October 29, 2016


News and Views


THE LACK OF ETHICS IN SOME MODERN-DAY SPORTS, AND THE MONEY-BASED EMPHASIS ON THEM IN COLLEGES – TWO ARTICLES

“Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/baylor-regents-women-reported-assaults-players/

Baylor regents: 17 women reported assaults by 19 players
CBS/AP
October 29, 2016, 10:48 AM

23 photographs -- A Baylor Bears helmet on the sidelines during the game against the Buffalo Bulls at UB Stadium on Sept. 12, 2014, in Buffalo, New York. VAUGHN RIDLEY/GETTY IMAGES
Play VIDEO -- Former Baylor Title IX coordinator on resignation: University "set me up to fail"
Related: Complete college football coverage on CBSSports.com


WACO, Texas -- An outside investigation of the Baylor University sexual violence scandal found 17 women who had reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 Baylor University athletes since 2011, university regents have told The Wall Street Journal.

Those included four reports of gang rapes, the Journal reported in a story posted to its website Friday.

The investigation by the Pepper Hamilton law firm in Philadelphia found some players were alleged to have participated in what one regent called a “horrifying and painful” series of assaults over several years. The regents said then-Baylor football coach Art Briles knew of at least one reported incident but didn’t inform police or school officials.

Baylor previously had said the review found that the football program operated as if it were above the rules. However, the university had released few details from the Pepper Hamilton report. That led to increasing public demand, especially among alumni and Baylor critics, for transparency.

“There was a cultural issue there that was putting winning football games above everything else, including our values,” said J. Cary Gray, a lawyer and regent of the Southern Baptist university. More generally, “we did not have a caring community when it came to these women who reported they were assaulted, and that is not OK,” Gray told the Journal.

Briles and Baylor’s athletic director were fired earlier this year. President Ken Starr was removed from his post by regents and he later resigned as chancellor.

Two days before his firing, Briles was called before the regents to discuss the scandal, Gray said. “Art said, ‘I delegated down, and I know I shouldn’t have. And I had a system where I was the last to know (of the assault allegations), and I should have been the first to know,’” Gray told the newspaper.

Briles’ attorney, Ernest Cannon of Stephenville, Texas, said his client never discouraged any victims from filing complaints against players. He also said Baylor’s regents appeared to be violating a non-disparagement clause that was part of the settlement agreement his client signed with the university.

Cannon also accused the regents of scapegoating Briles for Baylor’s overall failure to maintain a strict Title IX program to guard against sexual discrimination. Numerous lawsuits alleging violations of the federal Title IX laws allege such an overall failure.

“They are pulling their own house down to justify the mistakes they made. He’s the football coach” with no responsibility to enforce Title IX requirements, Cannon said.

“That’s their job,” he added, referring to university administrators.

Earlier this month, Patty Crawford, Baylor’s former Title IX coordinator, resigned and said top campus leaders undermined her efforts to investigate sexual assault claims and were more concerned with protecting the Baylor “brand” than the students.

Crawford said that the school did not allow her to fulfill her job as Title XI coordinator and retaliated against her.

“I never had the authority, the resources or the independence to do the job appropriately, which the Department of Education writes in its guidance for Title IX coordinators in universities,” Crawford said on “CBS This Morning.”

She told CBS News that included being disconnected from meetings and conversations and the university “making decisions only a Title IX coordinator should make, based on protection for the brand.”

She also noted the sexual violence problem was a campus-wide issue not limited to football. The university has said football players were involved in just over 10 percent of all alleged Title IX violations in the four years ending with the 2014-15 school year.

In response, Gray said, “Football is a fraction, but it is a bad fraction.”

The regents’ statements failed to impress Crawford’s attorney, Rogge Dunn of Dallas, who argued they continue to try to shape the narrative surrounding the scandal and protect the Baylor image. He told The Associated Press that the full story will not come until those concerned are placed under oath.

“Baylor’s never going to get past this until it has full transparency,” Dunn told the AP Friday night.



EXCERPT – “More generally, “we did not have a caring community when it came to these women who reported they were assaulted, and that is not OK,” Gray told the Journal.”


