Comey's election intervention, the full story

[CarnalK]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Read post #16.

She can’t legally delegate the situation or recuse herself.

[Saint_Cad]

@Ravenman

Aside from Comey, I can’t help but think how many ways that this whole debacle could have been headed off.

If Clinton agreed to use a State Department email address, as it seems all her Cabinet-mates did, there would be no investigation; if Huma Abedin had divorced that son-of-bitch Weiner, the laptop would probably have not been part of the child porn investigation; if Joe Biden had run, I think there’s a 50/50 chance that he would have gotten the nomination; etc etc.

OR find she committed a crime and punt it to the Justice Department for indictment (you’re welcome Ms Lynch)
OR find she committed no crime and exonerate her

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@CarnalK

Yeah, it sure was lucky his son died of brain cancer just in time for a good excuse not to run.

@friedo

He also dealt with the minor issue of just having buried his own son, but whatever.

Suppose Hillary wasn’t running and it was down to Bernie or O’Malley. Do you think that would have impacted Joe’s decision?

[elucidator]

I totally respect his decision not to take on such responsibility in a state of grief. Speaks well of him. My take is he is a thorough Democrat, and might have withdrawn simply to avoid a party crisis. Had it no been for his misfortune. A decent fellow, and I don’t need a leader, and don’t hold that ambition is a virtue.

His prospects? Pretty good, if for no other reason that nobody hates his guts.

[CarnalK]

@Barkis_is_Willin

Suppose Hillary wasn’t running and it was down to Bernie or O’Malley. Do you think that would have impacted Joe’s decision?

Seriously? Have you no fucking shame? I’m not going to pontificate on how his son’s death altered his political ambitions.

[Saint_Cad]

Honest question: what in Biden’s previous runs for President where he had such poor showings in the primaries makes you Dems think he would have won the nomination in 2016?

[Johnny_Ace]

So…let me get this straight. The FBI Director, in full knowledge of the protocols against interfering in electoral politics, didn’t think that an abrupt announcement ten days before the election about an investigation bandied about by Republicans since even before it was opened in the first place would have been influencing the election? Uh, sorry, but that’s flat bullshit.

Either he was ignorant, which is no excuse, or he wasn’t, which is no excuse. That Lynch didn’t stop him is utterly beside the point.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@CarnalK

She can’t legally delegate the situation or recuse herself.

That’s why I wrote “effectively”.

[Buck_Godot]

I was willing to give Comey the benefit of the doubt before it was revealed that he had on his desk the details of the Russian investigation and remained silent until after the election.

The right choice probably would have been to keep both quiet until after the election, but I could see him thinking that it was best to reveal both before the election so that the American people had all the facts. But to leak the new Clinton e-mails 10 days before the election and keep mum about the Russia investigation stinks of partisanship.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

They’re not directly comparable. The Clinton investigation was already public knowledge. Comey had publically said it was closed - a statement very much embraced by the Clinton people at the time - so when that status changed, he announced that too. The Russia investigation was not public knowledge at all.

On a related note, what do you think of the Iran-Contra special prosecutor indicting Caspar Weinberger 4 days before the Bush-Clinton election in 1992? I know Clinton & Gore seemed very pleased.

[Johnny_Ace]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

…
On a related note, what do you think of the Iran-Contra special prosecutor indicting Caspar Weinberger 4 days before the Bush-Clinton election in 1992? I know Clinton & Gore seemed very pleased.

Re Weinberger:

Weinberger Faces 5 Counts In Iran-Contra Indictment

[QUOTE=NY Times]
Coming just hours before the five-year statute of limitations was due to expire on one count, the indictment seemed to represent a final effort to unravel the mystery of whether senior Administration officials concealed their knowledge of the early arms sales to Iran in a concerted attempt to protect the President.
[/QUOTE]

Emphasis mine.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Buck_Godot

I was willing to give Comey the benefit of the doubt before it was revealed that he had on his desk the details of the Russian investigation and remained silent until after the election.

The right choice probably would have been to keep both quiet until after the election, but I could see him thinking that it was best to reveal both before the election so that the American people had all the facts. But to leak the new Clinton e-mails 10 days before the election and keep mum about the Russia investigation stinks of partisanship.

