It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
True.
I don't believe what I read in the papers or shady online news mediums anyway. ;)
"Consider him slimed!" "Let the mayhem begin!" The time is ripe for a reassessment of TND...
Hmm. Well, well, well. This sort of response to hacking is EXACTLY why I believe SF is the best Bond film and why I defend its supposed plot holes. Once it's established that the hacker can get INTO anything, all bets are off. Did Silva really have everything planned? No. But he's made everyone paranoid enough to think so--even the audience. It's bloody brilliant.
to ignore.
Not shaking in the boots, no, but it's also not a laughing matter for those of us paying attention instead of cackling.
As far as what is of interest in the emails (which so far seem to be not from Hillary according to some sources - but you all have probably heard this already today). And it seems to be not much at all ... yet. It is still all vague. I am speculating when I say I think there will not be something very detrimental to Hillary Clinton in this - because there is something that was found, we just do not know what that is or how it involves Clinton. I'd rather we had details than a vague idea that something is wrong, but apparently does not directly involve her. Just too vague. The way leaks happen, perhaps more will come out to clarify what this is actually about.
So ... it was just thrown out there for everybody to speculate wildly about; which is, in itself, interesting.
Like it says at the end of this article:
But we just don’t know. And by the way, the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaigns are both demanding to know more information about what Comey found, as is Judicial Watch, the conservative legal organization that has long pursued the Clintons. So this isn’t a partisan demand.
This is an absurd mess. Comey should do whatever he can to clean it up as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, if the FBI cannot get immediate access to the emails, he may not be able to. Which calls into question the original decision to release such a vaguely worded letter in the first place. Even if it was in some ways understandable, the current outcome it has produced surely is not.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/28/media/fox-news-conservative-media-poll/index.html
Regardless, we're going to be inaugurating a lousy president come January 2017. It truly is a shame, watching Joe Biden on the campaign trail, that we couldn't have had him as the Democratic nominee.
and the press taking more abuse at rallies:
...
The issue is not the propriety of Comey’s letter. The issue is the propriety of Comey’s letter and the leaks that followed it. It is worth noting, at the outset, that Comey’s letter said only, “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Within moments of the release of Comey’s letter, though, government sources leaked that the “unrelated case” was that of Anthony Weiner, who is being investigated for sexually explicit correspondence with an underage girl. Weiner, of course, is the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, a close aide to Hillary Clinton, and the leaks suggested that the new evidence consisted of e-mails found on computers that Weiner and Abedin may have shared.
But what was the actual evidence that prompted Comey’s letter, and what do the e-mails say? The answer depends on the news source. “The emails were not to or from Clinton,” according to the Los Angeles Times. But the Washington Post said, “The correspondence included emails between Abedin and Clinton.” And, according to the New York Times, “Senior law enforcement officials said that it was unclear if any of the emails were from Mrs. Clinton’s private server.” This muddled issue is crucial, because if none of the e-mails were to or from Clinton—who is the person running for President—then this new chapter of the investigation amounts to very little. (If the e-mails are duplicates of e-mails that the F.B.I. has already seen, or if they are simply irrelevant personal e-mails, then the story may also amount to little.)
No one likes to talk about law-enforcement leaks. Journalists (present company included) rarely discuss the issue for fear of burning existing sources or discouraging future ones. If asked, Comey would no doubt affect to be shocked that leaking was taking place at the F.B.I. But the issue is critically bound up with the current controversy. The journalistic follow-up to Comey’s bombshell letter was predictable, even inevitable.
Even if Comey did not specifically make or authorize the leaks himself, he had to know that they would take place—and he must take responsibility for them. In other words, Comey wasn’t just releasing a letter. He was beginning a process that was certain to include many more disclosures from the F.B.I., but in the haphazard and deniable form of leaks. The F.B.I. can keep secrets when it’s in its interest to do so. There are almost never any disclosures from the bureau’s national-security investigators, who deal with terrorism and related matters. But when it comes to criminal investigations, especially high-profile political matters like this one, the bureau has long been a semi-open book.
Because of Comey’s announcement, the days leading up to the election will now feature piecemeal disclosures of fragments of the investigation. If Comey heeds the calls from both the Clinton and Trump campaigns to elaborate on his cryptic letter, he will likely succeed only in generating more leaks, as reporters seek to answer the central questions of whose e-mails are at issue and if they incriminate anyone, especially Clinton. The inevitability of leaks is one reason why the Justice Department (of which the F.B.I. is supposedly a part) has a formal policy of avoiding public law-enforcement activity on the eve of elections. As my colleague Jane Mayer wrote, this policy exists because the activity itself—like the issuance of indictments or even subpoenas—can affect the outcomes; but it also exists because the activity sets off a process that amounts to even greater interference than the official actions themselves.
On Friday night, Comey sent a peculiar and unusual memorandum to F.B.I. employees, purporting to justify his decision to write to Congress on the eve of the election. Alternately self-righteous and self-pitying, the message portrayed Comey’s decision as obligatory under the circumstances. He wrote:
Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood . . .
Comey says that he didn’t “want to create a misleading impression,” but that’s precisely what he did. He had to know that his vague letter to Congress virtually demanded elaboration from “senior government officials,” who would apply their own gloss, in the form of leaks. The responsibility for the confusion sown by these leaks, if not for the leaks themselves, belongs only to Comey. If the outcome of the Presidential election turns on Comey’s action, that’s his burden, and the nation’s, too.
Regardless of what he did, it was going to be politicized. I, for one, think it's better to have this information out there now so that the public can decide on its merits rather than having the news come later that she was under further investigation while the public still had a chance to decide her fate at the ballot box but were not told of it until after the fact.
If they can give us actual details, yes bring it out now. But ... so far ... that is not happening.
Thank you. That People still dont See this clearly is beyond me. So incredibly ???
Just because Trump is an idiot makes you Chose to ignore the Danger of Killary. Thank you America for trying to bring this war maker into Office. The world can deal with Trump idioties, but I am Not so sure about hers. Then WE are blessed with Merkel and Clinton. Holy shit. Two female nutcases trying to Eule the world.
@4ever - you choose to Not believe any of the conspiracy theories? Why not? You believe all the other crap.
For the record, in the past, I too have voted across the aisle. This year, entirely because of the Supreme Court foot-dragging (and the threat of even more) I have made the decision to follow the partisan bias already instituted on the Republican side of the aisle. If that decision on my part makes you say "Wow" then I'd suggest you're a little behind the curve here...