Comey Sends Letter To Congress Citing New Evidence (and An Investigation) In The Clinton Email Scandal [UPDATED]

Jcomey-100Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziThere is a major news development with the release of a letter from FBI Director James B. Comey that the Bureau has decided that new evidence requires further investigation into the Clinton emails. It was a surprising change just days before the election. After all, as recently as September 27, 2016, Comey rejected the idea that the bureau would reopen its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. Comey wrote in a letter to top members of Congress that the bureau has “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” UPDATE: There are accounts suggesting that the information came from an investigation of Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of Huma Abedin, and that the emails were not authored by Hillary Clinton. This is still unfolding and there are calls to confirm this information. If the author is Huma Abedin, the investigation would hit one of the most senior aides. If it contained classified information, that is a stand only offense under federal law. Human Abedin was interviewed previously by the FBI — raising the risk that she will be called in for additional questioning. However, the new development could also prove insignificant for a criminal investigation and, if these were communications between Abedin and her estranged husband, it may not implicate Clinton personally or have any serious impact on the prior conclusions of the FBI investigation.


It is not clear what the “unrelated” case produced new emails related to the Clinton investigation. He also says that they are still determining whether these new emails contain “classified information” or are relevant to the overall investigation. Accordingly, this could result in a determination that the new concerns are a “dry hole” and that no further action is needed. However, it is fairly unusual to take the step to notify Congress before an election. One would assume that there is some threshold determination that the evidence warrants such a step that would inevitably cause a flair up in the political season.

I have been critical recently of the handling of the FBI investigation, particularly in the granting of immunity to key potential targets. I recently wrote a column on FBI investigation into the Clinton email scandal and revised my view as to the handling of the investigation in light of the five immunity deals handed out by the Justice Department.  I had previously noted that FBI Director James Comey was within accepted lines of prosecutorial discretion in declining criminal charges, even though I believed that such charges could have been brought. However, the news of the immunity deals (and particularly the deal given top ranking Clinton aide Cheryl Mills) was baffling and those deals seriously undermined the ability to bring criminal charges in my view.

Wikileaks disclosures have only embarrassed the Bureau further in showing Clinton aides debating how to explain the deletions and how to delay turning over material. Comey now has told legislators that “I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

He did note that the FBI could not yet assess whether the new material is significant. Comey clearly felt obligated to let the Committees know about the development. In making such a decision, Comey is caught in the horns of a dilemma. The Justice Department strongly discourages investigatory announcements or actions shortly before an election to avoid any claims of trying to influence the outcome. On the other hand, if this is significant, the FBI does not want to be accused of hiding material developments from Congress or the public, particularly after criticism over its alleged different treatment given Clinton and her aides as opposed to other recent cases.

In such a situation, caution favors disclosure. It is unlikely that we will see major developments in the remaining two weeks, but the announcement shows that this is not a closed matter. In many ways, the lingering character of this scandal was only worsened by the tactics of Clinton aides in changing explanations and refusals to cooperate absent immunity. That served to delay the investigation, which will now likely extend beyond the election.

300 thoughts on “Comey Sends Letter To Congress Citing New Evidence (and An Investigation) In The Clinton Email Scandal [UPDATED]”

  1. It’s amazing when Prof T. puts out red meat like this topic how everybody comes out of the woodwork. Vanilla topics just don’t get the blood flowing like this political stuff.

    1. independent bob – it is hard to get charged up over hiking Old Flag. 😉

  2. Katrina vandenHeuvel ‏@KatrinaNation 3m3 minutes ago

    Pete Seeger:
    “I’ll sing you a verse for the old FBI
    Is it you they are after or could it be I?..
    I hope and I pray that it wouldn’t be me.”

    1. If Obama were running against the birther Trump he would be kicking ass, Probably Biden would be, too.

      1. Dave – very true and Bernie would kick Trump to the curb. But, no, the Democrats insisted on running with HRC and all her vile baggage. That’s on them.