That’s the heart of the question. Make a statement reviving a “scandal” Just before the election–then issue another statement saying “never mind!”

Or sitting on another matter for months–because it would be tasteless to let the public know. (And instructing the media to keep quiet, too.)

Glad to see that Trump is happy with Comey staying on! For his 10 year appointment. Which President Obama made in the spirit of bipartisanship since Comey is a Republican…

[elucidator]

I forget, what was Caspar “The Ghastly” Weinberger running for?

[Johnny_Ace]

The implication is that because Weinberger was a Republican-appointed official the indictment would’ve hurt Bush I’s election chances. (It probably had some effect, though I doubt it was very significant.) Nevertheless, the timing was governed by necessity rather than intent to poison the election.

Necessity, I might add, which didn’t exist for Comey.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Johnny_Ace

Re Weinberger:

Weinberger Faces 5 Counts In Iran-Contra Indictment

Emphasis mine.

That’s not what the special prosecutor’s people said:

The new indictment had accused Mr. Weinberger of making a false statement when he told Congress in 1987 that he did not keep regular notes about his activities at the Pentagon. In fact, the indictment said, he took thousands of pages of diary notes during his years in office.

The indictment had ignited a furor because it quoted a previously undisclosed entry in Mr. Weinberger’s diary that sharply contradicted Mr. Bush’s longstanding contention that he did not realize until after the Iran-contra affair was disclosed in 1986 that the weapons sales to Iran were an arms-for-hostage deal.

Coming on the Friday before a furious weekend of last-minute campaigning before the election, the indictment was played prominently in television and newspaper reports. Mr. Bush was repeatedly asked about the issue and in the bitter aftermath of his defeat, his supporters singled out the indictment as the event that damaged the President most in the closing hours of the race.

Representatives of Mr. Walsh’s office denied that the indictment was timed or worded to hurt Mr. Bush, contending that the filing date was determined by the judge’s desire to bring the case to trial in January and that the wording represented an effort to present a compelling charge of wrongdoing against Mr. Weinberger.

In sum, it came right before the election, was presented in a way most damaging to Bush, and was done at that time because of “the judge’s desire to bring the case to trial in January”. (Couldn’t wait a few more days, apparently.)

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@CarnalK

Seriously? Have you no fucking shame? I’m not going to pontificate on how his son’s death altered his political ambitions.

Oh come on, he announced he wouldn’t run in October 2015. He considered it all the way up to that time and, frankly, I think he could have put together a successful campaign even after that. He also acknowledged that he thought Hillary would be the nominee. So yes, seriously, I think if Hillary weren’t already the de facto nominee, he would have run.

@Saint_Cad

Honest question: what in Biden’s previous runs for President where he had such poor showings in the primaries makes you Dems think he would have won the nomination in 2016?

In his previous primary runs he wasn’t the VP in a very popular administration.

[Johnny_Ace]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

That’s not what the special prosecutor’s people said:In sum, it came right before the election, was presented in a way most damaging to Bush, and was done at that time because of “the judge’s desire to bring the case to trial in January”. (Couldn’t wait a few more days, apparently.)

Yet somehow the fact remains that the statute of limitations would have run out on that charge had they not filed that day. One statement of intent doesn’t indicate the entirety of thinking on the matter.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I don’t know that that’s true. If that was their motivation then they should have said so. (In actual fact, that indictment ended up being dismissed precisely because the SOL had already run out.)

[elucidator]

@Johnny_Ace

The implication is that because Weinberger was a Republican-appointed official the indictment would’ve hurt Bush I’s election chances. (It probably had some effect, though I doubt it was very significant.) Nevertheless, the timing was governed by necessity rather than intent to poison the election.

Necessity, I might add, which didn’t exist for Comey.

Point taken, but I submit that the fact that Hillary was actually running for POTUS bumps this up to Big Hairy Ass Deal status.

[Johnny_Ace]

@elucidator

Point taken, but I submit that the fact that Hillary was actually running for POTUS bumps this up to Big Hairy Ass Deal status.

No disagreement there, especially considering that not only is Comey a Republican, but it was reported that there was a clique in the FBI actively working to defeat her.