Harry Reid slams Comey for Russia election meddling

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill



BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 03/24/19 07:01 AM EDT

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blasted former FBI Director James Comey for not doing enough to stop Russian election meddling in 2016 in an interview that aired Sunday.

“In the last Congress that I served in, I wrote a letter in August to the director of the FBI Comey and said ‘Russia is meddling with our elections and you need to do something about that’ and by October he had done nothing,” Reid told radio host John Catsimatidis on AM 970 in New York.

Reid's interview came days after Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted his report on whether the country meddled in U.S. elections to Attorney General William Barr

“The hindsight from his troops are ‘well he didn’t do it because he thought Hillary would win the election. He therefore thought It’d be too political for him to get involved,'” Reid added.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/435451-harry-reid-slams-comey-for-russia-election-meddling

[UpInArms]

1. Comey....

I am no longer able to believe his naïveté...

One of the things that I thought about was him saying he was rendered unable to understand how to react when tRump basically “came on to him” (my words) at that White House meeting ...

A woman in a similar position of power, who has had a “powerful” man make an improper and unsolicited manipulative come on ... would have turned around and stated how improper those “suggestions” were ... and not mumbled and cowered.

jmho

[sharedvalues]

6. Exactly. I'm done with Comey.

He’s also saying in his NYT op ed that he doesn’t want the president impeached because some fraction of the country will think it’s a coup.
Well listen, moron Mr. Comey: that’s because they’re brainwashed by Fox, just as you were influenced by Fox to go public on Clinton.

If Comey were smarter he’d see how conservative propaganda is breaking the country and he’d talk about that instead of this pablum he’s pushing now.

I’m done with Comey. Get him out of the public eye.

[JudyM]

13. +1. He's awash in false "integrity" that's a scam... or else he's just a moronic decision maker.

But I will say that Reid and Obama should’ve gone public with it, as well.

[KPN]

22. Nah, he's awash. And yeah, Reid and Obama should have done more. You know if this had been

a foreign attack on GWs 2nd election, he and Cheney would have been all over the TV and airwaves claiming a foreign attack on America and declaring war and maybe even postponing the elections for the sake of protecting and preserving America's democracy.

We're just good people who do what ordinarily is the right thing in trying circumstances, we Democrats. Only we aren't dealing with ordinary, typically good people on this playing field. We're dealing with a cult nation of white male supremacists for which the ends always justify the means, no exceptions. And we lose as a result. Perhaps with tRump in the WH we have finally learned. We can only hope.

[JudyM]

23. Right, it's not a level playing field at all... they play dirty and their base supports that.

They are probing every angle they can find to twist into a win, at every level of government. I am still aghast at Scalia’s flagrant conflicts of interest... even the most basic rules of jurisprudence would’ve prohibited it...

They are unblinkingly corrupt while they cynically claim the mantle of morality.

[KPN]

24. We will stop them --eventually. But who knows how many lives will have been ruined, thrown away

or lost in the meantime. If there is a heaven and hell, many evangelicals will be going to hell despite their dreams of rapture.

[JudyM]

26. Yep. Deal with the Devil.

Makes one wonder if they actually even believe in Hell since they flout ethics.

[KPN]

27. Oh, they do. They are just warped. Satan has gotten to them.

[JudyM]

28. .

Apparently! 😆

[Baitball Blogger]

2. At some point we have to recognize that the FBI has

Policy problems. That’s putting it kindly. Come on. The CIA was dumping drugs in our inner cities for how long, and where was the FBI? I think we know where these problems stem from.

[Kurt V.]

3. Harry tried

[Norman Conkedwest]

4. 10/31/16: FBI has 'explosive information' about Trump, Russia - Reid

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/303547-reid-fbi-has-explosive-information-about-trump-russia

BY JULIAN HATTEM - 10/31/16 09:04 AM EDT

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is alleging that the FBI has “explosive information” about a connection between Donald Trump and the Russian government, suggesting that federal investigators have unveiled damning new information about the Republican presidential nominee.

In a letter dated Oct. 30 warning that FBI Director James Comey may have broken the law by detailing a new stage of the investigation into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State, Reid also referenced information about Trump and Moscow.

“In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors and the Russian government — a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity,” Reid wrote to Comey this weekend.

“The public has a right to know this information.”

YEAH, WE FUCKING WELL DID!!!!!

[still_one]

5. His releasing of a letter to the republicans in Congress 11 days before the election was a direct

violation of the Hatch Act, and was his interference in the election.