This is at least the third very similar case I’ve seen in the last year and a half or so, and I’m sure there are too many others that I’ve missed. The old “blame the victim” mantra protects wrongdoers whose position in life gives them an advantage, and that includes sports figures. There were a couple of cases in the military also. Reporting a crime like that can get you into deep trouble, which may not be obvious to the public eye. Women have been fired numerous times for the same thing when the sexual molester/rapist was in the ranks above them. Read the great Victorian novel below. Not only is it apropos, it is a wonderful piece of writing and THINKING. Unfortunately the times haven't changed nearly as much as I would like, and certainly not in those corners of the world where women are possessions.


Tess of the d'Urbervilles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Tess of the d'Urbervilles: A Pure Woman Faithfully Presented is a novel by Thomas Hardy. It initially appeared in a censored and serialised version, published by the British illustrated newspaper The Graphic in 1891[1] and in book form in 1892. Though now considered a major nineteenth-century English novel and possibly Hardy's fictional masterpiece,[2] Tess of the d'Urbervilles received mixed reviews when it first appeared, in part because it challenged the sexual morals of late Victorian England."


ON THOSE NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSES:

http://www.vorys.com/publications-1674.html

2/16/16 Employers Must Be Careful Using Non-Disparagement Clauses to Discourage Employees’ Negative Online and Social Media Posts

In recent years, there has been backlash against non-disparagement clauses pertaining to online reviews, specifically those attempting to restrict honest—albeit negative—feedback about companies. In fact, California passed a law in August 2014 prohibiting anti-negative review policies, while the Federal Trade Commission filed its first ever lawsuit over similar non-disparagement clauses last September.

Beyond potentially restricting the speech of customers, businesses must also be careful about non-disparagement clauses relating to employees, such as those incorporated in employee handbooks or other agreements.

Contracts and policies prohibiting or limiting workers from speaking about their employment, such as sharing information about wages—including on social media or other websites, such as Glassdoor—have drawn greater scrutiny from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in recent years.

In fact, in early 2013, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that non-disparagement provisions incorporated in Quicken Loans, Inc. employment agreements (as well as Quicken Loans’ confidentiality clause) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by restricting employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA.

Under Section 7, employees have the right to choose to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” such as discussing wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of work with other employees. Section 8(a)(1) restricts employers from interfering with employees attempting to exercise their Section 7 rights.

In the aforementioned action, a former Quicken Loans employee alleged that her rights had been violated by both “overly broad and discriminatory rules in [Quicken Loans’] Mortgage Banker Employment Agreement.” Specifically, the non-disparagement provision, which required employees to refrain from publicly “cricitiz[ing], ridicule[ing], disparage[ing] or defam[ing]” the company, arguably interfered with her (and other employees’) rights under Section 7 of the NLRA.

Judge Joel P. Biblowitz agreed, finding that Quicken Loans’ rules, including the non-disparagement provision, could reasonably have been read as restricting the Quicken Loans employees’ rights to engage in protected activities. In the opinion—which was affirmed later that year by an NLRB judge—Judge Biblowitz noted that “[t]he line between lawful and unlawful restrictions is very thin and often difficult to discern.”

Nonetheless, the ALJ, considered the non-disparagement provision to be void and ordered Quicken Loans to stop incorporating it and other overly broad rules into its employment agreements, so as to avoid interfering with employees’ rights.

This Quicken Loans decision and others similarly decided do not prohibit employers from ever incorporating non-disparagement provisions into employment agreements, nor is employee speech always protected and immune from consequences. However, these rulings should caution businesses—who have or are considering implementing non-disparagement clauses—from maintaining or drafting potentially overbroad language in employer/employee documents.

Thus, businesses considering non-disparagement clauses should consult with experienced labor and employment counsel before incorporating potentially impermissible language. And all other businesses, which have such provisions already, should consider conferring with attorneys to review their existing forms and documents to ensure legal compliance.

For more information, contact Colleen Devanney at 855.542.9192 or cmdevanney@vorys.com. Read more about the practice at http://www.defamationremovalattorneys.com/.


