J. Edgar Hoover must be rolling over in his grave at all this! He would have kept any dirt found until after the election so he could wave it in the face of anyone being elected. So the idea would be to find dirt on both candidates - and keep it in the “secret file”.
Sheesh!
As an aside: Why is the URL of that story “hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html”? The story has absolutely nothing to do with gender-demographic voting patterns; in fact, the word “male” never once even appears in it. Does the New York Times have a shortage of webpages or something, that they need to scour the old story off of one to replace it with a new story, like a digital palimpsest?
I think this is an excellent summary of the situation.
I just do not find convincing at all the grousing that Comey is in the bag for one side or the other. I think his concern for the standing of himself and the FBI is the most likely motivation for the letter from the other week – that he did not want the perception that he or his agency was covering up anything, which led to a poor decision. And to be honest, I can kind of understand the motivation to be transparent. How many kajillion times has “lack of transparency” been argued as a huge sin in the public arena over the past fifteen or so years? This debate about transparency has gotten to the point that some – even on this message board – are essentially advocating for transparency in U.S. intelligence operations. Is it any wonder that the idea of transparency in criminal investigations has gained traction?
Now, I’m not against transparency as a principle, but I think there is a growing acceptance of an idea that “if there is any doubt, be transparent.” I think that’s probably a decent general maxim, but it isn’t necessarily applicable to some issues, and this sounds like one of them.
Then why didn’t he send the letter six weeks ago, when the FBI first became aware of the additional e-mails?
I get the point that having testified to Congress that the investigation was over, he felt an ethical and perhaps legal obligation to correct his testimony.
As a side point, as a lawyer, if I ever advise the court that a certain situation exists, and then I learn that the situation has changed, I have an obligation to so advise the court.
However, that obligation kicks in as soon as I know about the changed circumstances. I can’t sit on it for six weeks, then advise the court.
Same here: if he felt an ethical obligation, he should have acted on it as soon as the FBI knew about it. By waiting six weeks, until just before the election, he’s made himself look partisan.
Maybe you have read differently, my understanding is that there were FBI agents who knew about the emails six weeks ago, but that Comey was not briefed until later.
That’s consistent with my understanding as well. Though apparently Giuliani knew before Comey did, which is pretty troubling.
There is only one way I would keep Comey on if I were Clinton, and that is if he offered a full apology for his actions, including that he thought he could influence the election, and begged for his job, and I don’t mean political, weasely, TV begging, I mean on his hands and knees crying with mucous begging, and he’d have to fully and enthusiastically endorse Clinton and tell people that it was all his fault.
That sounds like political, weasly TV begging.
Not the mucous part. I like the mucous – that’s a nice touch.
If that is the case, then I think it goes to his management skills.
FBI agents know that the Clinton e-mails are a big deal; they know that their Director gave a public statement that she wouldn’t be prosecuted; they know that their Director had to testify to Congress, in which he said that the investigation was over; and then they find additional e-mails and don’t think it’s important enough to pass that up the line right away?
As Director, Comey should have given instructions that if there were any developments on the Clinton e-mail matter, he needed to be told ASAP.
And in any event, I agree with Expano Mapcase that the letter needed to be drafted much, much better, given that the FBI’s public reputation for impartiality was riding on it.
Maybe. Or maybe the agents investigating didn’t want to report up the chain for some poor reasoning of their own. Who knows?
Where is that sourced? I’ve been thinking about that for some time now, like, how the fuck did Comey not know what his minions were up to in such an important manner. But I hesitated to post on it because I can’t find where I got that. Would be a cite for sore eyes, to be sure.
And Giuliani? Not buying anything he’s selling, regardless. He says he knows something? Does he know that the reason his shoes stink is because he can’t tell shit from Shinola?
Giuliana claimed that he had insider knowledge direct from the FBI before anyone else knew. I suspect he was simply bragging and was full of shit.
He walked this back pretty quickly, after it was pointed out that he was basically confessing to being complicit in a criminal conspiracy by government employees to impact the election
From Washington Post
So “sources” say they knew in early October.
For Giuliani,
This says he was talking about big surprises the day before Comey says he was told. And after the release, Giuliani talked about hearing things from former FBI agents (that were told by active agents?).
If I were Obama, I would have Comey in the oval office Wednesday morning and tell him he better get his resume in order. AFAIAC, his behavior is inexcusable, also illegal. However the penalty for Hatch Act violation is loss of job.
It’s pretty rich for people to, on one hand, assert that Clinton did not violate Federal law because of a lack of intent (which I agree with), and then in the next breath assert with even more gusto that Comey had the intent to interfere with the election (which I believe is utterly unsubstantiated at this point).
After all, the Hatch Act requires that a Federal official must have the “purpose” to interfere with an election to be subject to sanction – a mere coincidence or unintended effect is not sufficient to violate the statute.
Well, the FBI will have some free time now that they’re done with the email thing. Maybe it’s time to find out how many crimes Giuliani committed.
The problem is that Comey himself admitted that the reason for his letter was to influence voters, whereas there was never anything remotely like an admission by Clinton that her intent was to mishandle classified information. In his letter internally to the FBI the day the letter to Congress was sent, he wrote, “I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.”
What would be misleading, exactly? Presumably, the fact that the FBI was still investigating despite the testimony to Congress that the matter was resolved. But the desire to make sure the public knows before the election–as justification for writing the letter when he did–seems pretty damn close to admitting that he thought the American public needed that information in order to properly decide how to vote.
See also this analysis: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/30/did-james-comey-break-the-law-when-he-told-congress-about-clinton-related-emails-maybe/
Yes, and not information that could mean an indictment for Clinton—but simply information that ‘we’re planning to look at something that might or might not mean anything with regard to Clinton.’ I can’t see how that can be spun as anything other than a desire to influence the election in Trump’s favor.
From what I’ve heard from experts on examining computer files, the actual search might have taken only minutes or perhaps hours. Not days, and not NINE days.
All these facts lead me to believe that Comey has deliberately and intentionally tried to influence the election:
[ul]
[li]The fact that the FBI had the information that Clinton emails COULD exist on the laptop for weeks before Comey’s letter (and if he had no idea of this, that is not a point in his favor)[/li]
[li]The fact that Comey chose to write a letter containing ambiguous language that would certainly be interpreted as ‘no smoke without fire,’ when he could easily have written a more accurate letter[/li]
[li]The fact that Comey waited nine days to say ‘nothing here’ when almost certainly that determination could have been made the same day he sent the original letter, or very shortly thereafter.[/li][/ul]
How can it be argued that this is not Comey’s thumb on the scale?
He has a history of behaving with integrity. I guess he soured on such choices after being excoriated by his party, post-July. It looks as though he decided to look after his own interests this time.