If he was legally obligated to update the various Committee chairpeople (who - fyi, CarnalK - are “the public”), then those legal obligations should be noted down somewhere, right?
That said, I’m pretty doubtful that there are actually any laws stating that the FBI director is obligated to issue a public statement before even assessing whether their new information is “significant”.
Yes, I would expect them to be written down. I suspect we’ll find out pretty soon whether that’s the case.
There’s no way Comey would reopen a sensitive investigation because Huma was emailing Hillary about her horny, dipshit husband.
This has to involve classified material. There’s no other reason that makes sense.
The language of the law takes intent out of the equation but no one had ever tested that part of it.
“Makes sense”? When did that standard come into play?
Not necessarily. It could easily involve the other major aspect of the criminal case: intent. Or a cover-up.
But it’s silly to speculate either way. It could be something significant or it could be a big nothingburger. All we can intelligently say now is that the fact of the story itself will have some political impact, but the legal impact is a complete unknown.
Oh gimme a break. Informing the public is a press release or press conference. A letter to a committee chairman is not “informing the public”)
Well, you’re the one who said, "There’s some talk that Comey was legally obligated to update the Committee like this if anything relevant to the investigation arises. "
Perhaps you should be the one to go and look.
This seems like a veiled accusation that I’m inventing the fact that this is being discussed. If not, I’m not sure what your point here is. I’m just reporting that former DOJ people have said this was some sort of FBI obligation. Instead of doing the legal research myself, I think I’ll just wait for the inevitable reporting that is imminent.
Aw, why the long face, acey? I’m sure you can get the cork back into the champagne bottle if you squeeze hard enough.
But even that is iffy, again the letter reports ‘maybe’ and ‘who knows’ (yeah, again, WTF) and I have to agree with Matthew Miller that what Comey did here was not appropiate.
It is when you know damn well that the committee chairman is going to call a press conference of his own to announce it.
Maybe Comey forgot to mark the letter as confidential.
It was eight committee chairmen, fyi. Comey’s letter wasn’t a private communication.
There’s only one reason why Comey announced that he might have some info which might or might not be relevant. Comey was hoping that this announcement would hurt Clinton’s predominence and allow his fellow Republicans to hold onto their Senate majority.
Comey’s announcing that he has some information which might be insignificant has been in turned into “Clinton is guilty and now we have the proof!” in the minds of Trump and all his supporters. Pretending like he’s just an innocent, disinterested, bystander here doesn’t fit the observed facts.
If Comey comes back in three weeks and says, “Yeah, sorry - turns out it was nbd.” do we get to do an electoral do-over?
I suspect Hillary has had just about enough of men and their stupid penises.
et voila
The current Times headline on the main page “New Clinton Case Emails Tied to Weiner”.
God help me, but I laughed. That sounds like some kind of fraternity initiation.
nm
So obviously the emails were exchanged between Clinton and Weiner in the midst of sexting each other. Huma was the oblivious spouse.
I see it all now.