ABOUT HOW THE DEIFICATION OF MODERN SPORTS IS EVIL


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ethics-everyone/201007/winning-isnt-everything

Michael W. Austin Ph.D. Michael W. Austin Ph.D.
Ethics for Everyone
Winning Isn't Everything
Winning isn't everything, nor is it the only thing.
Posted Jul 12, 2010


"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." This infamous quote, often attributed to Vince Lombardi, actually orginated with college football coach Red Saunders, though Lombardi did say it as well.

But is it true? Most people, including those in elite sports, would seem to agree with this sentiment. However, after a bit of reflection, it is clear that most don't in fact believe that this statement is true. And those who do believe it should change their minds. Why is this?

First, consider the fact that in sports there is such a thing as a hollow victory. Moreover, part of the appeal of sports as well as their value is the challenge that excellent athletes and teams pose to one another. If winning was truly all that mattered, then good teams should only seek to play fair or bad teams in order to try and ensure victory. But they don't, at least in part because they are in pursuit of athletic excellence.

Second, winning is only valuable when it is accomplished in the right way. Jonathan Wilson makes a similar point in his claim that Spain deserved to win the World Cup final yesterday, both aesthetically and morally, because of the brutality of the Dutch on the pitch. An athlete who cheats, or who uses banned performance-enhancing drugs (a form of cheating), or who intentionally injures an opponent in order to secure a victory has done something immoral, and if such an athlete wins it is a hollow victory.

Those who would eschew morality in favor of victory should consider something else that Vince Lombardi said near the end of his life about the "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" quote: "I wished I'd never said the thing...I meant the effort. I meant having a goal. I sure didn't mean for people to crush human values and morality."

Winning isn't everything, nor is it the only thing.

Follow Mike Austin on Twitter.



THREE “FASCINATING” TRUMP ARTICLES

http://www.politicususa.com/author/jasoneasley-2-2-2-2-2

Trump Melts Down And Accuses The US Postal Service Of Stealing The Election For Clinton
By Jason Easley on Sat, Oct 29th, 2016


Trump warned his supporters that the US Postal Service is trying to steal the election for Hillary Clinton in Colorado.

Video: Speech. Go to website.

At a rally in Golden, CO, Trump said:

I have real problems with ballots being sent. Does that make sense?

Like people saying, “Oh, here’s a ballot. Here’s another ballot. Throw it away. Oh, here’s one I like. We’ll keep that one.”

I have real problems, so get your ballots in.

Trump also accused election officials of throwing away ballots, as his rally was a mixture of claims of voter fraud and baseless speculation about Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Donald Trump appears to be losing his mind. He also seems to think that accusing the US Postal Service and election officials of stealing the election for Hillary Clinton is going to motivate Republicans to vote.

Consider the contradiction in Trump’s message. The Republican nominee tells his supporters that the US Postal Service is throwing away ballots, while at the same time he is urging them to mail in their ballots.

If their ballots are going to be thrown away by USPS, why should Republicans bother mailing their ballots in?

It is this sort of incoherent gibberish that makes no sense. Trump’s inability to stay disciplined and on message is also one of the biggest reasons why Republicans on pace to lose this election.

Donald Trump’s descent into paranoid senior citizen continues to play out in front of the entire nation, as the Republican nominee for president believes that his letter carrier is out to get him, 2016 election, Donald Trump, trump, Trump thinks USPS is throwing away ballots in Colorado, Trump thinks USPS is trying to steal the election.

Follow Jason Easley on Twitter
Trump Melts Down And Accuses The US Postal Service Of Stealing The Election For Clinton added by Jason Easley on Sat, Oct 29th, 2016

View all posts by Jason Easley →



Making wild and outrageous statements, for Trump, isn’t a “meltdown.” It’s par for the course. He’s a nut job of a certain sort, but he isn’t technically insane, I don’t believe.