    2. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/michael-moore-slams-donald-trump-editing-speech-article-1.2849346 ““So when the rightfully angry people of Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin find out after a few months in office that President Trump wasn’t going to do a damn thing for them, it’ll be too late to do anything about it. But I get it. You wanted to send a message. You had righteous anger, and justifiable anger. Well, message sent. Good night, America. You just elected the last President of the United States.”

  3. Eichenwald: James Comey’s Letter Could Damage The Reputation Of The FBI For Years To Come
    http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/eichenwald-james-comeys-letter-could

    I mean, I’ve been talking to people — i know a lot of people in the FBI, i know a lot of people in the justice department and a lot of people formerly in the justice department, and it is universal fury at Comey that, you know, he has done something that is — is going to damage the reputation of the FBI for years to come and if it starts really changing the polls, if there’s an effect on the election where, you know, because Comey put out a letter that no FBI Director should ever have done saying, well, we found something and we don’t know what it is, if that changes the outcome of the election, the FBI will never recover. It will — this will make, you know, the — the scandals of the Hoover years look like nothing.

    Eichenwald wrapped things up discussing whether Comey would have appreciated this being done to him back when he was working at the Justice Department:

    EICHENWALD: I want to point out in the editorial that I mentioned, Larry Thompson is a dyed in the wool Republican. He was very high level in the Justice Department under George W. Bush, a guy with a lot of integrity. People might say well, Gorelick was a Democrat, let’s set her aside. Larry Thompson is saying exactly what I’m hearing from other Justice Department people, you know. The phrase is Comey is swimming out of his lane. He is an investigator. He is not a prosecutor. And the way these procedures are supposed to work are that, you know, the FBI develops information. they put together a memo, particularly in cases involving public officials. they send it to the — to the Department of Justice and, again, in public official cases it goes up the line for a determination of prosecution. Well, all of that has been turned on its head.

    You know, Comey used to be the number two at the Justice Department, and if an FBI Director had done this to him, I have no doubt Comey would be out there seeking the guys to be fired.

    1. Why does everyone conveniently forget that Lynch, after being caught meeting with WJC on the tarmac, said she would abide by Comey’s decision as to whether or not to prosecute? She left it in his lap.

  4. MSNBC analyst: Comet is acting like a ‘banana Republican’ trying to overthrow the government
    https://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/msnbc-analyst-comey-is-acting-like-a-banana-republican-trying-to-overthrow-the-government/

    Conservative radio host Charlie Sykes hammered on Comey for what he called his “reckless” behavior saying, “He seems to have confused ‘CYA’ with his larger responsibilities.”

    “There is a reason we have the standards and the traditions and the protocols that say to the FBI and the Justice Department, you know, don’t do this kind of thing right before an election,” Sykes said. “And what he’s done is placed this black box filled with innuendo and conspiracy theories and almost no new evidence in the middle of this political campaign.”

    Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter concurred, calling Comey a “banana Republican.”

    “I agree with Charlie, he’s more conservative, I’m more liberal,” Alter began. “This is a question about what kind of country do we live in? James Comey has now joined other Republicans in being what you might call banana Republicans — acting like they’re in a banana republic. This is what happens in other countries. You throw up vague accusations that your political opponents are under investigation just before a big election.”

    1. Ex-Bush WH counsel files Hatch Act complaint against Comey and sure seems to think the FBI is investigating Trump. Wonder if they will disclose what they are investigating Trump for before the election. Probably not……..

  5. The only way to fix this is for Comey to send letters out for everything he is doing or is about to do.

    From the Desk of Comey

    I am about to leave my office and take a dump. Or as the French would say, sink a bronze-a bronze being a bronze statue.

    More to follow.

    1. Actually, no, he just needs to emphasize that these emails may or may not have been sent to or from Hillary, and may or may not have anything to do with her.

      Curiously, though these emails are on a machine owned by Weiner and evidently sometimes used by Abadin, there is no clamor to indict or prosecute either of these two – only Hillary. I wonder why that is?

      1. Do you suppose, just for a minute, that the clamour to indict Hillary is because she is the one who is running for president?

  6. Obama indicted Arizona Sheriff Joe three weeks before the election.

    Comey reopens the email investigations on Hillary two weeks before the election.

