General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsComey didn't blow up Clinton. Chaffetz did.
What Comey said on July 5:Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a persons actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
What Comey said on October 28:
Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.
What Chaffetz tweeted:
Link to tweet
Comey's October letter is exculpatory on its own merits. The most that can be said against Comey in hindsight is that he erred by not explicitly re-stating the FBI's earlier conclusions in his October letter. The single tweet by Chaffetz, along with the subsequent media attention it drew, twisted the story into alignment with GOP/Russian propaganda.
(On edit: He spun it by not saying which investigation it was pertinent to and what case had been re-opened (hint: it was not the Clinton server investigation) and leading people to draw an erroneous conclusion.)
The anger and hatred directed at James Comey here and elsewhere is IMO utterly misplaced. It belongs solely to another JC: Jason Chaffetz.
still_one
(92,422 posts)republicans in Congress, he knew exactly what the results would be.
MSNBC was the first network to report as breaking news that "the email investigation had been reopened". THAT WAS A LIE.
They then proceeded to parade every right wing politician across their screen for the next two hours. Soon all the other networks joined in the same chorus.
Both Comey and Chaffetz deserve all scorn that can be thrown at them.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Comey was very clear in what he said. But he expected people to read his words with their bright minds, not their dark souls. Instead of assuming "he knew" or even "he should have known" one could equally assume he was pressured into sending a letter that did not implicate Clinton in anything... There is as yet no actual evidence for one over the other.
still_one
(92,422 posts)election
He is not naïveté, and that is exactly what you are portraying him as
perhaps you missed his version in the NYTimes where he defended his actions by saying he did it to stay above the political fray. The evidence is right before your eyes. 11 days before a critical election
Comey can go to hell. He is a POS with no integrity
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... etc shouldn't get involved
still_one
(92,422 posts)LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)I've been saying this for a while but there are many on DU who disagree. President Obama had faith in Comey for some reason and I trust President Obama.
ChaffedNutz and Giuliani were going to leak the fake email shit and make Comey look like he was a Clinton shill. He had no choice. He didn't release Trump info because Dems weren't playing dirty like GOP pigs.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)against false smears rather than our election. He served himself not us
LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)Integrity?
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)delisen
(6,044 posts)about Comey being a good man.
One can be a good man and make a very bad decision.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)And look what came out of it.
Me.
(35,454 posts)He's not a stupid man, and it wasn't an 'oh gosh, I didn't know this could happen' moment. He's been around more than one or two blocks and knew, imho, exactly who he was dealing with in Chaffetz.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The facts (i.e. the two letters) don't speak to such a conclusion at all.
Me.
(35,454 posts)And shouldn't have said anything
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)oasis
(49,410 posts)Hillary not attaining the necessary votes to reach the White House.
Although Comey's true intent will probably never be revealed, he blew it, big time.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The second one made reference to the conclusions outlined in the first (actually the first was not a letter but a news release.) No conflation there.
Is there another significant letter I have not mentioned?
boston bean
(36,223 posts)to make a difference.
The first letter did the damage, the second letter did diddly squat to minimize the danger.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I don't see the damage you're talking about, which IMO all came from the Chaffetz tweet.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)AFAIK there was only one letter on the 28th. Google shows nothing re an earlier letter. Can you clarify?
boston bean
(36,223 posts)In previous congressional testimony, l referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.
In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and 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.
Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-text-fbi-letter-announcing-new-clinton-review-230463
This is what Comey sent on Nov 7th, two days before the election:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/comey-tells-congress-fbi-has-not-changed-conclusions/
Is that clear?
still_one
(92,422 posts)initially was trying to say it could take a long time to determine if it was relevant. It was only after experts in the field called him out on that, that it was finished by the end of the week
And yes, after all the damage had been done, and then on Friday afternoon
still_one
(92,422 posts)ahead and did it anyway speaks volumes that the asshole knew exacatly what he was doing
cilla4progress
(24,777 posts)Easy to see in hindsight the error of his decision.
So, can we connect this to Chaffetz's recent turnabout on re-running and possibly even quitting partway through his term?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)cilla4progress
(24,777 posts)It all comes out in the wash!
still_one
(92,422 posts)11 days before the election to the republicans in Congress said he didn't know if it contained relevant information. (What does that mean? Maybe yes, maybe no. How do you think that sounds to a voting public 11 days before an election.
3. The AG specifically told him NOT to release the letter to the republicans in Congress this close to the election because it would have an impact.
4. After the letter he said it could take time to analyze if the information was relevant. It was only after computer experts called him out that by saying it should take a few days did he say they were working hard to see.
5. He released the final conclusion that there was nothing new on the Friday the week before the election.
Poor naive Comey. (NOT!!!!!!!!)
emulatorloo
(44,187 posts)But didn't really care about Dems.
James Comeys Fear of EveryoneExcept DemocratsHelped Donald Trump Upset Hillary Clinton
Comey thought a lot about the rabid Republican zealots he could offend by doing his job and enforcing the law, and not at all about the Democrats he trusted would be docile and play by the rules.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/24/james-comey-s-fear-of-everyone-except-democrats-helped-donald-trump-upset-hillary-clinton.html
We see in three instances that he feared the wrath of the Republicans. One, if he didnt break precedent and speak harshly of Clinton while officially exonerating her last summer. So he spoke harshly. Two, if he didnt announce in late October that the investigation was reopened. So he announced the investigation (which, as we learned too late, again amounted to nothing) was reopened.
And three, if the Republicans in Congress decided post-election to include him and the bureau in its inevitable Clinton witch hunts. So he beat them to the witch hunt, and finally said she was clear just as she drowned. The article doesnt say this, but surely Comey also feared GOP wrath if he did confirm before the election that Donald Trump was under investigation too, which he finally confirmed last month.
Snip
But nowhere does the article say that Comey feared how Democrats would react if he raked Clinton over the rhetorical coals without bringing charges. Of course he didnt! Democrats dont scare anybody.
As I recall things, some Democrats expressed some outrage, but it was scattered, nothing like what the Republicans would have done had the shoe been on the other foot. It took the efforts of Matt Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman for Eric Holder, to crystallize for people the contention that what Comey did was in fact outrageous. Miller called it an abuse of power, and he was rightand I confess that even I didnt see things that way until I read Millers writings about it.
Much more at link.
still_one
(92,422 posts)he didn't want to show favoritism, and stay above the political fray
So, we have an FBI director who say he wants to get the FBI above the political fray, who then immerses the FBI into the political fray.
Sorry, but give me a break
In other words, I don't buy it, but it is an interesting blurb from the daily beast
emulatorloo
(44,187 posts)that NYT didn't connect. Comey fucked up badly.
still_one
(92,422 posts)LisaL
(44,974 posts)releasing information about investigation into Clinton's emails (but nothing about investigation into Trump's campaign and Russia) he wasn't showing favoritism?
still_one
(92,422 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... partisan.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)He never had a legitimate reason to be investigating her to begin with.
And, yes, Chaffetz is even worse. He is a career criminal. And his actions warrant censure by the House of Representatives.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts).... get the benefit of the doubt
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Because as far as I can tell, he and Dana Boente are all that's standing between your nation and the abyss.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Oh the tales I could tell were it not for the very reasonable limits on polite internet discourse. Also, fwiw, I don't think his skillful swiftboating was determinative, but it gave the usual suspects cover for their thievery.