POOR DONALD. SEE BELOW:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/des-moines-police-charge-trump-supporter-in-voter-fraud-case/

Des Moines police charge Trump supporter in voter fraud case
CBS/AP
October 29, 2016, 11:44 AM

Photograph -- Terri Rote is seen in a police booking photo on Oct. 27, 2016. POLK COUNTY ARREST & JAIL INFORMATION
Play VIDEO -- Why Trump's "rigged" elections claims are unprecedented


DES MOINES, Iowa -- Des Moines police have charged a woman with election misconduct, a Class D felony, after officials reported she voted twice.

Des Moines police Sgt. Paul Parizek says officers charged 55-year-old Terri Rote with first-degree election misconduct on Thursday after being notified by elections officials that she had submitted two absentee ballots.

According to an Iowa Public Radio report, Rote voted two times for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

“I wasn’t planning on doing it twice, it was spur of the moment,” Rote said in an interview with the radio station before she added an oft-repeated line on the Trump campaign trail: “The polls are rigged.”

She was booked into the Polk County Jail and released after posting a $5,000 bond.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone says it one of the few examples he’s seen of alleged voter fraud in his more than 25 years as a prosecutor.

“This [is] maybe the third [time] we’ve had some irregularity that’s resulted in a criminal charge,” Sarcone told the Iowa radio station. “People aren’t voting more than once. And if they do, or attempt to do it, they will get caught because there are safeguards in place.”

Trump has said several times without proof during this campaign cycle that “the election is rigged,” and he’s even encouraged his supporters to monitor the polls come Election Day because of his unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.

A preliminary hearing for Rote is set for Nov. 7.

Rote is registered as a Republican.



THE IDEA THAT TRUMP EVER HAD ANY “MINORITY OUTREACH” IS RIDICULOUS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/elections-2016-donald-trump-ohio-mike-pence-plane-accident-ghetto-slip-of-tongue/

Slip of the tongue may undercut Donald Trump's minority outreach
CBS NEWS
October 28, 2016, 6:48 AM

Related: Clinton has $46M more on hand than Trump in final stretch


Campaigning across Ohio Thursday, Donald Trump continued to question Hillary Clinton’s fitness for office, ramping up his pitch to minority voters. But in Toledo, the GOP nominee may have undercut his minority outreach with a 1970s-era slip of the tongue, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett.

“We’re going to work on our, the ghettos -- are in so, the, you take a look at what’s going …” he said, before switching terminology. “We’re going to work with the African-American community, and we’re going to solve the problem of the inner city.”

Trump delivered his usual stump speech in Geneva for over 40 minutes before acknowledging his running mate’s plane accident, breaking the news about Gov. Mike Pence’s brush with danger at the end of his prime-time rally. His late-night rally was the culmination of a three-stop Ohio tour.

“The plane skidded off the runway and was pretty close to grave, grave danger, but I just spoke to Mike Pence, and he’s fine,” Trump said. “He got out. Everybody’s fine.”

Hillary Clinton also weighed in on Twitter, saying: “Glad to hear Mike Pence, his staff, Secret Service and the crew are all safe.”

Follow
Hillary Clinton ✔ @HillaryClinton
Glad to hear @mike_pence, his staff, Secret Service, and the crew are all safe. -H
9:26 PM - 27 Oct 2016
4,277 4,277 Retweets 22,555 22,555 likes

“What a great decision it was to get Mike Pence. What a great guy he is,” Trump said.

By then Trump had already finished piling on Clinton.

“I honestly think she’s unstable,” Trump said.

He also revisited his shadow-boxing feud with Vice President Joe Biden.

“You know what you do with Biden, you go like this [blows air] and he’d fall over,” Trump said.

Again tossing around specious claims of voter fraud, Trump claimed scientific polls showing him trailing must be tainted.

“There’s tremendous dishonesty in the polls, I’ve never seen anything like it,” Trump said on Fox News.

He floated yet another lawsuit, this time over the now infamous sexist vulgarities revealed on the “Access Hollywood” video.

“It was an illegal act that was NBC,” Trump said on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor.”

“You know that was a private dressing room. Yeah, that was certainly illegal, no question about it,” Trump added.

“Are you going to take any action after the election against NBC?” Bill O’Reilly asked him.