The Democratic nominee was ahead by around 4-5 points in most of the polls, until that happened, and after that event, the polls went to dead even. What is even worse is that the media pushed the LIE that the email investigation had been reopened. Comey went into seclusion during that time, until late in the afternoon on Friday, the weekend before the election, where he simply stated there was no evidence to reopen the email investigation.

Comey deserved to have his ass fired for this, not for what he was fired for.

He significantly helped trump win the election

[Lonestarblue]

7. Indeed!

And before that he deserved to be fired for violating DOJ policy on sharing information about an investigation that does not lead to an indictment. He used his July 2016 press conference announcing that there was nothing to prosecute Clinton on her email issues as an opportunity to excoriate her, again trying to tip the scales against her.

Here‘s a lesson for future Democratic presidents: don’t keep holdover Republicans in your administration. Most of them are not trustworthy these days. Their partisanship and lack of ability to serve the Constitution rather than “their” president is now in the Republican DNA.

[still_one]

11. Exactly.

[Buzz Lightyear]

8. Comey helped Trump

[Honeycombe8]

14. No, he didn't.

You can look at the polls in the week leading up to the election. You will see that Hillary's numbers mostly did not go down, and some went up.

What happened was that Russia hacked a few key district election systems in the rust belt. They were purple, so they were targeted. I'm sure that one or two were in Pennsylvania, for various reasons.

Also, what had happened was that people were locked in. Hillary's momentum was already stalled before that. You can argue the reasons for that, for Comey's "october surprise" had nothing to do with it.

[Polybius]

20. Russia definitely meddled, especially with tons of fake Facebook ads

But do you mean actual vote hacking, where they changed the vote from Democrat to Republican? Has that ever been linked with actual proof?

Comey helped Trump a bit, and every little bit added up. His polls did go up slightly. I personally know two people (both swing voters that hated Trump) that said they couldn't vote for her anymore because of this. I explained how Comey is a Republican but they wouldn't budge.

[PandoraAwakened]

35. Yes, he did.

Sadly, I too personally know people who went cold on Hillary because of Comey's typical Rethuglican sleazeball moves.

That said, I think you're right about the Rust Belt states that got played: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and I think a fourth one that I can't remember the name of. Here's the thing about that: Each of them ran at a percentage number for tRump that mysteriously came in just over the percentage under which a recount would have been required per each one's state law. I read a statistical analysis that placed the probability of this occurring without undue influence at essentially impossible. Republican state legislatures prevented any cyber investigations into the matter.

[Honeycombe8]

39. Anecdotal evidence isn't meaningful, when you're talking about millions.

I saw the polls, 30 days before the election, and leading up to the election. Overall, it made no difference. One poll, in fact, went UP for her as it neared the election.

There was no statistical impact. That's what the data says.

[PandoraAwakened]

41. Troll or Disinfo Victim? Which one?

It is always short-sighted, not to mention intellectually dishonest, to dismiss anecdotal evidence with trite expressions like "isn't meaningful."

I will assume then that this means you are unaware that anecdotal evidence (someone says something about something having occurred to someone they know personally) forms the very basis of our justice system in that anecdotal evidence is what prompts investigation, which then leads to deposition and discovery, which then leads to formal presentation of both circumstantial and direct evidence, which then finally results in a decision about what has occurred.

"Not meaningful"? I think our forefathers, a number of them lawyers by trade, would disagree.

The mantra about Comey's actions having "no statistical impact" because "the polls said so" is a known right-wing disinformation campaign repeated only by trolls or their hapless victims who, not surprisingly, are never able to point to the study where such data exists.

You know why? BECAUSE THE STUDY HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED!!! Duh... Not one single American has yet been asked about this in a FORMAL STUDY. Not. One. Single. Person.

Key to this particular troll campaign is the faulty logic of, "But the polls said... therefore!"

In order to understand how this bit of tomfoolery gets over on an otherwise levelheaded, if not exactly critical thinker, it is first helpful to review the definition of "disinfo," particularly in the context of how this trade is plied online:

"DISINFO": "The introduction of faulty logic with implied assertions. The assertions are false and not directly claimed but are derived from the claim."

So, how does that work in the context of this particular disinfo campaign?
Well, what we see is that the "But the polls!" assertion introduces faulty logic by pointing to data that does not directly speak to the claim in any way whatsoever, but that can easily be used to imply a false assertion because of its tangential relationship to the same event (in this case, an election).

In other words, the polls that Honeycombe8 refers to are those that asked the pre-election question, "Who are you voting for?" The poll question was not "Has Director Comey's action influenced your decision?" That measurement was never taken.

