Thanks for pointing that out.

I've previously not cared for him. But lately, he's been solid. Thus, I bought his book "Trempocracy" week -- and it is actually an outstanding piece of work.

He has those on both sides of the aisle who do not care for the way he handled the matters regarding Clinton or Trump. He has not yet convinced those who supported Clinton that what he did was right. I doubt if he ever well because it was wrong-headed to do what he did & especially what sticks with everyone, only 11 days before the election. It was totally against even the FBI Protocol & then to come out & talk about his decision on Clinton. He should have just closed the investigation like they always have. At the same time no revealing what was going on with Trump.

As for honesty & facts. I don't think many are questioning him on that.

If any?

It's easy to argue that people were persuaded against Hillary 11 days before the election and were not persuaded 2 or 3 days before the election when it was determined there was nothing new in the emails.

Although there are polls indicating a drop for Hillary, it is not a given that Comey's letter was the cause.

election with what he did as others.
----------------
Ari Melber's Analysis of Former FBI Director James Comey's New Book
'- James Comey writes that partisans will misconstrue what the FBI does no matter what, but then he says he made decisions out of concern about what partisans would say about the FBI. This book is damning in ways he may not even realize.
- He writes he worried that a potential attack on AG Lynch, which might have been a lie, “would allow partisans to argue, powerfully, that the Clinton Campaign, through Lynch, had been controlling the FBI’s investigation.” If true, of course that would be wrong; if false, then it would just be another lie. Worrying about the optics falls into the very trap partisans set for the FBI. (p. 178)
- He goes on to defend his Clinton press conference “in hindsight” by saying Dems and Republicans had their predictable political response to it. But what about the widespread criticism from nonpartisan legal experts? He doesn’t address that in this chapter.
- Comey makes the rather histrionic rationalization that “no matter what” was found on Weiner’s laptop — if the FBI did not do PR and announce the search *before* learning the facts, it would be “catastrophic to the integrity of the FBI and DOJ.” (p. 196) But that is backwards. If there was nothing legally important on the laptop - which the FBI later concluded - there is nothing catastrophic about using the normal process to find the facts.
- Law enforcement gets leads all the time that must be pursued, but go nowhere. He made a mistake in promoting a lead, without facts, in the heat of an election. People do make mistakes. But doubling down on it now, after everything, with the benefit of hindsight?
- Comey says he told DOJ he planned to make the unusual announcement about the emails before finding out what was in them, was advised against it but not ordered against it, and thus he concluded, “once again it became *my* responsibility to take the hit.”
- Then Comey leans on a self-pitying partisan frame, saying his “haters from July… switched positions” after his letter. Doesn’t really reckon with the fact that the letter was “misunderstood” in the “middle of an election” exactly as he seemed aware it could be.
- Then James Comey blasts the critics of his October letter as driven “around the bend” and moved to “hysteria.” He insists he didn’t violate DOJ policy (many legal experts say he did, though as a unique situation it’s somewhat debatable).
- Comey casts himself as the one independent person in a sea of partisan hacks, while he released letter for the good of the nation, “most” of his critics would “do what was best for their favorite team.” Does that include all the former DOJ officials who critiqued him?
- Comey’s own account does show why he was totally wrong - credit for candor there - within *days,* they learned most of the emails were duplicates (the FBI had already reviewed them), and they changed nothing. So had he waited a few days, he could have announced that or nothing.'

Facebook Page

Nate has a really good more technical analysis with his usual good figures.

the electoral college is still responsible for Trump being in the White House. Let's not be distracted about an institution that has cost the Democrats the presidency, despite the popular vote, TWICE in this very young century.

working how it was set up by our forefathers years ago. Personally I believe it could be modified, changed because I am not sure it is a good thing right now in our country the way the population has shifted. Comey, however made a choice or decision that was bad & with the candidates we had, really made a difference for years to come from the Supreme Court to Federal Courts all around the country.

That said; it is over, done, finished & I agree we just need to make sure about our upcoming elections. His book tour has reopened all of those wounds though it seems.

