View Single Post
  #7  
Old 08-29-2019, 07:47 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,152
Based on the synopses, I'm not particularly interested in reading the actual report. But here's a positive endorsement of the report:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ated-fbi-rules

And a negative (i.e. a defense of Comey):

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-com...rt-really-says

On the whole, I'd say that the defense has it. Wittes goes a bit too far in pleading that the "one confidential word" should be ignored - confidential is confidential - but his larger point that Comey's actions were reasonable at all steps of the way and within the bounds of a reasonable understanding of procedure and took reasonable steps to address the revisioning of the security level of the documents. It's nitpicking to fault him for his choices and there's zero chance that the DOJ would have been able to get a conviction for anything.

And, in terms of whether he was justified in releasing this information to the public, over his "NDA", fundamentally the American public is his boss, not the Executive branch, even when you work for the Executive branch. Whistleblowing is both a crime and a duty, depending circumstance. Given that it's reasonable to say that he couldn't be convicted of a crime and that he was releasing information about corruption in office, not releasing national security secrets, it falls into the "duty" bucket so far as I'm concerned. NDAs are moot in the face of whistleblowing on criminal activities. That goes for the government, too.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 08-29-2019 at 07:51 PM.