 
Fishking said:
Oh...as far as that goes, Hillary was able to skate out of an indictment and to also have the same person come out with an op-ed (op-eds are by definition opinion, not fact) would probably have a reverse effect. Remember, it was an anti-establishment year and to have the establishment go after the most establishment candidate ever probably wouldn't work.
Click to expand...
Did you mean to say "...the establishment go after the most anti-establishment candidate ever"?
But that scenario of yours seems a bit like a triple bank scratch shot.
 
bubbabgone said:
I just don't see an obvious negative for the Clinton campaign or the Obama Admin by stopping the Comey op-ed.
Click to expand...

Politically, it could look as though the Democrats were making up a story to deflect from DNC leaks, the Benghazi mess, email hacks, private email servers, and all the other crap they were dealing with at the time. Why would they want to give legs to what could be spun by the opposition as a move of desperation by the Democrats, when they honestly and legitimately thought that Hillary would beat the snot out of whomever the GOP put up against her, especially Trump?

Politically, it makes sense to me. Hillary was more than just the heir apparent, all that was missing was her anointing and crowning. I'm sure that the Democrats felt that if Hillary needed something to beat the Republicans about the ears with to get them to submit to her agenda in Congress, that a GOP/Russia conspiracy treason scandal would be more effective after the election than before it.

JMHO
 
Beaudreaux said:
Politically, it could look as though the Democrats were making up a story to deflect from DNC leaks, the Benghazi mess, email hacks, private email servers, and all the other crap they were dealing with at the time. Why would they want to give legs to what could be spun by the opposition as a move of desperation by the Democrats, when they honestly and legitimately thought that Hillary would beat the snot out of whomever the GOP put up against her, especially Trump?

Politically, it makes sense to me. Hillary was more than just the heir apparent, all that was missing was her anointing and crowning. I'm sure that the Democrats felt that if Hillary needed something to beat the Republicans about the ears with to get them to submit to her agenda in Congress, that a GOP/Russia conspiracy treason scandal would be more effective after the election than before it.

JMHO
Click to expand...

but this would be Comey doing the work for them.

they probably did think the snot thing but I can't imagine piling on isn't in the campaign playbook.

I don't get that last point about submitting to her agenda after the election. It could have been used just as effectively had it been revealed and she won on it.
 
bubbabgone said:
but this would be Comey doing the work for them.

they probably did think the snot thing but I can't imagine piling on isn't in the campaign playbook.

I don't get that last point about submitting to her agenda after the election. It could have been used just as effectively had it been revealed and she won on it.
Click to expand...

Maybe I read it wrong, but it looked to me like they were talking about whether or not to leak the information and being quoted as "a high ranking administration official said ..." rather than being named as "the FBI Director said ..."
 
Beaudreaux said:
Maybe I read it wrong, but it looked to me like they were talking about whether or not to leak the information and being quoted as "a high ranking administration official said ..." rather than being named as "the FBI Director said ..."
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what was going on.
I believe the op-ed was going to go out under Comey's name.
It was his way of going public.
I can't imagine he'd suggest out loud that he himself would leak it to the NYT if the others wanted him to.
Everything in the article suggests it would be his op-ed with his name associated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom