James Comey Admits Wife, Four Daughters All Voted, Rallied for Hillary Clinton

who Sessions?

Oh wait...he "forgot"

 

Ah yes.

When you vote for someone because your deciding factor is presence of a vagina and/or skin color.

 

As opposed to Trumpers whose deciding factor is LACK of a vagina and skin coilor

 

No.

It's just that genitalia and skin color aren't on our list of qualifications.

 

The Comey women that voted for Hillary because she was a woman are as stupid as the people that voted for Obama because he was black.

 

Did you type that while howling with laughter?

 

And the people that voted against Obama because he is black???

What of them?

 

He was bound to, given the appearance of potential new evidence in that case. And if you had kept up, he had told congress he would to so, and would notify them of it. When you ignore context, you can appear to be just a bit deceptive. So you know why he did as he did and the deception lies in pretending as if you did not know it.

Why is there so much deception used? And yet the deception of trump is railed against. I guess trump is in great company with his haters, at least on this issue?

So as Joe Friday said, "just the facts, ma'am" ha ha ha. Joe disliked deception.

 

Why is skin color or genitalia important. Go ahead and convince me.

 

Do you vote for or against a candidate?????????

 

Trump voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, and helped fund the Clinton Foundation for years! He must be part of that coup too right?!

Oh and sense when does who a person's family vote for have any bearig on them? Comey himself voted for Trump.

I take it if your wife voted for someone you didn't support that you would support whoever they voted for regardless of your own opinions? Cause that's what your saying Comey did, even though the records show he supported and voted for Trump.

 

How many Trump voters were voting against Hillary?

 

The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election

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

Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College.

The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020.

But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

And yet, from almost the moment that Trump won the White House, many mainstream journalists have been in denial about the impact of Comey’s letter. The article that led The New York Times’s website the morning after the election did not mention Comey or “FBI” even once — a bizarre development considering the dramatic headlines that the Times had given to the letter while the campaign was underway. Books on the campaign have treated Comey’s letter as an incidental factor, meanwhile. And even though Clinton herself has repeatedly brought up the letter — including in comments she made at an event in New York on Tuesday — many pundits have preferred to change the conversation when the letter comes up, waving it away instead of debating the merits of the case.

The motivation for this seems fairly clear: If Comey’s letter altered the outcome of the election, the media may have some responsibility for the result. The story dominated news coverage for the better part of a week, drowning out other headlines, whether they were negative for Clinton (such as the news about impending Obamacare premium hikes) or problematic for Trump (such as his alleged ties to Russia). And yet, the story didn’t have a punchline: Two days before the election, Comey disclosed that the emails hadn’t turned up anything new.

One can believe that the Comey letter cost Clinton the election without thinking that the media cost her the election — it was an urgent story that any newsroom had to cover. But if the Comey letter had a decisive effect andthe story was mishandled by the press — given a disproportionate amount of attention relative to its substantive importance, often with coverage that jumped to conclusions before the facts of the case were clear — the media needs to grapple with how it approached the story. More sober coverage of the story might have yielded a milder voter reaction.

My focus in this series of articles has been on the media’s horse-race coverage rather than its editorial decisions overall, but when it comes to the Comey letter, these things are intertwined. Not only was the letter probably enough to swing the outcome of the horse race, but the reverse is also true: Perceptions of the horse race probably affected the way the story unfolded. Publications may have given hyperbolic coverage to the Comey letter in part because they misanalyzed the Electoral College and wrongly concluded that Clinton was a sure thing. And Comey himself may have released his letter in part because of his overconfidence in Clinton’s chances. It’s a mess — so let’s see what we can do to untangle it.

Clinton was in a danger zone before Comey’s letter
Clinton woke up on the morning of Oct. 28 as the likely — by no means certain — next president. Trump had come off a period of five weeks in which he’d had three erratic debates and numerous women accuse him of sexual assault after the “Access Hollywood” tape became public. Clinton led by approximately 6 percentage points in national polls and by 6 to 7 points in polls of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Her leads in Florida and North Carolina were narrow, and she was only tied with Trump in Ohio and Iowa.These figures are according to the FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast as of 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 28.

" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(0, 143, 213); position: relative;">1 But it was a pretty good overall position.

Her standing was not quite as safe as it might have appeared from a surface analysis, however. For one thing, there were still lots of undecided voters, especially in the Midwest. Although Trump had a paltry 37 percent to 38 percent of the vote in polls of Michigan, for instance, Clinton had only 43 percent to 44 percent. That left the door open for Trump to leapfrog her if late developments caused undecideds to break toward him. Furthermore, in the event that the race tightened, Clinton’s vote was inefficiently distributed in the Electoral College, concentrated in coastal states rather than swing states. While she had only an 11 percent chance of losing the popular vote according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast that morning, her chances of losing the Electoral College were a fair bit higher: 18 percent.

Another danger to Clinton was complacency. Several days earlier, the Times had written that she was on the verge of having an “unbreakable lead.” And there was a risk that people looking at statistical forecasts were misreading them and “rounding up” a probable Clinton win to a sure thing. (We’ll take up that topic up at more length in a future article in this series.) But Clinton had actually slipped by a percentage point or so in polls since the final debate on Oct. 19. And the news cycle had become somewhat listless; the most prevalent story that morning was about the trial in the Oregon wildlife refuge standoff. Clinton was in a danger zone: Her lead wasn’t quite large enough to be truly safe, but it was large enough to make people mistakenly think it was.

The Comey letter almost immediately sank Clinton’s polls
News of the Comey letter broke just before 1 p.m. Eastern time on Oct. 28, when Utah. Rep Jason Chaffetz tweeted about it, noting the existence of the letter and stating
that the case into Clinton’s private email server had been “reopened.” The story exploded onto the scene; Fox News was treating Chaffetz’s tweet as “breaking news” within 15 minutes, and the FBI story dominated headlines everywhere within roughly an hour. In an element of tabloid flair, it was soon reported that the emails in question were found on a computer owned by Anthony Weiner, the former congressman, as part of an investigation into whether he’d sent sexually explicit messages to teenage girls.

Few news organizations gave the story more velocity than The New York Times. On the morning of Oct. 29, Comey stories stretched across the print edition’s front page, accompanied by a photo showing Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s estranged wife. Although some of these articles contained detailed reporting, the headlines focused on speculation about the implications for the horse race — “NEW EM

 

Kellyanne Conway just admitted that she believes that Comey gave Trump the win

 

I thought the Russians gave Trump the win.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ghters-wanted-hillary-clinton-to-win-election

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ters-had-a-lot-of-passion-for-hillary-clinton


Comey Didn’t Vote in 2016, But His Family Was Pro-Clinton
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...elations-from-james-comeys-abc-interview.html

 

That's because a Bill Clinton speech from 1992 sounds like a Trump speech in 2018.

 

Allegiances, loyalties and supports changes constantly......your comment is irrelevant. The fact remains that a deep-state, coup-plotting, witch-hunt was and is in effect!

 

Yes, as well all know, wives and adult daughters have no agency on their own. They can’t possibly have made any decision independently of Comey and had to only do as he ordered.

 

And what would have happened to Comey and the FBI if there was incriminating evidence, and it was shown he sat on it?

Some people should leave important legal issues to people who have a better grasp of them....

 

So independent voting is a crime in America?

No, OP, that does not wash. What you would do in that situation is not when moral America would do.