“You’ll see. You’ll see,” Trump said.

According to the latest FEC filings, the Clinton campaign has outspent and outraised Trump by nearly two to one.

It appears Trump’s claims he has self-funded his campaign may be exaggerated. In the first two weeks of October, Trump only donated $31,000 to his campaign and overall $56 million -- a fraction of the $240 million that’s been spent.



PARTISAN ACTION BY COMEY?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-disagreed-fbi-director-decision-alert-congress-hillary-clinton-related-emails/

Attorney general disagreed with FBI director's decision to alert Congress to Hillary Clinton-related emails
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS October 29, 2016, 12:51 PM

Play VIDEO -- Impact of FBI's reopened investigation against Clinton


Attorney General Loretta Lynch disagreed with FBI Director James Comey’s decision to send a letter notifying Congress of new developments in the probe of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, CBS News’ Paula Reid reports.

Sources close to the Clinton investigation told Reid that Lynch encouraged the FBI chief to follow a long-standing practice not to comment on ongoing investigations. While the two did not speak directly, the attorney general’s position was made clear to Comey. Comey’s decision to flag the new emails was thus made independent of his boss, the attorney general.

In 2012, the attorney general’s office, then led by Eric Holder, sent a department-wide memo that included guidance on making announcements so close to an election.

The memo cautions that employees of the DOJ “must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality, and nonpartisanship.”

“Simply put, politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges,” it reads. “Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

Comey defended his decision to disclose the latest developments in the investigation in an email he sent to FBI staffers Friday, shortly after sending his letter to eight Republican House and Senate committee chairs.

“Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed,” he said, referring to the times he has appeared before congressional committees since July. “I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.”

The FBI chief said he did not “want to create a misleading impression,” but he acknowledged the “risk” in notifying Congress.

“In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood,” Comey wrote, “but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.”

CBS News confirmed that the new emails were found on the electronic devices of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her husband, former Congressman Anthony Weiner, from an FBI investigation into Weiner’s latest sexting scandal. Abedin and Weiner announced their separation earlier this year.

Following the letter, Comey received plaudits from Republicans over taking further “investigative steps” in the Clinton email case Friday, just as Democrats -- including the Clinton campaign -- called for the immediate release of more information.

Lynch, for her part, is no stranger to Republican criticism over the email investigation. Just as the FBI was wrapping up the case this summer, Lynch had an impromptu meeting with former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac of an Arizona airport.

At the time, Lynch had said the appearance of impropriety was enough to make her regret the chance meeting.

“The most important thing for me as the attorney general is the integrity of this Department of Justice,” the attorney general said in July. “And the fact that the meeting that I had is now casting a shadow over how people are gonna view that work is something I take deeply, and seriously, and painfully.”



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/29/james-comeys-inherently-horrible-decision/

The Fix
James Comey’s unavoidably horrible decision
By Aaron Blake
October 29 at 11:30 AM

Photograph -- FBI Director James B. Comey. (Yuri Gripas/Agence France-Presse via Getty Images)
Related: [Justice warned that Comey’s decision wasn't consistent with department policy]


Nearly four months after hailing FBI Director James B. Comey's statement that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge Hillary Clinton with a crime, Democrats are now furious with Comey.

The Clinton campaign called his decision to announce publicly the review of newly discovered emails related to the Clinton investigation “extraordinary.” Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile called it “irresponsible.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called it “appalling.” And this New Yorker article shows just how contentious the decision was within the law enforcement community; Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch reportedly opposed it.

Partisans will certainly disagree about whether Comey did the right thing.

Republicans in Congress seized the moment, as did, of course, Donald Trump, with the GOP nominee saying it “is bigger than Watergate.”

What's clear, though, is that he was faced with a completely unprecedented no-win situation with two horrible options.

As that New Yorker report and a new Washington Post editorial note, the Justice Department doesn't generally comment on ongoing investigations in this manner. Former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. formalized this practice four years ago, writing in a memo that officials “may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

But that ideal has run headlong into a hugely unusual set of circumstances and political realities.