    Comey and Sheriff Joe are long-time law enforcement colleagues. Like most of us, Comey is outraged by the duplicity of the Obama Administration, which threw prosecutorial restraint to the wind when it indicted Sheriff Joe three weeks before the election, crying foul now because the FBI has reopened its investigation on Hillary.

    When you always want it both ways, you set yourself up to get bit in the behind. I find Comey very courageous, sticking his middle finger in Obama’s face, knowing full well that it will impact his career negatively if Trump does not win.

    1. Either that, or he is a complete fool since he first gave Hillary an absurd pass not simply in declaring her innocent when that was not his job, but also in granting immunity to high level witnesses and in not examining or even requesting to examine all evidence, and now is seeing fit to give her a hard time.

      Either way, we all know that Hillary got the usual white wash reserved for elite players backed by the administration in power then and she will get it again. Comey is trying to have it both ways and one wonders if he has lost his mind.

      Another, more plausible explanation, suggested on this site by Nick Spinellie, is that Comey is trying to deal with a rebellion from within the FBI by agents who were appalled, embarrassed and enraged by the white wash given to Clinton earlier.

      1. “Another, more plausible explanation, suggested on this site by Nick Spinellie, is that Comey is trying to deal with a rebellion from within the FBI by agents who were appalled, embarrassed and enraged by the white wash given to Clinton earlier.” This seems likely, as he said he was worried that this news about Huma’s computer would leak.

  7. Newsflash, FBI was already investigating the Clinton Foundation and that had not been closed. These emails not only relate to the Email Server/Security/Perjury Investigation. from Clinton, Huma etc etc but also to THAT investigation. That means the investigation that was closed 2 months ago was only one of the investigations the FBI had going into Hillary. I heard there are actually 3 investigations but not sure if that is true.

    It is over. Shes going to prison.

    Heres a link for Hillary supporters

    http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/
    The 5 Stages of Grief & Loss

    and the link for everyone else interested in truth and justice

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2606004/#refresh-1

    BREAKING NEWS:

    Anthony Weiner cooperating with FBI on email probe

  8. On Clinton Emails, Did the F.B.I. Director Abuse His Power?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=0

    Absent extraordinary circumstances that might justify it, a public communication about a pending F.B.I. investigation involving a candidate for public office that is made on the eve of an election is thus very likely to be a violation of the Hatch Act and a misuse of an official position. Serious questions also arise under lawyers’ professional conduct rules that require prosecutors to avoid excessive publicity and unnecessary statements that could cause public condemnation even of people who have been accused of a crime, not to mention people like Mrs. Clinton, who have never been charged with a crime.

    This is no trivial matter. We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway. That is an abuse of power. Allowing such a precedent to stand will invite more, and even worse, abuses of power in the future.

  9. Judge Jeanine: Comey’s Announcement ‘Disgraces and Politicizes the FBI’
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/30/judge-jeanine-pirro-opening-statement-jim-comey-announcement-fbi-hillary-clinton-disgrace

    Saturday on Justice, Judge Jeanine Pirro said that FBI Director James Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress notifying them of the discovery of further email evidence in the probe into Hillary Clinton’s alleged mishandling of classified information “disgraces and politicizes” the bureau.

    “[This] is symptomatic of all that is wrong in Washington,” she said.

    “One of the most revered agencies in our nation’s history–now seen as putting its finger on the scales of justice–should not now be front and center,” Pirro said, “You know I support Donald Trump and want him to win, but whether it’s Hillary Clinton or anyone else, Comey’s actions violate not only longstanding Justice Department policy…but the most fundamental rules of fairness and impartiality.”

    Pirro discussed her own similar situation involving the DOJ: In 2006, she ran on the Republican/Conservative/Independent ticket for New York State Attorney General.

    “In the home stretch of a statewide campaign, the Justice Department and the FBI violated their own policy against making public statements that could affect an election, and announced to the press they were opening an investigation of me,” she said.

    “It was mean-spirited and nothing came of it, except the adverse publicity cost me at the polls.”

