A bipartisan group of nearly 100 former federal prosecutors and senior Department of Justice officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have signed a letter expressing concerns over FBI Director James Comey’s decision to inform Congress of new emails that may or may not be relevant to Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“Many of us have worked with Director Comey; all of us respect him,” said the letter, which was released Sunday night by the Clinton campaign. “But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed,” said the signatories.

“We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official — Republican or Democrat — has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new.”

The letter comes after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat, sent a separate letter Sunday to Comey saying he may have violated a federal law that bars federal officials from using their authority to influence an election.

Here is the full letter:
[div class="excerpt" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"]
As former federal prosecutors and high-ranking officials of the U.S. Department of Justice, we know that the impartiality and nonpartisanship of the United States justice system makes it exceptional throughout the world. To maintain fairness and neutrality, federal law enforcement officials must exercise discipline whenever they make public statements in connection with an ongoing investigation. Often, evidence uncovered during the course of an investigative inquiry is incomplete, misleading or even incorrect, and releasing such information before all of the facts are known and tested in a court of law can unfairly prejudice individuals and undermine the public’s faith in the integrity of our legal process.

For this reason, Justice Department officials are instructed to refrain from commenting publicly on the existence, let alone the substance, of pending investigative matters, except in exceptional circumstances and with explicit approval from the Department of Justice officials responsible for ultimate supervision of the matter. They are also instructed to exercise heightened restraint near the time of a primary or general election because, as official guidance from the Department instructs, public comment on a pending investigative matter may affect the electoral process and create the appearance of political interference in the fair administration of justice.

It is out of our respect for such settled tenets of the United States Department of Justice that we are moved to express our concern with the recent letter issued by FBI Director James Comey to eight Congressional Committees. Many of us have worked with Director Comey; all of us respect him. But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed. We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official—Republican or Democrat—has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new.

Director Comey's letter is inconsistent with prevailing Department policy, and it breaks with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections. Moreover, setting aside whether Director Comey's original statements in July were warranted, by failing to responsibly supplement the public record with any substantive, explanatory information, his letter begs the question that further commentary was necessary. For example, the letter provides no details regarding the content, source or recipient of the material; whether the newly-discovered evidence contains any classified or confidential information; whether the information duplicates material previously reviewed by the FBI; or even “whether or not [the] material may be significant.”

Perhaps most troubling to us is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions. The admonitions that warn officials against making public statements during election periods have helped to maintain the independence and integrity of both the Department’s important work and public confidence in the hardworking men and women who conduct themselves in a nonpartisan manner.

We believe that adherence to longstanding Justice Department guidelines is the best practice when considering public statements on investigative matters. We do not question Director Comey’s motives. However, the fact remains that the Director’s disclosure has invited considerable, uninformed public speculation about the significance of newly-discovered material just days before a national election. For this reason, we believe the American people deserve all the facts, and fairness dictates releasing information that provides a full and complete picture regarding the material at issue.

Hillary Clinton's camp pushed back hard against the FBI's decision to restart its investigation into her use of a private email server 11 days before the election. Part of their pitch: that even some Republicans think FBI Director James B. Comey erred when he told Congress (and the world) about it.

That may be a smart bet for the moment. Comey's GOP critics seem to be piling up by the hour.

On Monday, one of the most conservative members of Congress criticized Comey's timing. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) chairs the hard-line conservative House Freedom Caucus and has been agitating for Clinton to be investigated for perjury related to her use of a private email server.

But he told told Fox News Radio: "I think this was probably not the right thing for Comey to do — the protocol here — to come out this close to an election, but this whole case has been mishandled, and now it is what it is."
(more)

Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey’s decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

The bureau told Justice Department officials that Comey intended to inform lawmakers of newly discovered emails. These officials told the FBI the department’s position “that we don’t comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be viewed as influencing an election,” said one Justice Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the high-level conversations.

“Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership,” the official said. “It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”

Comey decided to inform Congress that he would look again into Clinton’s handling of emails during her time as secretary of state for two main reasons: a sense of obligation to lawmakers and a concern that word of the new email discovery would leak to the media and raise questions of a coverup.
(more)

Dir Comey: "We have found a number of emails from Sec Clinton on Ms Abedin's computer. But let me point out that we have no idea what is in these emails since we have not looked at their contents yet. I felt compelled to do the right thing and alert Congress to this new development, even though we don't know what the meaning of this development could be. This is not to say Sec. Clinton lied to us and withheld these emails on Ms Abedin's computer. Let's be clear I am not saying that, though I can't stop anybody out there who worries about our National security from inferring any number of perfidies perpetrated by Sec. Clinton - but I am not saying that.

