for the past gets old.
Mr. Comey did not release e-mails from Clinton. He had closed the case in the summer, when he noted that if anything changed, he would inform Congress. Then, in late October, the NYC FBI informed Mr. Comey that while investigating illicit messages sent by disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner, they found messages from Clinton's private server on Weiner's laptop. One can question if that group of FBI agents (and a group of retired agents they shared information with) held that back from Mr. Comey to purposely have an October Surprise.
Mr. Comey had two options: inform Congress, as he had said he would, or let the NYC nest leak it to the media. Obviously, immediately after being informed, republicans ran to the press. The fact that the FBI had e-mails from the Clinton server on Weiner's laptop was going to be reported in the media that day, no matter if Mr. Comey informed Congress or not. One can only speculate on if the NYC nest released it, and reporters learned that Mr. Comey had remained silent would have been somehow better on Election Day, but I would hope everyone can understand that it would have been worse.
There were, of course, several other important issues, none less significant than Russian intelligence's influence on social media. I note that the "blame Comey" people frequently have insisted that Mr. Comey was somehow obligated to say the FBI was investigating the republican candidate at the summer press conference regarding there were no charges regarding the Clinton e-mails. This, of course, holds no water for several reasons. The most important is the only one needed: the FBI was not investigating the republican candidate until the day after Mr. Comey was fired by the felon-in-chief the following year.
They were investigating three individuals connected to the republican candidate's campaign staff. They were also investigating other individuals involved in the Russian influence campaign. And campaigns -- the campaign staff picked by the candidate -- play the second most important role in every election. The Obama campaign and the Kennedy campaign in particular stand out as examples of outstanding campaigns. But the most important role is always that of the candidate. No one questions if they own a win, yet some of their supporters seek to place blame elsewhere with a loss.
Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate on paper that our party has picked to head a presidential ticket. But that did not translate in the manner her staff ran the campaign. As horrible as it was to have the Supreme Court decide the 2000 election, the outcome of 2016 was worse. And that of 2024 even worse than that. Hence, we need to be focused on this year's mid-terms, and then 2028. We do not have the luxury of wasting time now.
= new reply since forum marked as read