Yet, the false assertion is made that you can take the data of a tangentially related question and compare its results before and after an isolated variable (Comey's action), TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER VARIABLES CAUSING MOVEMENT IN THE DATA POINTS, and derive from that claim supposed "evidence" of the variable that was never measured by the data in the first place.

That, my friend, is the very definition of "faulty logic" and it is used day-in and day-out, 24/7, to push false narratives.

Additionally, because the word association for most people is "polls" = "data" = "statistics" = "analysis," the disinfo receives the additional benefit of easily conflating in the minds of its victims that there has actually been a real "statistical analysis" completed addressing what the disinfo makers fervently do not wish to be analyzed.

So, where does that put us in terms of the goal of this particular disinfo? Well, what we see is that the "But the polls!" disinfo about the impact of Comey on Clinton votes has been and continues to be used as a means of SILENCING ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE and therefore PREVENTING INVESTIGATION, i.e., a formal study that compiles both AFTER-EVENT POLLING and DIRECT TESTIMONY on the matter.

So, what you'll see is the very people who should most want to know the true answer to this question instead have easily been duped into doing the disinfo agents' job for them, thereby preventing truth to be known.

For the record, I don't think you're a troll. I just think you've been trolled.

[sharedvalues]

38. No. Comey's Letter was worth about -4pts for Hillary.

[Honeycombe8]

40. The data shows there was no impact. In fact, one poll went UP for her after the Comey Oct surprise.

One went down, maybe two...slightly. The others were about the same. One went up. There was no statistical difference.

People would like to believe it did, but the data shows otherwise. I researched the polls and created a doc. rundown of the data approaching the election and before/after the Comey October surprise. If I get new software downloaded today, I can post that. I have the doc on my pc, but I no longer have the software to open it. I posted it here before.

[PandoraAwakened]

42. Faulty logic -- see above reply

You're using the wrong measurements to stake a claim on a variable that the data does not reflect.

[Honeycombe8]

43. I prefer data, such that it exists, rather than anecdotes.

It's all we have to go by. You can't say that Comey caused Hillary to lose because you just think so...that the fact that she lost is proof. That's not data or evidence.

Momentum matters a lot right before a big election. Was her momentum stopped by Comey. Did she have an upward momentum before the Comey surprise. The only way we know that is by polls.

The polls show that the Comey surprise didn't change the polls appreciably, and one went up. No effect.

What we can surmise, based on what we know, is the Russian interference affected the results. The Russians had progressed to the point that they were trying to hack into 17 or more states' election systems. Because Russia had the polling data, all Russia needed to do was target just a few purple districts in a few key states. Pennsylvania was one, I'm sure, because of things that Trump said in his last rallies there.

[PandoraAwakened]

44. No it is not "all we have to go by"

Clearly, you failed to grasp the fact that we can't go by pre-polling data AT ALL regarding this question.

I guess you don't understand the fallacy of applying faulty logic to statistical analysis. Look it up...it's a real thing.

Clearly, you also failed to read what I wrote about anecdotal information being the PRECUSOR to INVESTIGATION, which is where we find the truth of the matter. Nice try, though, trying to shade my words as if I said anecdotes were any kind of end-all...NOT.

Regarding Russia and everything you're saying about what happened in the purple states, I TOTALLY AGREE, which was the greater part of my post that you responded to where you instead went off on a tangent attacking anecdotes.

[PandoraAwakened]

45. Reset

Maybe take a beat and read through all I tried to have a conversation with you about. Then, peace. I'm on your side.

What I would much rather talk with you about is the suspicious voting numbers in the four states that turned the electoral college. If you're good at running data, I have an idea for a probability analysis.

[sharedvalues]

46. The Comey letter probably cost Clinton the election

Nate Silver and 538 looked at the data and found a 1-4 pt shift.
If you think he’s wrong, please make the case here as to why.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

[Honeycombe8]

47. I've already done this a couple of times. Nate was trying to do a cya to excuse his prediction.

You need to look at objective data. Not someone with skin in the game. "Conflict of interest" at that point, for 538.

If you look at the polls before and after the Comey October surprise, and polls closer to the election, the needle barely moves overall for her, and one poll went up.

It's likely she didn't have much momentum as the election neared. Trump doubled down on rallies and started "the election is rigged" campaign. Still, she was still leading in many, if not most, of the polls both before and after the October surprise.

It's more likely that Russia, which was hacking election systems at that time but we didn't know it, targeted some key purple districts in the rust belt. We now know that Manafort had given the Russians polling data, so they would have known which districts to target.

I don't buy the Kellyanne Conway story that THEIR polling data showed a Trump win. No way their data was better than Clinton's or other professional data was. The Trump team was chaotic and inept at campaigning.

