I am not saying it was a more pressing public interest. What I mean is that the public was interested in it, if you get the distinction I am drawing. I think the potential for Russia ties is a much more pressing public interest issue.
The popular demand caused the focus, rather than an objective weighting on which would be more substantially damaging to the country if proven true.
Ha ha I love it when you (or anyone) on the left says stuff like this. Please do more of it. In the end you will feel sillyâŠyes I will be here to remind you.
Main difference there is that nobody âknewâ about Trump being in cahoots with the Russians until after their candidate lost.
The rest of us still donât know.
Does it ever concern you, the amount of crow you might be forced to eat someday? Itâs pretty substantial, and getting more so every day.
Are you suggesting Comeyâs precedent-breaking presser, in which he publicly excoriated a major-party candidate for POTUS shortly before the electionâa candidate against whom no charges were being recommendedâwas justified because the public was interested in the subject?
If so, Iâm sure you agree that the public would have been very, VERY interested in the âTrump campaign-Russia connectionâ investigation. Thus, if public interest is the metric, why wouldnât Comey have made the public aware of that investigation as well?
As it turns out, the Trump campaign was the subject of an FBI investigation for months prior to the election.
You misunderstand me, ED. I make no claim about the justification, I am making an assessment as to WHY it was done. My estimation of that being that the public were very interested in it. Of course they would have been interested in the Trump investigation had it been known and publicised in the same way.
The whole thing was a goddamn mess and I think both investigations should have been revealed. He handled this absurdly poorly at every step.
The revelations (and non revelations) of investigations were handled poorly.
The presser AND the recommendation (Which he as law enforcement has no business giving) was handled poorly.
The subsequent chicanery was handled poorly.
The whole thing was a circus.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
Iâve always believed the electoral college was pretty shit. It was one of the earlier Donald Trump tweets that I was REALLY on board with. That being said, I donât in any way expect him to fix it, as he canât win a re-election without a way to circumvent the popular vote.
Which is awesome. Your vote matters as much as everyone else in your state. It just doesnât matter as much as the guy 1 state over (hence my issue).
In state voting, you of course want all votes equal. I also believe that in federal voting, you also want all votes equal.
An interesting plan to do an end-run around the electoral college and determine the POTUS by popular vote:
Public interest was why we know there is a Trump-Russia investigation.
No, investigative journalism is why we know.
It seems to me that I have heard this warning before when I predicted that Hillary Clinton would never become President (when she was the huge odds on favorite). And then I predicted that Donald Trump would choose a conservative for the Supreme Court and was laughed at by a couple of the long time regular posters. Sure Iâve been wrong before no one is perfect. But I have followed this stuff long enough to be able to separate political fact from fiction. And thisâŠyou can believe me or notâŠis pure fiction. And if you donât stop I will be reminding you and our mutual friend Tyler all about it.
Trust me on this one my friend!
Sure, if you want to compare apples to apples that did not exist in the public eye at that point.
Comey made an addendum to a case that had already been examined and a determination made. With Trump, the investigation is ongoing and there havenât been any determinations made- Therefore, it should have remained confidential. The fact that it is known is actually a detriment, because now people who may have been doing anything wrong will know to stop and cover tracks.
There is no âcircumventing the popular voteâ as the popular vote means nothing in regards to who wins the Presidency. And it has been made very clear to you by others that the electoral college was set up so that candidates would not spend an inordinate amount of time in places like LA, NYC, Philly etc. It makes sense.
I think you will appreciate the electoral college quite a bit more when your candidate wins by the electoral vote.
This doesnât change the unequal weighting of votes. It still isnât a 1 vote = 1 vote system. The proportionality of votes would be unchanged. Iâm also not opposed to eliminating the winner take all state laws.
Comey announced it because of special interest and noted that it was unusual and he otherwise wouldnât have. Same as for the Clinton investigation.
LOL, brought to us by the insane left wing media. Smoke and mirrors used to distract and disrupt the Trump agenda. Most on the left want to believe there is some nefarious Trump Russia connection. There must be because their candidate lost toâŠto Donald Trump. LMAO.
NopeâŠnothing there.
Bet?
Your point is valid. That said, it is deeply ironic that an investigation into a POTUS candidate that had reached the determination that no laws had been broken was handled in such a way as to contribute (to what extent no one can know) to the defeat of that candidate, whereas an investigation of arguably greater significance into the other POTUS candidate would go unremarked.
Depending on how you define ânothing there,â I may take you up on it.