It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The election was not hacked... that is a very poorly worded statement and should never have been used because it makes it sound like the Russians just logged into the machines and changed the numbers.
What they did was a phishing attack on a couple groups involved around voter registration, and people involved with the machines.. .not the machines themselves last I read.
So in short yes it is possible, no it is not likely due to the sheer magnitude of machines that would need to be hacked.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler
He wasn't in the plane on that meeting. No memos to make. His opinion is informed by some sort of other evidence that was gathered and presented to him. I wonder what that is and it would seem to me that there maybe an investigation on that being conducted. Whatever he saw caused him to go to the public 1st.
That is not what he said. He knew there was no case that could be made. She was not innocent by any means.
Yes, because he is not in a position to be part of a full and complete investigation that could conclude whether charges are warranted or not. He is not in a position to make any judgement.
No. He said he did what he did because the investigation had concluded and he had concerns about Lynch's actions. So he brought it to the public. He probably didn't want to be part of the political shenanigans going on with Lynch.
I disagree. I don't think he has any bias and did what he thought was right for the FBI, justice system and the American people.
He already stated that the material he leaked was unclassified and personal property. He has the right as a private citizen to disclose whatever he wishes, now that he is no longer head of the FBI.
He's the former head of the FBI...he's covered his ass.
There is no explanation for this.
You are wrong. He said he given the conflicts of interests, he heavily thought about appointing a special prosecutor. However, he knew that Hillary was innocent, and that appointing a special prosecutor would look bad, so he did what he did.
Note that Comey is an investigator, not a prosecutor. It is not up to him to decide rather or not someone is guilty. His job is to collect evidence, and then give it to a prosecutor. If he felt that the prosecutor, Loretta Lynch was acting inappropriate given her meeting on the tarmac, and the fact they asked him (and it made him uncomfortable) to use the word matter instead of investigation, he should have recommended a special prosecutor, regardless of wht he FELT about Hillarys guilt or innocence.
This is not what happened. Keep in mind, Comey has no legal authority to go forward with charges. He investigates, and then the AG (would have been Lynch) takes his RECOMMENDATION (which is the extent of the input he gives) and she decides rather to press charges. Comey admits that the person he was reporting to (Lynch) who did not recuse herself, was acting inappropriately.
Just because his recommendation ended up being what the inappropriate Lynch wanted, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't report that inappropriate behavior, and recomend a special prosecutor. By his own admission, he should have recommended a special prosecutor, then presented him/her the evidence, and HIllary would have been found innocent.
I disagree. It is obvious that he was concerned about Hillarys image, and yet on the opposite wanted Trump to look bad. he admits a special prosecutor would make someone look bad, so he went out of his way to make sure it didn't happen to Hillary, but went out of his way by leaking to make sure it happened for Trump.
In fact, he wouldn't even publicly admit Trump wasn't under investigation because of concerns. So he won't tell the truth to make Trump look good, but will leak info to make him look bad. This is obvious bias.
Wrong. He said some of his memos were unclassified, and otehrs were, and he admitted giving them to his friend to leak to the press.
If he covered his ass so well, why did he lie and say he released these in result of Trumps tweet, but as has been shown, the NYT reported on these memos a day before the Tweet Comey is talking about.
And if Comey leaked this to ensure a special prosecutor, how do we know he isn't responsible for some of the other leaks? Especially given that he didn't seem to concerned with finding the leakers.
Ever single major nation in the world and many of the minor have dicked around in other nations elections/politics .... I find it frightening that some people (left and right) are trying to use this story to whip people into a frenzy for a shooting war.
They may have been searching for information, but a phishing attack is not going to get you into the machines... if you cant adjust the votes that is not hacking the election, its another cyber attack.
FFS we saw less outrage when China spent 6 months inside the OPM network stealing personal information from upwards to 22 million americans... by the way that violated a law, (not providing adequate security for privacy act information)(or when they stole secrets during the Clinton years) yet this attack as far as we have been told so far stole nothing... damaged nothing, and changed nothing is something to freak out over?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler
He wasn't asked to do anything illegal or overly concerning. Having Lynch ask him to use a specific word when discussing a certain matter is not comparable to a sitting president suggesting he stop an investigation.
Yes, it would look bad and would draw-out the entire ordeal, even though their investigation had concluded.
It was done and over with. They had come to their conclusion and did not want to play in to the politics Lynch may have been engaging.
That's not entirely correct. The FB investigates and then recommends action to the DoJ based on what they found. He did not play judge or jury. He simply gave his recommendation, as he normally would, but this time he took it public for the sake of transparency.
Now you are starting to get it.
So in the interest of transparency, he went public in order to show what the FBI recommends without the political filter through Lynch.
Judging by his words, I think it may be entirely possible the Lynch aspect may be under investigation. He may have "reported" that bad behavior.
This has nothing to do with Hillary's image. It has to do with the image of the FBI and him trying to separate the FBI from the political nonsense.
He explained why he didn't publicly state Trump was not under investigation. It would have complicated things in the event something else came up.