I will, of course, inform Congress when we actually know what is in these emails, we haven't looked at the content I just wanted to avoid criticism of withholding even a mote of information from Congress. Don't let this bother you as you vote next week, I will tell you later what nefarious activities of Sec. Clinton, might be found.

Dear Representative/Senator _________;

Director Comey is showing great diligence in continuing his investigation into possible classified information potentially compromised by former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. I think it is imperative, given the importance of this issue, that Dir Comey NOT BE LIMITED to just one person, or to members of one political party.

I urge you to require FBI Dir. Comey to begin immediately investigation into all instances of classified information contained in emails sent over non-secure systems. He should also begin an investigation into all instances when Government employees "should have known" certain information should not have been discussed via non-secure communications systems.


here is a suggested investigation request letter:
[center]
[div class="excerpt" style="padding: 10px;width:'94%';border: 1px solid #000000;text-align:left;background:'#ffffbb';"]


Director Comey;

We the undersigned are requesting you begin immediately an investigation into all instances of Classified data being included in emails sent or received in emails via non-secure communications systems. In particular we request that you:

1. Begin immediately, an investigation into Colin Powell's use of emails - through a personal email account with a commercial email service provider. The investigation is necessary as it is known that Classified information was found in some of Powell's emails. Regarding Federal Records keeping law, despite three requests from the Department of State Sec Powell has yet to turn in any emails. Provide your recommendation to indict or not to indict. If you do not recommend indictment of Sec Powell, please provide explanation as to how he has NOT violated Federal Records Keeping law. Be prepared to defend your recommendation in Congressional hearings to be broadcast live, nation-wide.

2. Begin immediately an investigation into Condi Rice's emails use. The investigation is necessary as it is known that Classified information was found in some of Rice's emails. Also, with regard to Federal Records keeping law, Ms. Rice has not turned in copies of her emails to the State Department. If you do not recommend indictment of Sec Condi Rice, please provide explanation as to how she has NOT violated Federal Records Keeping law. Be prepared to defend your recommendation in Congressional hearings to be broadcast nation-wide.

3. Since it is known that the emails sent/forwarded to Secretary Clinton were sent to many others in the State Department, you should provide your report on your investigations into the email practices of every one of these individuals. If you have not already begun such an investigation, please provide explanation why you haven't or recommend charges against yourself for malfeasance of duty.

4. Begin immediately, an investigation into the email practices of everyone in the government who is found to have an email with classified data in it. This includes yourself. If you have been using a personal email account to conduct official Government business a special prosecutor will be appointed to investigate you.

5. Begin immediately, an investigation into the email practices of everyone in the government who has been using a personal email account to conduct official Government business. This includes yourself. If you have been using a personal email account to conduct official Government business a special prosecutor will be appointed to investigate you.

6. Begin immediately, an investigation into the email practices of the Donald Trump campaign organization for exchange of any emails between him or his staff with elements or agents of the Russian Government, including Vladimir Putin. Note that Mr. Trump has received two security briefings and it is imperative that we find out if any classified information was shared with agents of the Russian Government. Investigate if there was any collusion between Russian government and Trump campaign on releasing emails Russia claims they hacked from the Democratic National Committee (this year they are not in the Watergate office complex). In future communications this investigation shall be referred to as Trump's Watergate-ski.

7. Provide a report to the American people on all these investigations to include your judgement as to not only whether any laws were broken but your personal musings and speculations on likelihood of whether their system had been hacked - especially when there is no evidence their account had been hacked and anything else that might occur to you regarding how emails were handled (official Government email system or Commercial email service provider) along with all your interview transcripts and all notes.

8. Talk to somebody who understands handling of emails over the internet. Provide report on how many cyber-security personnel are employed at a large commercial email service provider and whether they have Government Security Clearances (Hint: they DON'T). Provide statement that you NOW understand that these cyber-security personnel can examine all emails and attachments thereto which reside in their system. Provide an explanation as to how this does NOT mean any classified data in emails accounts with commercial email service providers is NOT compromised.

8. Be prepared to provide your reports on everybody found to have used personal email accounts andor those who were found to have classified data in their emails, three months before the Mid-Term elections of 2018.

The percentage of traffic deaths in which at least one driver tested positive for drugs has nearly doubled over a decade, raising alarms as five states are set to vote on legalization of marijuana.

~~
~~

Amid a disquieting increase in overall U.S. traffic fatalities, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has tracked an upswing in the percentage of drivers testing positive for illegal drugs and prescription medications, according to federal data released to USA TODAY and interviews with leaders in the field.