Thanks for the reply.

...the republicans would never win another election for POTUS. They will never allow it to be amended.

Parties have a way of adapting to the population, since they are made up of the population.

What would happen is that Republicans would shift to the left, Democrats would shift further left. And then we would continue to argue over the dividing line just like we do now.

Plus there is the dynamic that when any party is in charge for awhile, people demand a change.

My guess is that after a period of adjustment (5 to 10 years), the whitehouse would be shared between the two parties at about the same ratio it is now.

on this but I would like to see changes in our representation. Some states do not need two senators or fewer congressmen or congresswomen. I would like to see a total redrawing of congressional districts by a totally neutral or bipartisan group agreed on by both political parties & neither party could redraw the districts. If done again, only by a third party.

Something to that extent as well as Citizens United being done away with & contributions done somehow through the people.

That said; more than likely will never happen.

Was he concerned that someone in the New York office would leak the fact of the emails being on Huma's computer? Does the FBI publicly announce all openings of investigations?

Just wondering......from my perch north of the border.....

...and promised them that he would inform them if any new information came up about Hillary's emails. When Anthony Weiner's laptop was discovered to have Hillary's emails on it, he felt obligated to tell them about it. They immediately used the information for political advantage. He was played. He was weaki when faced with the attacks from the Republicans. That was one of his flaws.

Congress.

...not publicly disclose it.

Which he did via the infamous letter.

Maybe I'm forgetting but I don't recall any public announcement from the FBI, esp. not before the pig GOP congress leaked the letter Comey sent.

The 'investigation' couldn't really have been re-opened because it was never really closed per FBI/DoJ agreement w/Congress.

So Chaffetz is the one who “publicly announced” it

uncertainty. Like so many others I was shocked when trump won. That was not expected to happen.

ready for a vaccine shot. Ready? Here comes.

That was preceded by decades of conservative radio anti-H rhetoric.

I personally, didn't 'want" to vote for her. It was an anti Trump vote.

in my lifetime in the General. I thought Trump was a charlatan and an idiot and a horrible human being. No contest.

I now have a more positive view of HRC. I have the feeling that she won't run again. I am keeping my eyes on our party's up and coming generation. I am looking at Kamala and Adam right now. I think they are stars in our party...

but first the mid-terms. I am doing my GOTV with my friends and neighbors. altho CT is a deeply blue state, we can never be too sure. EVER.

It was damage but minimal....The Mueller Investigation should be fruitful in exposing the true fraud and voting manlipulation.

going very well by all accounts.

I think we have seen that by some of the books that have sold on the far-right, christian right, etc. & it can be mostly fiction.

Giuliani's "contacts with the Feds" in New York telegraphed this.

quite a bit since Trump became president. He's very articulate and his take on Comey was excellent.

I believe Comey is a decent, honest man, but like many, I think he used really poor judgment regarding the Clinton emails. I understand why he did what he did now, but I think he was wrong.

Now they're called Independents. Some even Democrats.

After this I'd be very surprised if anyone with average or above average intelligence remains in the GOP. How does Robert Mueller still call himself a Republican? I don't get it, but I do respect Mueller.

I remember those days. Some were actually independent thinkers who used big words and spoke in complete sentences. Though I often disagreed with them, I respected them. Now all we have are programmed robots speaking in talking points. It truly has become the party of grifters and puppets.

And that would be his major flaw. Even he had seemed aware of that, but I can't recall the quote. He let his self-righteous, holier than thou attitude override his common sense. One can be pragmatic and still be an honorable person.

his memo release to the traitor Chaffetz was partly because he hated the Clintons.

the connection she was making and it was the same for his info about new emails. He admits he was worried what others would say about the FBI on Hillary meaning he was scared of the right wing squaw machine.

I found the interview fairly creepy, and still think Comey is a traitor.

To the meatier questions.