    1. Judge Pirro just demonstrated that the prohibition against interfering in an election only seems to go one way – see e.g. GHW Bush and Rick Perry, as well as Pirro.

  10. FBI Director James Comey screwed up big time
    http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/article111463427.html

    When I served as chief of the Public Corruption/Integrity Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami, there was an unwritten policy at the Justice Department that no public actions be taken with respect to any investigation involving a public figure within six months prior to an election in which that figure stood as a candidate.

    This meant it was verboten for a prosecutor to seek an indictment, authorize a search warrant, issue a press release or take action that would likely be made public in the months prior to an election. The reason for this protocol was clear and simple. Investigations of public corruption, like all other investigations, are designed to determine the truth about allegations of criminal conduct and, if justified, to serve as a basis for criminal charges — and not to influence elections.

    To the extent that such disclosure might have such an unintended effect, the policy required us to stand down from such action until after the election. If the public figure were elected in the meantime, and if charges were subsequently brought and resulted in a conviction, there would be sufficient mechanisms in place to remove him or her from office. The concept reflected in this policy is that the Department of Justice is not in the business of doing opposition research for political opponents of public figures.

    1. edm – new rules. They just filed criminal contempt charges against him. We are in early voting.

  11. Well, Comey has certainly thrown an “innuendo bomb” into this election, without any actual supporting facts. Some of said that this action may violate the Hatch Act. If Trump abruptly goes from way behind to way ahead because of this, we will be in for even tougher times ahead.

  12. What is really clear from this latest series of events is that FBI director Comey has seen the writing on the wall and knows that come January he will have to find a new job. Being the partisan hack that he is, he will probably go to Fox as a commentator or consultant. You heard it here first.

    There is a long-standing tradition in American politics that you don’t do anything political in the weeks leading up to an election. If you are conducting an investigation, you go about your business but you don’t make a political move out of it. In fact, Attorney General Lynch told Comey not to go public with his “probe” but to carry on quietly. I know, I know, Lynch is the REAL political hack here because of her private meeting with Bill Clinton which was so secret that literally everyone knew about it.

    One other thing that no one here is addressing is the apparent incompetence of the FBI in this investigation. My friends in the IT business assure me that they have sorted through many times as many emails as the FBI had to investigate in a matter of days, not months. That it is not difficult, with or without the cooperation of the parties involved. So either we have an FBI that is barely competent to do this work, which is entirely possible, (remember how they had to hire outside help to crack the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter?), or they are dragging this out for political reasons, which is also possible. It’s likely a combination of the two.

    The larger question we all should start thinking about is how are we going to spend the next 4-8 years under President Hillary Clinton? There is NO doubt she’s going to win this election. NONE. The world is going to keep going ISIS is going to still exist come Jan 20, 2017. Syria is still going to be a royal sh*tshow. Russia and China are still going to be jockeying for power on the world stage. American infrastructure is still going to be at it’s current state of a “D+”. Global Climate Change is still going to be a problem, whether or not you like science.

    The rest of the developed world has passed us by. Citizens elsewhere have better healthcare, better work benefits, paid family leave, long lifespans, better infant and maternal mortality rates, fewer incarcerated citizens, better drug policies, better public transportation and a long long list of other advantages and progress made. We are the crumbling war machine of the world. We spend more on war and death than the next twelve countries combined, many of which are our allies, while things crumble at home. Whether or not you think Trump would have addressed these issues (and I don’t), is irrelevant. He has no chance of winning (OK, actually 18.9%), so we should all start thinking about the joy that will come from eight more years of Congress bogged down in political hackery, or whether we’re going to try to move ahead.

    1. That is an excellent list of issues that need to be addressed. Also, I agree, Clinton will officially win the election. Personally, I think the term, coronation fits the occasion better, but appearances are still marginally important though who knows for how much longer. What ever it’s called, she got it when Wall St. decided she got it and voters who disagree will either find it hard to get to the polls or will find the voting software works beautifully because all the officials who are terrified of having the three or four major voting packages examined say it works beautifully (especially in states where there is no audit trail and no way to verify).

