I can read it. I also looked up the Fox story on it. According to Fox, citing the DOJ source, it's not the "AGA informing Clinton's campaign manager about the investigation." According to them, it's the AGA, acting in a personal capacity, giving her campaign chairman a heads up about information that was public, anyway. If that's the case, I see no ethical or legal problems here. Whether or not that still might violate DOJ policy, I don't know.
I have no idea if it was typical. But when you tagged me, you were asking specifically about legality and ethics (which, him being a lawyer, I took to refer to the code of professional responsibility). If the DOJ source's explanation is correct, I think he's probably clean on those two fronts. But your "typical" comment is exactly why I made it a point to mention that I was saying nothing about whether or not he violated DOJ policy.
Also, I will add this: if I were in charge of DOJ policy, I would not look kindly on this, and he'd be in my office first thing in the morning to explain it.
The mention of Bernie reminds me of a comment I wanted to make on that subject. I was working out this morning at the gym and the TV on CNN had the title of the story they were doing at that moment, lack of black enthusiasm for Clinton. Now I didn't hear the words, I was listening to my book, but I could read the subtitles. A quick scan revealed that yep, blacks do not appear to be turning out for Clinton.
At least you're honest. Blaming others is a sign of impotence and most aren't willing to admit that publicly.
Your choice is pretty simple. You've already voted for a moral buffoon. Twice. Question is, are you willing to compromise your morals?
Obama isn't a hypocritical member of the Party of Rugged Individualism, but yeah, insofar as he assigns blame, he's avoiding responsibility.
Yeah, right. The 8 Bush Neocon years were the worst thing that has happened to the world, probably ever.
Your last phrase is comically ironic. Your thinking is entirely rosined together by your ideology, despite your going to great lengths to portray your pragmatic decision-making process for POTUS.
Do you have any links or evidence for any of that? Because I haven't been reading every single article out there, but I've been following the story closely enough to form an opinion that is pretty much exactly the opposite of what you have here. All the sources seem to agree that the agents presented their case about the foundation, and DOJ officials as well as FBI leadership all agreed there was absolutely no case there at all.
Nothing that Baier reported in those segments was at all like what you said. I'm asking if you have evidence that agents are upset with Obama, that McCabe is interfering to protect Clinton, etc. You know, the things you actually said in the post I was responding to.
His show is the only one I ever watch on Fox. It has been called one of the best straight news shows on television. Baier is a serious news guy.
<q>
and not the GOAT
