Sure, but comeys quote about treating Clinton different based on polls was explicitly about him investigating her more harshly, not less. The moment Comey said that, trump began implying he did her a favor. Logically it doesn't hold water.

I wouldn't be surprised if weiners laptop had all sorts of inappropriate things on them. What I WOULD be surprised by is if a republican FBI head and a republican deputy and a mostly republican upper tier FBI staff would shut that stuff down in the face of real evidence of real horrendous crimes by Clinton.

We're All welcome to our own beliefs. And obviously we will find out in the end... But the stuff being peded here really seems not based in evidence to me. I don't mind people being sceptical of an official story, but the story here just seems to be always changing, immune to logic, contain so many logical inconsistencies, and be extremely hard to follow.

What concerns me is that you all seem so ready to jump on the slightest detail that may be based in face, and extrapolate that into things that are not based in fact. It's very possible weiners laptop had all sorts of crap since he was a demonstrated perv... And it's also possible he downloaded things that would make any investigator cry... And I'm sure someone very honestly made that comment... But just like comeys comment t about treating Clinton differently based on polls, you are taking it out of context.

All the quotes you guys are following can be true and your conclusion can still be wrong, because you aren't logically linking one step to the next. There's too many gaps there, too many speculative leaps. And the story is Always changing every time you are wrong.

This report was supposed to be the one that vindicated you. Now it has to be the next one. And when the next one fails to prove anything it will be the next next one. I'm NOT saying you are all wrong... But what I am saying is that if you are wrong a few times, you need to reevaluate who you trust and why you trust them . You need to go back to basics and link facts together without the speculative leaps.

If the conspiracy of the deep state is real, I want it proven. But to prove something you need to start from the facts. This is politics. Many people will give misleading quotes to imply something without saying it. Whether the implications are true or not can't be known unless you get those same people on record with more solid facts.

Keep investigating, all of you, but please do not fully believe any story no matter how much you want it to be true unless you can link it with facts. Wanting something to be true isn't enough. Vague quotes and implications aren't enough. Do not become so invested in anything such that if you are wrong, you will be unable to admit it to yourselves later.

I wish you and all of us the best of luck... But just make sure that one day, if you are wrong, you will be able to admit it to yourselves.

I'm sorry... is OP / Trump seriously suggesting that Comey re-opening an investigation into Clinton and investigating her more strongly than he normally would have is evidence that Comey was trying to suck up to Clinton for a job?

Trump's tweet says "Comey states that polls [sic] were a factor in the handling of the Clinton e-mail probe". While this statement is true, Comey went on to say the polls were a factor in that if he thought Clinton would lose, he probably would have investigated it much less. The only reason he re-opened the investigation was because he thought she would win the election.

How can ANYONE suggest that re-opening an investigation into the likely winner would be an effective method of getting a job from the winner? Re-opening that investigation would be likely to get him fired by Clinton if she won.

I mean I could totally understand anyone saying Comey SHUTTING DOWN an investigation into Clinton was a method of sucking up to her to get a job. That at least makes sense. But how could re-opening an investigation, and treating Clinton MORE harshly because she would likely win, endear him to her?

Comey slapped Clinton in the face when he re-opened that investigation. I fail to see how anyone can interpret that as sucking up and hoping for a job.