      One can even agree that Trump is terrible, deeply flawed is a better term, not that that makes a whit of difference to how bad Hillary is. But what do you mean by, try to move ahead?

      It’s legitimately arguable that Clinton will be the far more effective evil than Trump. That she wil thwart or reverse any progress made on each and every one of the issues you mention and others equally important. She has a track record of being for war. For pipelines. For more of the ObamaCare fiasco. For more direct assaults on Social Security (to save it). For everything Wall Street stands for: austerity for the 99%, unimaginable wealth for the .01%, (her source of income and policy). How does getting behind this move us ahead?

      Comparisons with Trump are pointless. What matters is the shift towards austerity and war that Mr. Scare-Your-Pants-Off enables if you allow it to. Does no one remember the last bogywoman who saw Russia from her window and read “all the newspapers”? We will keep getting this pattern of American hyperbole, these choices between horrible and scary until we reject them and since this All-American Gordian knot is inextricably tied up with our duopoly, the only way of breaking it is to put the scary one, Donald Trump, in office. The same next time. Choose the one the establishment doesn’t want because it’s obvious the other one is going to be lethally more effective even if they are marginally more “sane” looking.

      I happen to agree with many on this site that Trump has good points. He has been almost consistent in his claim that war with Russia is to be avoided and that a no fly zone in Syria would only get us closer to all out war. He has made a number of public statements against the toxic, nation state destroying, trade deals that Obama (and Hillary) are pimping for their Wall Street masters. Hillary also has qualities one can point to even without doing so purely from fear of Trump. But these points pale by comparison to the widening corporate shift in the American outlook that lessor-evil-ism ratchets upon the public at each election cycle and the havoc it continues to wreak as barely plausible excuses are made for vile legislation that harms everyone except the international corporate, financial and military elite. To get an idea of this widening chasm, just think of what part of the political spectrum someone like Eisenhower, only with a different name, would be placed in today.

      1. Nicely said BB, as you see, when you describe your position pragmatically, you will have no direct reply. The Clinton people here are hollow, and they only show signs of personal ego attachment. They hate Trump, and that is all they need. Their perceived self-offense is their guiding light. Many of us talk here about the opportunity that presents itself here–a realistic alternative to the duopoly–and one that we could actually throw over the side if need be! But, the egotistical Clinton supporters can’t see through their blinding hate. They do not read or argue the well-founded statements and proven, publicly documented actions, but just lump us in as “Deplorable” Trump supporters. While not an outright supporter of Trump, I see the opportunity here to possibly kill two birds with one stone. We can end the Clinton machine (the very one that fixed Bernie–but that’s OK now!!); and if this Trump thing doesn’t work, it can get thrown overboard too (he has no attachments that would mind seeing him go). SOOOOOO… we would have two badly wounded partners in a struggling duopoly that presents itself with the opportunity for real change. Calling people names and not being a polished (slippery) politician is less important to me than indiscriminate killing abroad for personal gain, as well as the blatant lack or respect to protect Americans, and offering them up as “expendables” to for their own devious ends.

        1. Your point that the duopoly must go is excellent. Both parties are moribund – they offer nothing other than each acting as a foil for the mischief of the other. And deadly mischief it is. Anarchy would be better than this dual track elevator in free fall to extinction. But it would still be nice to think seriously about what one would replace this broken system with.

    2. Yeah but we’re number one, cheap big screens, cheap crap like the new deep fried Twinkies, cheap gas, really cheap beer, and cheap self esteem.

      The reason the rest of the world’s democracies far outstrip the US in what really matters is because they tax the crap and spend it on: education, health care, infrastructure, etc.

      See what can be done for the cost of one air craft carrier, with enough left over to build wind turbines and solar panels to power New York City.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct

      Change comes from the bottom up. Get behind Bernie Sanders and intelligent socialism. Or, elect a reality TV personality for President.

      1. Notice how these liberal sycophants are using the same “stupid white trash” strategy used against Brexit. That worked well. LOL!! Can’t you smell the flop sweat.