~~
~~

One victim, according to prosecutors, was David Aggio of California. He was killed March 8, 2014, when Rodolfo Alberto Contreras, who was high on marijuana, ran a red light at nearly 80 mph, crossed the center divider and demolished Aggio's Ford Explorer, prosecutors said.

Contreras in June became the first drugged driver in California to be convicted of second-degree murder. According to California prosecutors, his response at the scene of the crime, when confronted about the incident, was: "I want my weed."
(more)

Jared Halbrook, 25, of Green Bay, Wis., said that if Mr. Trump lost to Hillary Clinton, which he worried would happen through a stolen election, it could lead to “another Revolutionary War.”

“People are going to march on the capitols,” said Mr. Halbrook, who works at a call center. “They’re going to do whatever needs to be done to get her out of office, because she does not belong there.”

“If push comes to shove,” he added, and Mrs. Clinton “has to go by any means necessary, it will be done.”

Interviews with more than 50 Trump supporters at campaign events in six states over the past week revealed a distinct change from the rollicking mood earlier this year, when Mr. Trump’s surprising primary successes and emergence as an unconventional Republican standard-bearer set off broad excitement. The crowds appeared on edge and quick to lash out.
(more .. if you can stand it)

It's still another case of a Repugnant devaluing a perfectly good and useful metaphor. The use of the word "parallel" or "alternative" universe (or "reality" as Hillary Clinton used it in the last debate in reference to Trump's bizarre rants which defy rational explanation) has been used for some time now to legitimately characterize any one of the extended fantasies spun and elaborated upon by Conservative Propagandists with serene indifference to manifold documented facts which stand diametrically opposed to said Conservative doctrines.

Now, Gringrich devalues the word's metaphorical use by saying that both Democrats and Repugnants occupy "alternative" or "parallel" universes. IOW, it's merely a matter of opinion. But there's method to Gingrich's obtuseness. He WANTS to devalue the word's metaphorical usage to describe the penchant of Conservative's for parroting nut-job theories and Big Lies - serenely oblivious to the empirical evidence which neatly debunks their fantasies.

Democrats, presented with a problem, follow the facts and apply logical analysis to arrive at a practical, effective public policy. They don't assert a position unless the facts and legitimate studies provide proof that the position is valid.

It is NOT the case that people of both political persuasions hold equally empirically groundless policy positions. The Conservatives have made a lifestyle of being oblivious to the fact based reality the rest of us live in. It is only they who cling to a non-empirical 'Alternative' Universe.

It's still another case of a Repugnant devaluing a perfectly good and useful metaphor. The use of the word "parallel" or "alternative" universe (or "reality" as Hillary Clinton used it in the last debate in reference to Trump's bizarre rants which defy rational explanation) has been used for some time now to legitimately characterize any one of the extended fantasies spun and elaborated upon by Conservative Propagandists with serene indifference to manifold documented facts which stand diametrically opposed to said Conservative doctrines.

Now, Gringrich devalues the word's metaphorical use by saying that both Democrats and Repugnants occupy "alternative" or "parallel" universes. IOW, it's all just a matter of one's opinion. But there's method to Gingrich's obtuseness. He WANTS to devalue the word's metaphorical usage to describe the penchant of Conservative's for parroting nut-job theories and Big Lies - serenely oblivious to the empirical evidence which neatly debunks their fantasies.

Democrats, presented with a problem, follow the facts and apply logical analysis to arrive at a practical, effective public policy. They don't assert a position unless the facts and legitimate studies provide proof that the position is valid.

It is NOT the case that people of both political persuasions hold equally empirically groundless policy positions. The Conservatives have made a lifestyle of being oblivious to the fact based reality the rest of us live in. It is only they who cling to a non-empirical 'Alternative' Universe.

For many, many years, scholars have wondered whether William Shakespeare’s plays were actually written by Shakespeare, or at least if they were written solely by the man we now colloquially refer to as the Bard.

Although the arguments about his authorship have raged for two centuries, his plays have been printed and reprinted and reprinted again, bearing his name. Now, for the first time and with a bit of help from computers and big data, the Oxford University Press will add Christopher Marlowe as a co-author in all three “Henry VI” plays (Parts 1, 2 and 3).

Marlowe was a contemporary and, some say, rival of Shakespeare’s. As the Poetry Foundation put it, “The achievement of Christopher Marlowe, poet and dramatist, was enormous — surpassed only by that of his exact contemporary, Shakespeare.”

Rivals though they may have been, scholars have long thought Shakespeare might have collaborated with Marlowe, among other contemporary writers.

(more)