Hillary Clinton and many others believe the actions of James Comey, FBI director were deliberately intended to influence the POTUS election and the senate and congress elections in favor of the GOP.

You can bet Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani is involved in this by his professed influence in the FBI.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/30/former_bush_ethics_lawyer_richard_painter_files_complaint_against_fbi_director.html


Quote:

A former chief ethics lawyer at the White House, who served during George W. Bush’s presidency, has filed an ethics complaint against FBI Director James Comey. In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Sunday, Richard W. Painter writes that he filed a complaint against the FBI for violating the Hatch Act, "which bars the use of an official position to influence an election." He filed the complaint with both the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. Painter, who was the head White House ethics lawyer between 2005 and 2007 and now supports Hillary Clinton, says Comey violated the Hatch Act when he sent the letter to lawmakers on Friday informing them of the newly discovered emails. “This letter, which was quickly posted on the internet, made highly unusual public statements about an FBI investigation concerning a candidate in the election,” writes Painter. “The letter was sent in violation of a longstanding Justice Department policy of not discussing specifics about pending investigations with others, including members of Congress.” Although Comey’s previous statements may be concerning, there is no actual evidence yet that the FBI director actually wanted to influence the election. Still, that is irrelevant as far as the Hatch Act is concerned. Painter also warns that letting this precedent stand would be dangerous: This is no trivial matter. We cannot allow FBI or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway. That is an abuse of power. Allowing such a precedent to stand will invite more, and even worse, abuses of power in the future. Speaking to LawNewz.com, Painter says he doesn’t buy the argument that Comey had to send the letter because he had promised to update lawmakers on the issue. The FBI director could have easily sent the letter two weeks later, after voters had gone to the polls, and no one would have been able to argue that he “breached that promise to update,” particularly considering the reports that “the FBI apparently had not even looked at the emails because they did not have a search warrant.”

I think he should face charges. He deliberately tried to sabotage an election campaign.

Of course, Trump will probably protect him for it.

Lock her up.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 13^th, 2016 at 9:29am:

Lock her up.

if she's broken any laws, certainly.
But that doesn't give the FBI the right to break laws.

John Smith wrote on Nov 13^th, 2016 at 9:31am:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 9:29am: Lock her up. if she's broken any laws, certainly. But that doesn't give the FBI the right to break laws.

She has to be convicted of a crime first. The GOP are conducting a vendetta against Clintons.

Was obvious the whole email rubbish was engineered by trumps side to severly hurt her..

Trump Camp Refuses to Close Door on Campaign Pledge to ‘Lock Her Up’

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/trump-clinton-jail.html?_r=0



WASHINGTON — Even as President-elect Donald J. Trump vows to unify a divided nation, he faces a momentous decision over whether to make good on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to have a special prosecutor “lock up” Hillary Clinton.

That decision will signal whether Mr. Trump intends to look ahead and “bind the wounds of division,” as he pledged to do in his acceptance speech early Wednesday, or look back and settle political scores, as he often seemed inclined to do during his campaign.

The possibility of a new investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server has forced the White House to field questions about whether President Obama might offer Mrs. Clinton a pardon to insulate her from criminal charges.

Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said last week that he would not discuss Mr. Obama’s thinking on any particular case for clemency, but he sent a strong signal that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Trump to revive the Clinton investigation.

if he locks her up he'll have to lock up up to 50 other current and former members of congress, from both sides of the political divide, who are guilty of doing the same thing.

This is directly reminiscent of President Ford's dilemma over Richard Nixon.

Ford decided to grant him a preemptive pardon citing the good of the nation as his reason for doing so.

[olist]It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States.
[/olist]

This is a text that could also, nearly verbatim,  be applied to a possible pardon by Obama of Donald Trump were he to face multiple charges of fraud prior to Obama leaving office.

Whadda mess, US!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 13^th, 2016 at 9:56am:

This is directly reminiscent of President Ford's dilemma over Richard Nixon. Ford decided to grant him a preemptive pardon citing the good of the nation as his reason for doing so. [olist]It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. [/olist] This is a text that could also, nearly verbatim,  be applied to a possible pardon by Obama of Donald Trump were he to face multiple charges of fraud prior to Obama leaving office. Whadda mess, US!

Yes - good post - it means that Hillary will get away with her crimes.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 13^th, 2016 at 12:39pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 9:56am: This is directly reminiscent of President Ford's dilemma over Richard Nixon. Ford decided to grant him a preemptive pardon citing the good of the nation as his reason for doing so. [olist]It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. [/olist] This is a text that could also, nearly verbatim,  be applied to a possible pardon by Obama of Donald Trump were he to face multiple charges of fraud prior to Obama leaving office. Whadda mess, US! Yes - good post - it means that Hillary will get away with her crimes.

Hillary has not been charged or convicted of any crimes. It is all slander and innuendo.

Bobby's currency; slander and innuendo.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 13^th, 2016 at 12:39pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 9:56am: This is directly reminiscent of President Ford's dilemma over Richard Nixon. Ford decided to grant him a preemptive pardon citing the good of the nation as his reason for doing so. [olist]It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. [/olist] This is a text that could also, nearly verbatim,  be applied to a possible pardon by Obama of Donald Trump were he to face multiple charges of fraud prior to Obama leaving office. Whadda mess, US! Yes - good post - it means that Hillary will get away with her crimes.

And maybe Trump.

BTW theirs would be a preemptive pardon.

Agnes wrote on Nov 13^th, 2016 at 9:39am:

Was obvious the whole email rubbish was engineered by trumps side to severly hurt her..

No, Hillary had confidential emails on her personal server.

then she lied repeatedly about it and destroyed much of the data.

Even the manner he handed over the residue of the emails was insufficient.

She handed out printed out copies. She did not forward the emails onto the FBI.
The metadata was destroyed

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 13^th, 2016 at 7:14pm:

Agnes wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 9:39am: Was obvious the whole email rubbish was engineered by trumps side to severly hurt her.. No, Hillary had confidential emails on her personal server. then she lied repeatedly about it and destroyed much of the data. Even the manner he handed over the residue of the emails was insufficient. She handed out printed out copies. She did not forward the emails onto the FBI. The metadata was destroyed

The case you talk about continually was closed many months ago. Nothing you have said relates to the FBI decision to be involved in the election process 11 days before an election.

If you read the FBI reports you will see that all your statements are either incorrect or satisfactorily explained in the process.