      2. BB – “Does no one remember the last bogywoman who saw Russia from her window ”

        Palin never said this. Your ignorance is showing. Keep getting your hits from SNL.

        1. Don’t be so literal Jim22. Palin did make the absurd argument -by implication- about foreign policy experience based on the fact that one can see a small part of Russia from part of Alaska.

          The basis for this line [“I can see Russia from my window”] comes from a September 2008 interview with ABC News’s Charles Gibson, who asked Palin what insights she had from her state being so close to Russia. She responded: “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”

          snip […]

          This is true. As Slate has pointed out, on a clear day, those on the Alaskan island of Little Diomede can see the Russian island of Big Diomede, located across the International Date Line some two and a half miles away. Given that Big Diomede has no permanent population, the amount of foreign policy experience one can gain from staring at it is debatable. But you can see Russian soil while standing in Alaska.

          – Christian Science Monitor

          Lets let Sarah speak for herself:

          1. The SNL quip captured this absurdity perfectly and is therefore perfectly legitimate as short-hand for it.

          2. And if you still want to be literal, can you show me where I said that Palin had actually said that line? Didn’t think so. I can’t either.

    3. “There is a long-standing tradition in American politics that you don’t do anything political in the weeks leading up to an election.” – except for GHW Bush and Caspar Weinburger? Clintons were doing an end zone dance about that interference in an election.

      “My friends in the IT business assure me that they have sorted through many times as many emails as the FBI had to investigate in a matter of days, not months. ” Are these emails they sort printed on paper, instead of a on a device or thumb drive? Do they need to be searched for classified information?

    4. LOL. The rabid German Shepherd was singing the praises of Comey in July. I will bet 1K there are some emails that the Hillary criminals bleachbit from her server on Weiner’s computer. I’m sure there’s also semen on his computer as well. Dem pervert.

      1. Nick – there are reportedly 650,000 emails on that laptop. From Huma’s testimony we know that she cc her yahoo acct with classified material. This could be very interesting.

        1. Paul, I’m reading these over half million emails cover 3 investigations. The pedophile investigation, the Clinton Foundation, and the bleachedbit server. “Huma, meet Susan McDougal. Susan,..Huma.”

      2. Many here were condemning Comey as was the alleged child rapist Donald Trump. There is a court date in December.

          1. The plantiff evidentally had difficulty in finding a lawyer to represent her.
            I think she finally ended up with a patent attorney who took on her case.
            Given the potential payday, it seems likely that there would be a number of attorneys eager to take this case, if it had any realistic chance of succeeding.

        1. I’ve lost track of how many times this case has been dismissed, then re-instated.
          The December court date may not mean to much if this start-stop-start-stop-start etc. pattern continues.
          To date, it looks like the plantifg has been granted an unusual amount of leeway in refiling this lawsuit.
          It seems to be anybody’s guess as to if or when this revolving door legal saga is resolved, or if it continues to be dismissed and reinstated for years to come.

      3. Most dems can’t stand Weiner and are certainly not in denial that he is a perv. Can’t say the same for the Trump defenders.

  13. James Comey is damaging our democracy
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-is-damaging-our-democracy/2016/10/29/894d0f5e-9e49-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.635ccda64e3c

    As former deputy attorneys general in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, we are troubled by the apparent departure from these standards in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI — but also best practices in the handling of email and other matters. Now, he has chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions. As former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger aptly put it, “There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo.”

    At the same time, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch — nominally Comey’s boss — has apparently been satisfied with advising Comey but not ordering him to abide by the rules. She, no doubt, did not want to override the FBI director in such a highly political matter, but she should not have needed to. He should have abided by the policy on his own.

    Events as they have played out point to the value of the department’s traditions. Having taken the extraordinary steps of briefing the public, testifying before Congress about a decision not to prosecute and sharing investigative material, Comey now finds himself wanting to update the public and Congress on each new development in the investigation, even before he and others have had a chance to assess its significance. He may well have been criticized after the fact had he not advised Congress of the investigative steps that he was taking. But it was his job — consistent with the best traditions of the Department of Justice — to make the right decision and take that criticism if it came. Department officials owe the public an explanation of how events have unfolded the way they have. There must be some recognition that it is important not to allow an investigation to become hijacked by the red-hot passions of a political contest.