He knew he had to be very careful and cautious in how he answered Rachel's questions. In the end, it came down to a comparison of character between James Comey and Donald Trump, in my opinion. Trump did not come out of the interview looking good.

so why did Rosenstein release the memos out to those in the House who wanted it. On Lawrence O'Donnell last night they said it was unprecedented to do this during an ongoing investigation.

And they decided that there was little in the memos that was not already known and, that in the longer run, it was more important that Rosenstein keep his position.

I doubt that Rosenstein made his decision unilaterally.

because I really don't trust those repigs, something is definitely going on behind the scenes, I don't trust McConnell either.

thanks kentuck.

Without it being blamed on Donald Trump.

minions do the dirty work, just what a mafia don would do.

By the time O'Donnell's show started the guests were in agreement that the Republicans in Congress shot themselves in the foot by demanding they be released. Nothing to see here and the memos vindicate instead of providing damning evidence.

Not that they already tried to spin something immediately. And O'D's and his guests found it laughable. If I recall right it was Rudy G. who tried to twist something. Seems like he got over his skis and flopped. Not a credible start for him, lol.

always thoughtful and insightful...and we don't have to hear what you ate for dinner !!!

did they drop a lot of commercials in? because the video is chopped up into smaller segments more than usual. anyhow, it is very interesting. up to the Giuliani fox bit.

Giuliani should be, and hopefully is, under investigation. he's up to his fucking eyeballs.

....sometimes have a hard time getting past the cheesy shtick.

She asked very tough questions of James Comey. Almost immediately, he knew he was in for a tough evening.

George Stephanopoulos.

where we are, NAZIS in the WH, etc., that it is ALL she can do NOT to SCREAM or to look into the camera and say:

"donald rump is a traitor and we all better as fuck do something about it"

I say all this because I remember BEFORE November 16 when she would report on some nazi or KKK member supporting rump and rump NOT denouncing their support. SHE was in horror, I was in horror, YOU were in horror, but we mostly didnt worry because there was no way the nazi, the traitor, the fascist could end up in the WH.

We were wrong, and I think she is as angry about it as we are, but she cant say so.

But I can see why anyone would make the observation you are making, I just think that is who she is.

all likelihood what actually happened was that tRump saw this on tv and and later claimed Putin personally told him that. Example of alternate reality, and propensity to lie.

Why didn't anyone at the State Dept. know there was classified info in those e-mails they were sending Hillary?..I'm just guessing it's because that information was classified by other agencies and not the State Dept. even though he had already cleared Hillary this would've made a big difference.

is in a league with the quality TV journalism established by people like Walter Cronkite.

She is a total treasure.

so called liberals throwing shit at her. And I dont mean style criticism, that is fair game, I mean why didnt she do this why didnt she do that she is a sell out etc

I don't think he enjoyed the interview.

I have Maddow's program set to be recorded every night. As soon as I watch or listen I delete it. But not last night's airing. I've retained it to watch it again.

Originally, I requested Comey's book from the library and would have been in the first group to get a copy. Then I got disgusted with Comey and cancelled my request. But after Rachel's interview I was so intrigued that I immediately purchased the Kindle version and started reading last night. I'm glad I did. He writes well and kept me interested.

I hate being on the fence about issues and people but he confounds me. His actions regarding Ashcroft all those years ago made respect him deeply. I felt that I knew why Obama asked him to head the FBI. Now, I read and listen to the various reasons for what he chose to do regarding HRC and I want to kick his butt. The next minute I understand why he did it and get depressed. It's not like there isn't a load of information about the issue. But I vacillate back and forth and I annoy myself. So I'll read his book and get a sense of his own reasoning. One more piece of information to help me get through this period in our nation's history.

was on Rachel's show. Did my heart good.

I thought it was outstanding. Mr. Comey was obviously tired out. Rachel adjusted her pace, and did so again as the memos came out. That made for intense live television.

I remember years ago, Jesse Jackson saying that an audience will often listen closer, and have more respect, for a person who is struggling in a public presentation. (That made me feel a bit better about my own poor public speaking capacity!)