Unthreaded
@ACK
on a simple level Huma Abedin said she'd handed everything over - the simple quantity arithmetic of what's on Wiener's laptop sank that. - HRC is a lawyer and if you follow the trajectory of this she has been using evidence disclosure rules to protect herself all along and crucially destroying evidence as she's moved along. HRC has traded very heavily on her status and prominence to swerve stuff that would have buried lesser mortals many times over.
FFS she knows what's in those emails - why is she demanding that the FBI disclose them? - it seems obvious to a simple observer that if the FBI do that - any case - is irreparably damaged...
Perhaps more worrying is the Attorney General "taking the 5th" while simultaneously acting against the FBI. The reports that there is a mutiny underway at the FBI also needs fair reporting.
This is playing out and my opinion counts for absolutely nothing - I do however expect the BBC to make a better job of reporting the events on the other side of the pond - and I know I'm not alone in that expectation..
I rather doubt that James Comey is trying to play kingmaker (a Hoover if you like) - he's simply between a big rock and a very hard place.
fyi - as I understand it some FBI agents *have* seen some of those emails - but they weren't on the immediate HRC team and weren't in Comey's team. Of course they don't talk to each other eh?
Why now? - I bet that's a question that the head of the FBI is muttering to himself dozens of times a day at the moment.
tomo
tomo
"now it would seem that a prodigious pile of fresh and steaming evidence has been delivered and the man took what is likely a career ending decision any way you slice it."
But the FBI reportedly has not even been given sight of the emails, let alone been able to form any judgement upon them. Where is everybody's sense of fair play? Not that I was expecting it here.
Far more fascinating to me is to examine possible reasons why the FBI has done what it has so close to election date, knowing full well it was likely to influence the outcome.
ACK
@ACK
the BBC is in danger of rupturing itself if it persists in sidelining honest, evidenced reportage and substitutes piles of partisan presumption and speculation in a contest that really should be reported on in a dispassionate way by the UK's state broadcaster - this isn't 1940 and Roosevelt vs. Wilkie (much as some might like to make it out to be)
There is a point where real, hard questions must be asked and answered - attacking the messenger for the content of the message.... well that just isn't on. The individual concerned was praised to the heavens for giving HRC the benefit of doubt back in the summer - now it would seem that a prodigious pile of fresh and steaming evidence has been delivered and the man took what is likely a career ending decision any way you slice it. This is very serious stuff and deserves *far* better treatment by the BBC - it's embarrassing imho.
tomo
ACK: FWIW, I figure Stewgreen is right about the BBC bias. If you have a little spare time have a listen to Saturday's News Quiz on R4 (on iPlayer). There was no balance at all: Trump was portrayed as the lowest of the lowest and Clinton as 'cuddly Hillary'. Nauseating bias.
Harry Passfield
Stewgreen 10.27am. All presumption and speculation, not an iotum of reality. Why don't you stick to what you are eminently good at - patrolling the media and internet for items of interest and bringing them to our attention? Bias and all!
ACK
Imagine if it were Trump with an FBI investigation launched just before the election. Can you imagine the BBC headling: “Trump emails: FBI chief may have broken law, says top Republican”. Of course not!
"Turning on BBC R4 news is like turning on a tap of lies".
stewgreen
Teachers report : Typical Climate scientists might be lacking in knowledge but they make up for that with their strong enthusiasm.
PS : It's not their fault they got in with a bad crowd... and their parents in the media decided to take no notice.
stewgreen
ACK - Real Climate Scientists don't do History.
Not sure they do Geography, Geology, Archaeology, or Religious Studies.
Their Maths and Science is a bit shonky, and they use "make-up" from Art and Drama classes to fill in the gaps and cracks.
Their Political Studies have been a great success, but are now tumbling out of popular fashion. The bottom has fallen out of the Hockey Stick market, and Climate Scientist backsides were on the line.
golf charlie
Clipe. I find it absolutely amazing that Australia, which has far more of its fair share of experts on salt lakes, doesn't pay attention to this expertise when it comes to matters of climate. Salt lakes that form the termuli of arid internal drainage basins are in delicate balance with the changing climate. This history is recorded in the sequence of salts and sediments.
This is another case of the climaterati deliberately ignoring history. The 19th century drought was far more extended and more severe than anything more recent. On desert margins the same drought were recorded by stockmen.
A country denying its history will make major mistakes.
ACK
ACK, on the other hand, far more fascinating to understand how the FBI were not able/allowed/permitted to access pertinent information far earlier in the election.