    As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

    1. Huma has got to be squirming. Thousands of emails are reported to be on that laptop and she swore to the FBI she did not have any more. Her husband is in an excellent position to cut a deal against her. Huma may bring Hillary down.

    2. “First, the FBI director, James B. Comey, put himself enthusiastically forward as the arbiter of not only whether to prosecute a criminal case — which is not the job of the FBI ” I thought Lynch abdicated that responsibility after her embarrassing meeting with Bill on the tarmac, which compromised her credibility.

      If Comey has information that he thinks the public should know, is he obliged to sit on it until after the election?

  14. It could be all planned for the benefit of Clinton. There is enough time for her to recover, especially if there is nothing new. This certainly makes Trump’s stupid claims of ‘rigging’ even less plausible or more stupid. Perhaps we will experience an upward swing into Nov. 8th with less trumpeting of election rigging. One thing is for sure, America is either into four years of another buffoon in the White House but a buffoon that makes Bush look like Ronald Reagan, or maybe, just maybe we can get on with fixing what needs to be fixed and Donald, ‘Chicken Little’/’Everybody is against me’ Trump will go back where he belongs, on reality TV. If ever there was a reality TV show it was this one.

    I hope this is not like baseball where you’re not supposed to talk about winning or losing while the games are still going on in order not to jinx it. It could be my fault that the Cubs lost the series and Trump won the White House. But WTF it will be Cleveland and Clinton and we can all laugh at Trump as he throws tantrums.

    1. Issac,
      “It could be all planned for the benefit of Clinton. There is enough time for her to recover, especially if there is nothing new. This certainly makes Trump’s stupid claims of ‘rigging’ even less plausible or more stupid.”

      If it was all planned for Clinton, then it is rigged. Not against Trump, but against us. She is so despised she is effectively tied with Trump.

      1. Or maybe Trump is so despised he is tied with her. A “normal” republican would be winning this by 8 points.

        1. Or anyone with a working brain. That is the main reason why Trump would be a disaster as President, short a few bricks.

          1. “Or anyone with a working brain.”

            So Clinton does not… if anyone with a working brain would be ahead by 8 points.

        1. Many are voting against Trump because of his associations with the anti-semites in the above video. Not sure that the emails will change that.

          1. I’m voting against him because he is a pathological liar, a raging narcissist, has the emotional maturity of a 6 year old, engages in the worst kind of slimy innuendo, is a paranoid conspiracy theorist, a white supremacist racist, and a sleazy sexual predator.

            I wish life was always this easy.

  15. Hillary is done. She will lose the election and even if somehow she won she would never sit as President. She will be criminally indicted as will Bill and Huma and possibly even Obama.

    FBI has multiple investigations and one was open still before this story broke friday.

    The Clinton Foundation is coming down and it is going to take many including Obama with it

  16. Exclusive: FBI still does not have warrant to review new Abedin emails linked to Clinton probe
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    That Comey and other senior FBI officials were not aware of what was in the emails — and whether they contained any material the FBI had not already obtained — is important because Donald Trump’s campaign and Republicans in Congress have suggested that the FBI director would not have written his letter unless he had been made aware of significant new emails that might justify reopening the investigation into the Clinton server.

    But a message that Comey wrote to all FBI agents Friday seeking to explain his decision to write the controversial letter strongly hinted that investigators did not not yet have legal authority establishing “probable cause” to review the content of Abedin’s emails on Weiner’s electronic devices.

    1. But now we learn that Weiner is cooperating with the FBI. So, no warrant required, is that correct?

      1. C. Shannon – the emails were sent to Huma. They need her cooperation or a search warrant. Since they we investigating Weiner, they only have access to those emails and Twitter accounts controlled by him.

    1. It’s a good thing we only have to worry about the “Trump spin meisters”.
      There are no partisan Hillary Hacks…..the objectivity of the Clinton apologists is on full display here.