When in PA, he did a rally that was odd. He said to the crowd that he was going to win PA, and that if he didn't, the election is rigged for sure. It wasn't just rhetoric, IMO. It struck me as odd at the time, since there was every indication that Clinton was going to win PA. There was absolutely nothing to indicate that Trump would. No polling data, no casual interviews with voters. He did in fact win PA. I was suspicious at the time that Russia had something to do with that, because it didn't make sense.

Comey didn't cost her the election. At least I've never seen any objective data that shows that.

[sharedvalues]

48. You're conflating two concepts.

You’re conflating
1. Comey letter had an effect
2. Clinton was behind the other candidate

One is a statement about poll changes over time. One is a statement of the absolute poll numbers.

I have my issues with 538. But they are generally credible. What exactly about Silver’s claim are you taking issue with? The typical way they analyze polls is more complicated than just a spreadsheet. If you think they are wrong, let’s talk about why.

[sharedvalues]

49. Also for the record: Russia ran an influence campaign

Russia piggybacked on our rightwing disinformation media to hack peoples minds, largely to get Clinton voters to stay home. At least that is unequivocal given the evidence we have. That is more than enough to explain the election.


Also, Trump stole his “win” in a very very VERY close election. Which means that any of a HUNDRED factors were the difference. It was Comey AND the Russians AND Republican voter suppression AND Stein AND dark money. As well as other factors too. Comey’s letter cost Clinton the election. AND the Russians cost Clinton the election. Both are true.

[WhiteTara]

19. Yes he did, Buzz

He screwed this country for his personal animosity toward Hillary Clinton and his Karma will follow him in the next life too. I can't understand why people went out and bought that book written by a republicon with an agenda.

[MichMan]

9. I don't understand why it wasn't escalated to the DOJ and then the the Attorney General ?

[Honeycombe8]

15. We'd have to go back in time and analyze that.

We looked at all that before. It's possible that it WAS kicked up (Obama knew), for one thing, although they didn't know the extent of it. I don't think the FBI knew the extent of it, either. Remember that Obama left it up to McConnell to warn the public or do something, and McConnell decided to do nothing. Apparently Obama was concerned that if he tried to do something, it would be viewed as election interference.

Remember that a number of states were warned before the election that there was evidence that a foreign power was seeking to hack their election systems, and the fed govt offered its assistance. NONE of them took the fed up on that. The fed was part of a Democratic administration, and most of the states were red, I think. So they were suspicious of the government.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. Both DOJ and Homeland Security were aware

but what happened is that when Jeh Johnson tried to warn the states - many of the clueless red states didn't want the "federal government" getting into their business.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/08/15/readout-secretary-johnsons-call-state-election-officials-cybersecurity
https://apnews.com/521742dd955443ccb0ecf2494cfb2a50

[Firestorm49]

10. They bitch, yet their cheesy candidate won.

[DallasNE]

12. Reid Is Right

Comey was in over his head as FBI Director. And Obama needed to do more to accelerate the FBI investigation into Russian meddling when Comey was dragging his feet because the integrity of the election was at stake. Also, Comey had no problem going public with a backup file on Weiner's laptop of Hillary's email. How would that not be too political. In addition, he never did level with the American people about what he found and why he thought it mattered. A backup file would give Comey some of the 30,000 emails Clinton said were personal so she deleted them. When Comey later said nothing important was found he related how one of the "new" emails was the two women discussed what they were going to wear to an event that night that both were attending. In other words, the file that doomed Hillary actually cleared her of wrongdoing. Comey has never come clean on his twin mistakes in that timeframe - why he did nothing about Russian interference and why he dishonestly framed the Clinton email, making it look worse than what it was. Combined, they pushed Trump over the top.

[Honeycombe8]

16. The FBI kicked it up to the White House. So he DID do something.

Obama discussed it w/McConnell and wanted McConnell to do something, since he thought it would look like election interference, if he were to do something. McConnell decided not to do anything.

I don't think anyone knew the extent of the interference, though.

Also remember that the govt warned a number of states that there was evidence that a foreign power might be hacking their election systems, and offered its assistance. None of the states accepted any assistance or did anything to protect their election systems.

So to put it all on Comey is unfair. He's just one man, one Director. He did notify the government of what they knew. But they weren't through w/their investigation at that time. We now know how complex the interference was, and we have seen how long it took to get to the bottom of it. Years.

[jalan48]

18. I think Obama and the Dem leadership thought Hillary was a lock to be President running against

a candidate like Trump. It was better not to give the appearance of election meddling. How wrong they were.

