Chris Wallace going after something over and over again doesn’t make it more important. Listen, Chris!
So (leaving out names), we have a sitting POTUS publicly defending a former SoS in an ongoing FBI investigation? And that’s okay?
Well, considering it was his SoS that he’s defending, he’s defending his staff. Pretty sure he did that in the IRS debacle and many other cases no one was outraged, at least not on the left.
And he is also VERY clear that he is not and in fact no one is putting pressure on the Justice Department in this or any other investigation.
“How many times do I have to say it, Chris?” Obama countered. “Guaranteed.”
In Wallace’s defense, working for a Republican shill of an organization, he doesn’t often meet someone with integrity.
“How many times do I have to say it, Chris?” Obama countered.
“What I tell you three times is true, Chris”.
Ummmm, YES!!
While also stating that he would in no way interfere with the investigation.
You got a problem with that?
An investigation that isn’t targeting Clinton, I might add.
It’s better than okay. It’s about 20 feet away from an endorsement.
Damned straight it’s okay Darcy. There is no there there with those fucking emails and you know it too.
Darcy has a problem with everything that is Hillart Clinton and Obama I might add.
Go Obama!
He defended her ability, and integrity as to not “intentionally” jeopardizing national security. He’s not saying she did not inadvertently do it due to “carelessness”. So he in fact did not comment on the actual investigation. Even if the FBI were to indict her (I see no reason they will, just hypothetically), in no way are they going to find that she “intentionally” did whatever they accuse her of. It would be due to sloppiness and carelessness. Again, I am not saying that will happen, I am just saying they are not going to find that she deliberately decided to jeopardize the security of the US. That would be an absurd accusation.
His statements were as usual 100% professional.
Is it possible that you just read the poorly worded headline and assumed what the President said, instead of actually reading what the President said. Because he did not “defend” her on the “emails”. He even said he agrees with HER that what she did was not too bright. What he defended was her integrity on national security. And he is obviously right on that.
Well, maybe I called the dogs off Dick Chenney and slow rolled the banksters as that would have been a s*** storm… But other than that no one is above the law!
For the life of me, I can’t even understand your point.
And in his further defense, he works for people who think “integrity” is a nonexistent thing you fake to make the invidious look noble, and thus, whenever you see something that looks like integrity in someone else, it’s a con.
Jeebus, wasn’t discussing the emails. Take your outrage down a notch or two.
Was trying to ask if it is unethical for a sitting POTUS to publicly defend a former SoS during an ongoing FBI investigation.
Leaving the names out obviously didn’t work. It was too much to ask is my guess.
Heavens to Murgatroyd…would that be the ongoing FBI investigation involving 147, no, wait a minute, under 50, no, wait another minute, something like 12 FBI workers (i.e. basically nothing going on) in which Secretary Clinton is not actually the target?
Why would it be unethical? It’s not like there’s some code of professional responsibility for presidents. So is it immoral? No. He didn’t attack the FBI. He made it clear that there’s no way he’s going to even try to interfere with the investigation. And what the president says has never had any effect on what the FBI does, whether under Hoover or one of its successors. The whole reason we have a civil service system is because presidents are both political figures and everything they say has political ramifications. Do you really think that he’d said “I’m not going to comment because there’s an ongoing investigation,” that would be reported as anything but a full-on pronouncement of guilt?
This is why Justice (and the IRS and the FBI) are more thouroghly insulated from presidential political pressure than any other agencies/departments. It’s precisely because presidents are political and every statement they make has political ramifications, even facially neutral statements.
Beyond that, however, the underlying premise that this is a real criminal investigation laser focused on Hillary like she’s a mob boss, that they’re hot on her trail and seeking indictments and imprisonment is just fucking stupid. There is absolutely no indication–other than crack-smoke mouth farts from unnamed Republican aids and congressmen–that that’s going to happen.