      1. tnash

        I have yet to read a Clinton apologist or spin meister, including my stuff. The bottom line of how I see stuff is that as distasteful as Clinton may be, Trump is equally distasteful and with no sign of having learned anything. Trump is also unstable and unlearned in the ways of the world outside of the third of his enterprises that have succeeded. Trump plays to illusion and it seems as time goes by he may be his biggest mark. With Clinton we see a hint of regret, stated admission of having made mistakes, and a wealth of experience to indicate that perhaps she can learn. With Trump there is layer upon layer of lies even when they are not necessary, an almost laughable explanation of the world’s problems and his solutions-almost laughable but only because in the private sector we can laugh at Trump, not in the public sector. The endgame for Trump is his inability to stop himself and his narcissistic self gratification. Trump could have had the Presidency had he contained his ignorance and sought advice in the proper fields. Instead he mindlessly repeated the same drivel to the same core of support, even after he had them wrapped up. Trump was too stupid to move on to the middle third that would have gone with him. No one really cares about his past sexual faux pas. The insight into Trump is that he couldn’t keep his mouth shut even when running for President. Too stupid to see what was laid out in front of him for the taking, too dangerous to be President. History is full of his sort; but in failed and often tragic adventures.

        1. ” a wealth of experience to indicate that perhaps she can learn.” I don’t mean to be rude, but this is ridiculous. She has spent her entire public life lying and obstructing and bending every rule. And you think she can learn, at this late stage?

          1. Part of Hillary’s “wealth of experience” was her vote to overthrow Saddam.
            “Perhaps she can learn”. Yes, she “learned” to take out Gaddafi 8 years later.
            Now if she does “the Assad must go” bit during her first term, and Syria becomes even more of a mess as a result, some of her supporters may tout her additional “wealth of experience”, and how these should just all be viewed as a wonderful opportunity for her to learn from her mistakes.

      2. Many of the people here who prefer Hillary over Trump are not her apologists. Many of those who prefer Hillary over Trump dislike Hillary in varying degrees. Many would not vote for her if there was a sane, competent alternative on the ballot. There is not a sane, competent alternative of the ballot.

        The Trump supporters who try to defend Trump’s behavior or who argue that he has the skills to do the job of President leave me cold. His behavior is indefensible, and his behavior patterns are not going to change. His chief skill is hucksterism. Many (not all, by any means) people have fallen for his sales pitch primarily out of desperation and fear. He thrives on fear. Fear makes otherwise rational and intelligent people do things they would not otherwise do. Just like the fear that led to the enactment of the Homeland Security Act.

        Trump is in this for himself and no one else. He has no realistic vision to restore the common good. The decisions that he makes in office, if he is elected (and by no means should anyone count him out), will reflect these facts.

        If Trump supporters admit that they are willing to put up with all of the problems that will be caused by his behavior because they don’t want Hillary appointing Supreme Court Justices, I question their judgment far less than if they claim that Trump has any additional redeeming virtues other than being the ignition switch that starts the explosion which results in chaos, assuming that you accept the premise that such chaos is better than what we have right now.

        I’m choosing the train wreck that will follow Hillary’s election instead of the train wreck that will follow Trump’s election. Question my judgment as you wish, but please don’t call me a Hillary apologist.

        1. Don de Drain – I watch 2 1/2 hours of a deposition of Donald Trump in suit over his newest venture. The restaurant had backed out claiming Trump made racist comments. When they backed out there was not time to get someone else in so they build a ballroom/conference room there. Donald was suing for damages and back rent.
          It was an insight into how he works. Although he signed the contracts, he did not read them (his attorney and son do that). His son was in charge of finding someone for the space. His daughter has other assigned duties.
          He was very calm and collected throughout. Very polite to opposing counsel. And tried to end things on a good personal note.

        2. Don de Drain-
          There is a choice between a political novice with no resume, and an entrenched political figure with an exceptionally poor record.
          In view of that, people on both sides are free to opine about “the only sane choice”.
          People are also free to regard question the judgement of those who lecture about “the ONLY sane choice”.

Comments are closed.