Active Now

Element 99
Randy D
Discussion » Questions » Politics » FBI action before an election is NOT unprecedented. Why lie?
my2cents

FBI action before an election is NOT unprecedented. Why lie?

In 1992, Bush v Clinton just 4 days before election FBI indicts  Bush's Sec of Defense....
http://www.headlineoftheday.com/2016/10/29/bush-secretary-of-defense-indicted-four-days-before-clinton-election/

So how is this unprecedented? Clinton certainly wasn't complaining in 1992.

Posted - November 2, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 53509
    (has went action)?????????
      November 2, 2016 6:42 AM MDT
    1

  • 34272
    Has went forward with actions.....

    Will not let me edit it...sorry.
    I had to shorten it to fix.  This post was edited by my2cents at November 2, 2016 7:02 AM MDT
      November 2, 2016 6:58 AM MDT
    0

  • 53509
    (has gone forward)

    Come on, you're better than that. 
    __
      November 2, 2016 7:20 AM MDT
    1

  • 34272
    Is it okay now?
      November 2, 2016 7:36 AM MDT
    0

  • 53509
    Are you asking my opinion?  I think you know whether or not it's better now.
    __
      November 2, 2016 8:16 AM MDT
    0

  • 214
    Not unprecedented at all. Huma's account was with yahoo. Yahoo accounts have a history of being hacked. I don't believe Comey would have gone forward had they not have some evidence that there was non-personal e-mails in the account. The only way the FBI could determine what was in the account was to get a search warrant, which they did do.
      November 2, 2016 7:53 AM MDT
    2

  • 3934
    There are a few crucial differences here.

    Pertinent distinction #1:  Weinberger was SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, not a presidential candidate. While selecting an indicted criminal for SecDef speaks to Bush the Elder's bad judgement, it is NOT the same as Bush being a criminal himself.

    Pertinent distinction #2: Lawrence Walsh was a special prosecutor (remember when we used to have those to look into official corruption? After BlueDressGate, our political class decided they were sick of them and didn't renew the law enabling their existence) NOT the head of the FBI. If there was enough criminal evidence to indict HRC, would you want the DOJ to hold off until after the election to come forward with that indictment? Nah, of course not.

    Pertinent distinction #3: As noted above, Lawrence Walsh was a special PROSECUTOR and come forward with an idictment. That means he had sufficent evidence of wrongdoing to warrant a trial. Conversely, Comey specifically said HRC was NOT indictable based on the FBI's investigations and made NO indication the Abedin/Weiner e-mails actually had anything related to the prior investigation. Only that they MIGHT potentially relate to the prior investigation.



    What IS IT with Usual Suspect's inability to actually READ and ANALYZE content? They see an indeologically-pleasing headline and go, "Oooh, Shiny!" without taking even 30 seconds to THINK about what they're reading.
      November 2, 2016 8:47 AM MDT
    1

  • 34272
    The point is that people are going on about how it is so unprecedented for the FBI to do anything before an election because of the Hatch Act.  Well this is an specific example of the executive branch taking an action that very would have an effect on upcoming election.  FBI/special prosecutor/US Marshalls/DoJ whatever they are all members of the executive branch. This post was edited by my2cents at November 2, 2016 9:40 AM MDT
      November 2, 2016 9:01 AM MDT
    0

  • 3934
    @m2c -- No, special prosecutors (before CONGRESS let the law lapse) were appointed by CONGRESSIONAL mandate to investigate potential wrongdoing in the Executive Branch, because asking the Executive Branch to investigate itself is an inherent conflict of interest.

    You can continue to stamp your feet and huff, because TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ MUST NOT WIN, but you're simply empirically wrong.
      November 2, 2016 9:07 AM MDT
    1

  • 34272
    Ok fair enough.  But it is still the same basic thing a legal action right before the election that likely tipped the scale towards Clinton. The case was dismissed after the election.
      November 2, 2016 9:39 AM MDT
    0

  • 34272
    The SCOTUS ruled that the Independent Counsel was constitutional because the executive branch still had meanful controls over the counsel. So the special prosecutor in 1992 does apply as executive branch interventing in the election just 4 days before.  Yes the law was allowed to expire but the DoJ can still use Special Prosecutors.

    Morrison v Olson considered the constitutionality of the "Independent Counsel" (or "special prosecutor") provisions in the Ethics in Government Act.  The Court had considerable difficulty in identifying in which of the three branches of government the independent counsel belonged.  Justice Rehnquist's opinion for the Court inMorrison took a pragmatic view of government, upholding the independent counsel provisions.  Rehnquist noted that the creation of the independent counsel position did not represent an attempt by any branch to increase its own powers at the expense of another branch, and that the executive branch maintained "meaningful" controls over the counsel's exercise of his or her authority.
      November 2, 2016 10:36 AM MDT
    0

  • 2500
    Really?

    Just which law expired that removed the power of Congress (or any other Federal agency) from commissioning a Special Prosecutor/Independent Council? Can you provide a reference to that now-defunct law?
      November 2, 2016 10:00 AM MDT
    0

  • 34272
    Actually OS is correct they let the law expire.  Only the DoJ can call for an Special Prosecutor now.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/28/in_congress_mixed_feelings_on_irs_special_counsel.html
      November 2, 2016 10:44 AM MDT
    0

  • 2500
    Not quite.

    The article that you reference is for one specific law applied in one particular instance (which was originally passed as a bit of theatre, not really necessary). There are still other provisions that allow various branches of the government to hire (appoint) "independent council" to investigate suspected malfeasance by various government agencies and officials. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor

    But even if Congress didn't have any avenue to make such an appointment they could easily pass a "resolution", a law to do so, no approval of the President needed if a sufficient number of the members of Congress want it.
      November 3, 2016 2:19 PM MDT
    0

  • 53509
    (Hatch Act, not amendment.)
      November 2, 2016 9:21 AM MDT
    1

  • 34272
    Thank you.
      November 2, 2016 9:34 AM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    I don't think she is complaining now.  I think she is rolling her eyes to high heaven.
      November 2, 2016 9:28 AM MDT
    0