In this case, the politics are already very much a part of this process, the investigation was already known about and either decision Comey made could have had far-reaching political implications — in this election and beyond. What's more, there were just 11 days left in the election when Comey made the announcement Friday. That is certainly an “extraordinary” set of circumstances that Comey had to wrestle with, so he made an extraordinary — in the truest sense of the term — decision.

The alternative for Comey here was to say nothing about the newly discovered emails. That would certainly have been the easier course in the near-term, because it wouldn't have inserted the FBI into the final days of the campaign.

But what if there did turn out to be something of real substance that altered his evaluation of this case, and what if it didn't come out until after the election and after Clinton was elected president? Imagine the scandal that would arise if and when it was discovered that the Justice Department had these emails before the election and chose to sit on them.

If that had happened, the Justice Department could certainly defend itself by citing that long-standing policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations. Just following protocol, it would say. But that defense almost definitely wouldn't pass muster with half the country. And let's not forget how many people think Clinton's private email server is a very legitimate issue; a poll after Comey's July announcement showed 56 percent of the country thought Clinton should have been charged with a crime.

It's hard to overstate what a massive scandal this would be.

Of course, if this decision ultimately helps Trump come back and win the presidency, that will also cause huge blowback. But at least in that case, the FBI couldn't be accused of covering something up; its sin would be in being too forthcoming.

Democrats view this as Comey — a Republican appointee who is no longer a registered member of the GOP — bowing to political pressure that has been applied by Republicans. Trump has been crying foul about a “rigged” political system for months, and his supporters have been eating it up. He also has been arguing for months that Clinton should be in jail or a special prosecutor should look at the case again, which his supporters also have eaten up.

That is the backdrop on which Comey had to make this decision, and there's no way the politics could be avoided. Law enforcement decisions should be independent of politics in an ideal world, but that's just wasn't plausible in this case. The public's confidence in the legal process is at stake.

Comey was confronted with an unprecedented situation and two very bad decisions, and he chose short-term pain over the prospect of a long-term scandal. Nobody should envy him right now.



http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/emails-didnt-originate-hillary-clinton-or

Come Clean, Comey! Emails Weren't From Hillary Clinton Or Her Email Server: UPDATED
By John Amato
10/28/16 2:21pm

More information is coming about after the FBI's James Comey sent a poorly written letter to Congress, which says they are looking into emails that MAY be pertinent to the Clinton emails case.

I'm flabbergasted.

The NY Times reported that the new emails in question are not from Hillary Clinton, or her server that was investigated, but belonged to Huma Abedin, which relates to Anthony Weiner's sexting scandal.

Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was taking steps to “determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He said he did not know how long it would take to review the emails, or whether the new information was significant.

NBC's Pete Williams has a tough time explaining how this new development even relates to Hillary Clinton in the above video except to say it may have something to do with email coming from Huma to Hillary and whether they contained classified information.

Williams was certain that this new information is going to take a long time to investigate and said, "You can just guarantee this is not gonna be done before the election. No way."

This whole investigation led by the FBI was about Hillary Clinton's handling of her emails on the personal server so why is this erupting onto the national stage?

When MSNBC's Steve Kornacki asked what the range of possibilities were, Williams admitted, "They are not from her, but who they were to and what they were about, I don't know."

Kornacki asked, "If it's not her server, if they are not from her, what is her potential in terms of looking at this investigation and what would her involvement be?

Williams replied, "That's just impossible to say until we know what the e-mails are?"

What a clusterfu*k!

Williams knows just enough from James Comey to throw this election -- especially Congressional races -- into a quagmire.

Sam Stein tweets:

Follow
Sam Stein ✔ @samsteinhp
So, this is
1. not abt Clinton-sent emails
2. not about her server
3. found on weiner device
4. may be only 3 emails
5. wtf
3:21 PM - 28 Oct 2016
8,849 8,849 Retweets 11,237 11,237 likes

John Podesta issued a strong statement:

"FBI Director Comey should immediately provide the American public more information than is contained in the letter he sent to eight Republican committee chairmen. Already, we have seen characterizations that the FBI is 'reopening' an investigation but Comey's words do not match that characterization. Director Comey's letter refers to emails that have come to light in an unrelated case, but we have no idea what those emails are and the Director himself notes they may not even be significant.