[elleng]

21. McConnell refused, and Obama stopped short. I don't know what more Potus could have done

at that point, but speaking out may have had some effect.

[MichMan]

30. Ask Holder and the DOJ to investigate ?

Why leave it up to McConnell to decide?

[DallasNE]

25. I Think What You Are Saying Supplements What I Said Rather Than Refute It

And obviously the extent of Russian interference was not known back them. But that was the point, more investigative work needed to be done by the FBI. That would be behind the scenes and that is what Reid is complaining about and for which I agree.


Comey had two investigations going on - one affecting one candidate and the other affecting the other candidate. He wasn't even handed. And the two weren't of equal importance. And only going public would make them political. Comey had no problem with going public on the lesser issue - Clinton's email, causing severe damage to her campaign. On the more severe issue Comey just wanted to wash his hands of it because he viewed it as too political and that kept Trump's campaign on track. There is no way to assess motive but it sure wasn't even handed. Comey sucked at his job.

[Honeycombe8]

31. At the time Comey was Director....

he DID notify the W.H. of what the FBI knew at that point, about the Russian investigation, which wasn't what we know now.

So Harry Reid is WRONG. Flat wrong. He's mistaken if he thinks Comey didn't do anything. It was an active investigation, but he still alerted the W.H. The DOJ knew, of course.

I don't know what Reid has against Comey, or if Reid is getting senile. But he's mistaken.

We are not speaking of the Clinton email investigation. So leave that aside.

The FBI was originally investigating the Russian interference in our democracy/election system. It was NOT investigating any particular candidate regarding that. Later on in the investigation, it ran across communications with the Trump team. So at some point, AFTER Trump's mtg with Comey, the investigation started focusing on communications with the Trump team, too. But it was still an investigation into the Russian interference, wherever it would lead, which ultimately became Mueller's investigation task.

The FBI was doing an excellent job, it seems. Except for some agents making personal comments on govt email or on govt time, which is unethical and inappropriate and came back to bite those agents. But other than that, the investigation seems to have been thorough, which was given to Mueller, of course.

[TexasBushwhacker]

36. Reid has pancreatic cancer

Yes, after surgery and chemotherapy it is in remission, but he will still likely die of it and it will be sooner rather than later.

[LenaBaby61]

32. This is one big beef I had with Pres. Obama ...

KEEPING Comey on as FBI director NEVER, EVER set right with me. Don't get me started on how he handled/botched the Hillary email situation.

I always thought that Pres. Obama should have chosen a person of his own liking to head the FBI (Preferably a DEMOCRATIC appointee). While I don't hate Comey, I sure as hell am NOT forgiving him for how he handled the investigation into Hillary's emails.

Look at how tRumputin is completely DESTROYING all of these agencies because he's either NOT appointing anybody to head them and the job sits vacant. Or, the person overseeing these departments is merely there for a while on PURPOSE or they have an agenda: Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker And look at who he chose as Acting Defense Secretary: Patrick Shanahan who was an executive over at Boeing (And there's this: Boeing wins $4B Department of Defense contract https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2019/03/22/boeing-wins-4b-department-of-defense-contract.html), and think about at how long it took tRump to ground the Boeing 737 Max 8 and 9 jets which were involved in two deadly air crashes. Another president would have grounded those planes IMMEDIATELY--like right after the first deadly air crash. The ONLY reason he grounded them at all was because there was a global outcry and such pressure put on him to do so. Let me stop here before my blood really starts to boil.

[lunamagica]

29. Comey is as deplorable as the rest of them

[allgood33]

33. Obama stepped back from making this a huge issue for fear of being accused of interfering in

the election. That's how the GOP stifles the Democrats. They project loudly all their dirty deeds on Democrats when they challenge anything. The Democrats usually just accept their accusations of being too partisan while the GOP goes merrily along scandlaizing whomever they want without any basis whatsoever and we never challenge them effectively.

Until we learn to fight like they do, we will always lose. That is why I support all the new-comers to Congress, especially those like AOC who will stand and fight for what they believe and for truth no matter what they are falsely accused of.

If we can't defeat them at the ballot box we lose bigly.

[Baltimike]

34. knr

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. How about Democrats stop appointing Republicans to top administrative positions?

Yet another example of the Democrats perpetually failing strategy of bending over for them hoping to get some small scrap thrown back. The last thing Trump would ever do would be to appoint a Democrat to a position of authority in his admin. And so yet again, no surprise, it has come back to bite them in the ass. Because no matter how much a Republican swears they will be impartial....THEY NEVER ARE! I don't even trust Mueller's motivations, as a life long Republican. Not wanting to bring down his own party and/or a Republican government.