bunchanumbers said:
MTZehvor said:
Two things.
1) The FBI director is limited to a single 10 year term. Comey cannot hold the position for life.
2) It's kind of hard to make the case that Comey's "incompetence" was what caused the Clinton fiasco, when she not only lied about the number of emails, the number of devices she stored classified emails on, and about turning the emails over, but also attempted to permanently destroy the emails past the point of recovery with Bleachbit. Perhaps the Anthony Weiner emails should have been handled more discretely, but it's difficult to blame him for feeling the need to mention that new evidence had come to light given how...unorthodox the actions by the Clinton campaign were during the initial investigation.
|
1. Trump can and will most likely fix that. If he doesn't make it an executive order to give him the position for life, he'll most likely find himself a nice office in Trump Tower next to the agents that are under Rudy's thumb. Trump rewards loyalty. Ask Linda Mcmahon.
2. Comey didn't even know what he had and didn't even bother to seriously look into it before making his announcement to congress about those found emails. He should have absolutely acted with discretion because it is policy not to interfere with political elections. Instead he went out of his way to do this and he directly influenced a political election. Maybe even moreso than Russia did. I have no idea who he is paid off by but what he did was against DoJ recommendations.
|
1) Firstly, you can't just executive order a law to no longer exist. Secondly, even if he could, it's highly unlikely, considering many Republicans consistently accuse him of being a corrupt Hillary supporter in the same way that you accuse him of being "paid off" by someone supporting Trump. He's a guy that somehow became one of the few things that Republicans and Democrats could agree on. Finally, even if the first two did not apply, I can't imagine why that would bother you given that Hillary Clinton did virtually the exact same thing with appointing Debbie Wascherman-Schultz as her honorary campaign chair after she was forced to resign after attempting to rig the primary election against Sanders.
2) Simultaneously, if you've been investigating into an extremely suspiciously handled case earlier, and then new facts about said case come to light, don't the American people have the right to know that there is new information that needs to be looked over? What if there had been something that indicated a serious violation of procedure that was worth prosecution, and the American people hadn't been made aware of it until after they elected her? Can you imagine the outrage that would have occurred as a result? It may not be policy to "interfere" with political elections, but I will remind you that none of this would have been a problem in the first place if the Clinton campaign had simply cooperated and handed over all requested emails from the beginning, instead of trying to hide and even erase them from existence. You lose a lot of potential sympathy when your coverup is the reason why details don't get revealed until the last second.