"It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election.

"The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July."

Digby writes about the U.S. Attorney's dismissals:

There was a time when it was considered unacceptable for the authorities to talk about investigations or draw up charges against politicians in the day leading up to elections. That seems to have changed since this happened back in 2006:

The controversy surrounding the U.S. Attorneys dismissals was often linked to elections or voter-fraud issues. Allegations were that some of the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed for failing to instigate investigations damaging to Democratic politicians, or for failing to more aggressively pursue voter-fraud cases. Such allegations were made by some of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys themselves to suggest reasons they may have been dismissed. The background to the allegations is the recent tendency for elections in parts of the United States to be very close; an election outcome can be affected by an announced investigation of a politician. It is explicit policy of the Department of Justice to avoid bringing voter-related cases during an election for this reason. In September 2008, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice concluded that some of the dismissals were motivated by the refusal of some of the U.S. Attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases during the 2006 election cycle.

By April 2007, there was some speculation that the dismissal of the US attorneys might affect cases of public corruption and voter fraud. According to the National Law Journal,

"Just the appearance of political influence in cases related to those firings, combined with the recent, unusual reversal of a federal public corruption conviction in Wisconsin [c.f., Georgia Thompson], some say, will spur aggressive defense lawyers to question the political motivation of prosecutors in certain cases; make magistrates and judges more skeptical of the evidence before them; and perhaps even chill line prosecutors in their pursuit of some indictments."

But nobody cares about any of this stuff anymore. Anything goes. Wikileaks, FOIA, FBI all used for political purposes is just fine --- as long as the ox that's being gored is the ox you hate.

It's time for Comey to step up and explain himself fully.

UPDATE: You've got to be kidding me.

Follow
Greg Sargent ✔ @ThePlumLineGS
Pete Williams just confirmed on @allinwithchris that "many" of the newly found emails could be "duplicates." As I suggested earlier.
8:10 PM - 28 Oct 2016



THIS IS A VERY GOOD TWEET ABOVE. USUALLY THEY ARE SO ABBREVIATED THAT THEY DON’T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.



http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/28/gop-scandal-falls-emails-hillary-clintons-server.html

GOP Scandal Falls Apart As New Emails Didn’t Come From Hillary Clinton’s Server
By Jason Easley on Fri, Oct 28th, 2016 at 3:24 pm

The new Clinton email scandal keeps getting worse for Republicans as new information is emerging that the emails the FBI is looking at were not on her server.

The new Clinton email scandal keeps getting worse for Republicans as new information is emerging that the emails the FBI is looking at were not on her server.

The AP is reporting:

Follow
The Associated Press ✔ @AP
BREAKING: US official: Newly discovered emails related to Clinton investigation did not come from her private server.
2:53 PM - 28 Oct 2016
4,922 4,922 Retweets 3,955 3,955 likes

From previous reporting, it is known that the emails have nothing to do with Clinton, her campaign, the Clinton Foundation, the Russian hacks, the State Department, and any emails she sent or received. Now, we know that the emails were not on her server. FBI Director Comey completely bungled this announcement, and he needs to explain what the FBI is analyzing, because it doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with Hillary Clinton.

The email scandal that Republicans thought would save them has evaporated nearly as quickly as it arrived. With each new development, it is clear that there is much less to the story than initially reported.

If the Republican Party wants to risk losing, even more House and Senate seats in 11 days by pursuing this non-story, they should feel free to have at it.

Any time that Republicans spend talking about Clinton’s emails over the next 11 days will only help the Democratic Party.

Emails didn’t come from Hillary Clinton server, FBI letter Hillary Clinton emails, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton email investigation, hillary clinton emails

Follow Jason Easley on Twitter
GOP Scandal Falls Apart As New Emails Didn’t Come From Hillary Clinton’s Server added by Jason Easley on Fri, Oct 28th, 2016
View all posts by Jason Easley →