Also, he did not leak info to make Trump look bad. He released his personal memos for the sake of transparency with the American citizenry.
You're too focused on the political optics instead of the context of what he said.
I don't recall him saying that. He said the personal, unclassified memos wne to his friend and the entirety of his memos went to the DoJ.
Not sure. There may have been discussion about Comey's intentions and the tweet was his final nail.
I don't think one really has much to do with the other.
Neither was he asked to do anything illegal by Trump.
and he knew they did this to align the FBI stance with the campaign of Hillary.
Yet he did this. Now with trump when he feels queasy, he takes memos (something he didn't do with the convo about using the word matter) and leaks them to the press.
Exactly my point! He can only recommend.
Are you serious? Yeah he did a good job of that. Both republicans and Democrats have been outraged by his behavior with the Hillary statement. It is an almost unanimous belief on all sides that he handled it poorly.
How would apponting a special prosecutor made the FBI look political. If it would have, does having a special prosecutor into Russia collsuion also make the FBI look bad? So why did Comey push for that?
The only possible expklanation is that he didn't want Hillary to look bad, but did Trump.
I saw what he said. So when it came to admitting Trump wasn't under investigation, he didn't care about transparency to the American people. But in making him look bad, now all of the sudden he does? Again, it shows bias.
Perhaps I missed that. Can you show me in the transcript where he says he only sent the unclassified memos?
But you are adding things based on what you want to be true.
Why are you willing to fill in gaps and make excuses for this lie? I thought you were impartial?
I guess we will see. Comey is going to be investigated at least for the leaks he admitted.
That is not hacking the election, hacking the election implies their actions effected the outcome...
the narrative being pushed by the media implies heavily that without Russia Trump gets blown out of the water... which leads to people thinking Russia managed to change votes
a Phishing attack is pretty a fricking basic level of hacking... effective but not what you do if you are trying to hack your way to changing the outcome of an election.
You want to say the hacking of the DNC had an effect, yea Ill buy that...
originally posted by: introvert
Sorry. Let me clarify. What Lynch did was not illegal. It was political. What Trump did may have been illegal.
Where did he state that?
She said, just call it a matter. You look back in hindsight, if I looked back and said this isn't worth dying on so I just said the press is going to completely ignore it. That's what happened when I said we opened a matter. They all reported the FBI has an investigation open. So that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work and that's concerning.
The situations are not comparable.
And that is what he did. He did not sentence anyone or decide guilt or innocence. He only gave his recommendation of a concluded investigation, in public considering he thought there may be some shenanigans at the JD. He made a distinct separation between the FBI and them.
Yes, because of politics. He did what was right instead of playing politics.
Then why did he reopen the email investigation when the laptop was found?
Your explanation does not make sense.
Did you not listen to his explanation about duty to correct?
I only want the truth and I have not added anything other than reasonable speculation based on what we know.
I am being impartial. I have not said anything is set in stone and have been very specific in my wording when discussing aspects I am unsure of. Did I not say I was unsure?
The questions that matters are DID they influence our election? How are they trying to influence our election?
The answer to the first question is no, by Comey's own testimony. Had it been yes or maybe, then we could talk prosecution.
The answer to the second is not as cut and dried. The only thing it can be used for is to harden our defense against outside influence. That is procedural, not criminal. There is no investigation on Donald Trump. There is no evidence against Donald Trump. There is no case against Donald Trump. We just head a from very single leader of he intelligence community.
I swear Jesus Himself could come down in a chariot of lightning and declare in a voice loud enough to shake the heavens that Trump is innocent, and people would still try to spin it.
No it wasn't. Trump could legally asked Comey to end the investigation. He admitted in the testimony. He just said we have norms not to do that, but he could have anyone investigated or end investigated that he wanted.
They wanted the FBI to use the campaign language.
Why? Both situations made him feel uneasy. You are merely making arbitrary distinctions.
Two things. First, you admit that Comey was incorrect then in his testimony when he said the investigation was finished in July and he knew there was no reason to indict her.
Secondly, maybe because he had to because there was more evidence, and he knew he couldn't just sweep it under the rug.
This is unresponsive to the fact that Comey said in his own words he didn't want a special prosecutor for Hillary because it would have been a bad look, but he did want one for Trump. You seem to be pretending this isn't problematic.
Yes, it makes no sense. He declared no special prosecutor for hiullary and the investigation was over because he was concerned she would look bad, and then he had to correct and say they found new evidence. Duty to correct didn't bother him their.
Then why can't you admit that what Comey said was a lie. FACT; Comey said he released the memos to be leaked in response to Trumps tweet. FACT; The NYT reported on the memos the day BEFORE the Trump tweet.
When this is shown to you, you start to make excuses for Comey. This doesn't sound impartial
As long as we can agree that there was an effort in place to try and do so, my point has been made.
Agreed. Nothing has presented to suggest they succeeded. Again, I was not asserting as much.
Comey said he handed over his material to a special prosecutor in reference to his interactions with Trump. That would indicate a case has begun and a special prosecutor appointed, would it not?
Who cares about the spin? Let's stick to what we know.