That is a lot of Weiner pics.
I get that. Still
Just pick any reasonably borderline excessive number like 10 sent plus 10 replies per hour, 24 hours a day for a year is only 175,200. 3.7 years to get to 650,000.
In this one sentence you used two qualifiers and cited anonymous sources that have unknown reliability. That alone establishes that Comey could(and absolutely should) have refrained from commenting about the new emails. Simply because the emails could lead to undisclosed emails and open Secretary Clinton to criminal prosecution doesn’t mean anything. The emails could just as likely be duplicates already examined by the FBI. The fact is, Comey doesn’t know because he hadn’t even looked at the emails. Given that and the department’s standard policy about making statements, Comey should have waited until the investigation had progressed further. Hell, if Comey had found emails that were undisclosed by Clinton, I would agree that Comey making a statement was appropriate. But that’s not what he found. All he found was something that might provide evidence against Clinton. That shouldn’t warrant a statement, especially when any reasonable person could predict the spin by Republicans and the possible effect the statement would have on the election. In my opinion, making such a statement (and such an ambiguous one, at that) strengthens the assertion that Comey’s motivations were at least partially political.
How could you possibly know that? The FBI doesn’t even know the importance of these emails because they haven’t even looked at them. What makes this discovery indicate there’s the possibility of criminal charges? Simply because they are emails?
Shit, he probably got that much hate mail over the intertubes in his actual political career. Never mind just the ordinary day to day business of a politician.
As far as “pissed of investigators” WRT Hillary should have been brought up on charges:
My understanding is, the only ones that are pissed off are retired agents that had nothing to do with the case.
Are there any news sites that are claiming there are active agents involved with the case that are upset about this?
Probably impossible to know. Surely none are going to be willing to say so “on the record”.
In his congressional testimony, Comney stated that all of the FBI agents actually involved in the investigation independently and unanimously concluded that no charges should be filed. So any FBI agents with a different opinion weren’t actually involved in the investigation, and are just talking out their asses.
Here’s the thing that frosts my cookies.
At the time Comey made his statement in July advising that no charges would be filed, he actually briefly mentioned the Petraeus case as part of his reasoning. In that case, General Petraeus not only (a) disclosed classified information, but he (b) did so knowingly.
General Petraeus suffered a misdemeanor conviction after entering a plea – a fact apparently lost on Donald Trump, who, in typical overheated fashion, now claims that Patraeus’ career was “destroyed” over the charges.
How David Patraeus Avoided Felony Charges
Whatever is discovered in Wiener’s laptop is not going to materially change these facts: Hillary Clinton didn’t directly send any email to Anthony Wiener; and she did not knowingly disclose classified information to anyone. Without these elements being met, there is no way the FBI is going to be able to find a higher threshold for Clinton than the one they’ve already found with respect to the Patraeus case.
I’ve tried hard to see it from Comey’s perspective, having previously admired him for his principles in the Ashcroft affair and prosecution of Scooter Libby for the Valerie Plame debacle. But this time, it really does look partisan.
He’s not going to find one damn thing more than has already been found: Namely, Clinton did not knowingly disclose classified information to anyone. He keeps saying that advising Congressional Republicans of the further investigation was the least bad choice. I disagree. The least bad choice was to follow established protocol of keeping his mouth shut.
But HRC deleted tens of the thousands of e-mails before the FBI got their hands on the server(s). We don’t know what was on those e-mails or if some of them might be on Weiner’s laptop.
Well known Clinton apologist* Jeanine Pirro has called out the FBI for their handling of this matter. And on her Fox News show, even.
*Judge Jeanine (as her fans call her) is not actually a Hillary supporter, and believes that Hillary should probably be in jail for many other things, just not this one
How does this have anything to do with the two threshold issues I pointed out? The findings Comey made in July were that (a) Clinton wasn’t aware that classified information was on her server; and (b) Clinton didn’t knowingly disclose what classified information that was there to anyone.
My understanding was that the emails were deleted by accident despite a memo having been sent by HRC staff that they not be. But you think there’s going to be a smoking gun on Weiner’s computer? And if there is, why on earth would HRC call for a full disclosure of all the emails on that computer? I’m guessing she has a pretty good idea of anything that might be there already.
Former head of the FBI’s New York office on the substandard quality of the investigation itself and on the Clintons in the main:
LOL … it’s amusing how partisans on both sides decide that Comey is either the paragon of integrity or the embodiment of deceit … depending on what he’s saying.
FWIW, there have been many “sources in the FBI” stories like this:
Correct. No problem.
Comey’s response would be straight forward: “The FBI, in keeping with long standing precedent and law, has no comment. Just as we had no comment as to the question of whether or not Trump associates are being investigated for ties to Russia.”
Those who can speak can state that if the sources are accurate then there is some suggestion of the possibility of emails that may not have already been reviewed on a device related to an unrelated investigation. In keeping with the desire to leave no possible stone unturned the FBI has requested a court order to evaluate those emails to determine if any information that is contained there is consistent with the information found otherwise or not or, alternatively, if it is completely irrelevant to the previous case. Publicizing that step would be highly improper and outside of professional standards.
Would the alt-Right accuse him of things still? Sure. Would GOP leaders be disappointed that he did not help them out? Maybe. Would most GOP leaders spin such an action as inappropriate? No. Because it would make them look dumb.
He knew he was going rogue with that letter to Congress that he knew would be “misunderstood” and that had potential impact on the election process. Going rogue is alway riskier than sticking to the established norms of professional behaviors.
An anonymous source verified by Fox News holds about as much weight as a reddit post.
You do, I suspect, understand the difference between believing that Comey is currently behaving unethically and improperly based on what is clearly established as what he has said himself is the case and what is clearly factual in the public record, and believing, on the based of an anonymous source, believing that Comey perjured himself under oath to Congress.
No? Sad.
Wow, what a whirlwind 48 hours.
If it is confirmed that Comey wrote this letter without anyone in the FBI actually viewing the content of the emails, then his letter 11 days before an election was extraordinarily reckless. Probably worse than anything Clinton did in the underlying case.
I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but at this point I think all bets are off. He’s never gonna get brought up on Hatch Act charges. In fact, I’ll bet he keeps his job just because it’s gonna be a political shitshow to remove him (and maybe that was the point?). But he has certainly lost all credibility.
Yeah, a story full of unsubstantiated smears and anonymous sources. The one non-anonymous person who’s commentated on the cases, to congress while under oath, stated that no FBI agent involved in the investigation believed the case should be prosecuted. Your Fox News report quotes a Fox News contributor, retired agents who were not involved in the investigation in any capacity, and anonymous and unverified sources.
Yeah, I find it difficult to believe that 106+ people, even looking at the same evidence, ALL agreed that there was a prosecutable case, and that even given that, only ONE decided to leak.
There is no question that he wrote this letter without anyone in the FBI actually viewing the contents of the emails. His letter stated that. They are taking the steps to be able to review them.
In case that is not clear, here is from the WSJ:
To be absolutely explicitly clear. It is not established that any of the emails are even work-related and it will take weeks to determine even that. At the point that Comey wrote his letter there was not even a court order that allowed them to begin a review of the material, just metadata that suggested that some unknown number might be work-related.