The Not-So-Complex Case of FBI Director James Comey

In just three months, the Director of the FBI, appointed by President Obama and approved by Reid’s Senate by 93 to 1, has gone from being a man of integrity to a political hack and quite possibly a criminal.

As soon as I walked into the kitchen this morning, where my wife had the TV on, I heard a Hillary Clinton “surrogate” attacking FBI Director James Comey for informing Congressional leaders that he was re-opening the criminal investigation of Clinton for possible illegal handling of classified information to which she was privy as Secretary of State.

All through breakfast, struggling to enjoy my frittata, sausages, and croissants (my wife does not skimp), I saw fulminating faces pitching the Clinton line: What Comey had done was unfair, unethical, unprecedented; he had no idea what was in the emails; they probably were the same emails the FBI already had seen; “incomprehensible” to re-open the investigation; the FBI must release all emails instantly; the FBI had created an “intolerable situation”… The big faces filling the screen sweated with moral intensity.

Just to give you a preview of what is to come:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) back in June, when Comey announced he was closing the investigation of Clinton, declaring that although she had been “extremely careless” with classified information, there was not enough evidence at that time to prosecute her, declared: “No one can question the integrity of this man.”

Harry Reid, yesterday, when the appearance of a mountain of possible new evidence convinced Comey that he must keep his pledge to Congress, made under oath back in July, to reopen the investigation if new possible new evidence appeared, wrote in a public letter to Comey: “Your actions…have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another.” Just to be clear, he added, “… you may have broken the law.”

In just three months, the Director of the FBI, appointed by President Obama and approved by Reid’s Senate by 93 to 1, has gone from being a man of integrity to a political hack and quite possibly a criminal. What other explanation can there be except possibly that Harry Reid is an unprincipled liar who will say anything for the sake of politics? Actually…

1. Why did Comey re-open the Clinton email investigation, now”? Answer: On Thursday, an FBI team investigating the Anthony Weiner text-messaging sex case in New York City, got in touch with the FBI team that had investigated the Clinton private email server case and the possibility of the Secretary of State having mishandled classified documents. The Weiner team said: We found lots of emails that seem relevant to the Clinton case (after 9/11, separate FBI teams and other federal investigators are supposed to share information, remember?).

2. Why did Comey re-open the case at all? Answer: On Friday, the day after the Clinton team got this information, they went to Director Comey with it. He examined the information and ascertained that it seemed “pertinent” to the Clinton investigation. These were materials apparently never seen in the investigation of Clinton that the FBI concluded in July.

3. Why did Comey release the information that he was re-opening the investigation? Answer: He did not release it publicly. Deciding that the materials warranted re-opening the Clinton investigation, he informed the chairmen of eight Congressional committees, along with their vice chairman–i.e., Republican and Democratic leaders of all the committees—that he had found evidence warranting a re-opening of the investigation.

4. Why did he release the information at all? After all, as soon as they received the letter from Comey, some of the chairmen of the Congressional committees leaked it to the press. Answer: Comey told his FBI staff and the Justice Department that ordinarily the FBI would not release even to Congress news that an investigation was being opened and, in particular, the Justice Department ‘guidance” was against releasing such information affecting a public official 60 days before elections. But, said Comey, this was special.

 

5. What special factors could justify Comey’s notifying Congressional chairmen of the investigation, when the Justice Department had a precedent—although not a law or regulation–against it? Answer: This was not a new investigation. The FBI had been investigating the Clinton private email server and possible security leaks of classified information up until July 1 of this year.

   What is more, also under oath, he had testified that if any new information came to light, he would review it, a.k.a., re-open the investigation.

   There was immense pressure on the FBI to close the investigation because Secretary of State Clinton was a candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Under intense criticism for a “cover-up,” Comey nevertheless testified to the Congressional committees in July that the FBI was closing the investigation. Hillary Clinton’s handling of the situation had been “extremely careless” and bad judgment, he testified, but there was not enough evidence to recommend prosecuting her. And so, on this most recent Friday, Comey was re-opening an investigation that he had testified under oath he was closing. What is more, also under oath, he had testified that if any new information came to light, he would review it, a.k.a., re-open the investigation. As Yahoo News reports: “Comey was further compelled to review the documents based on two factors: the volume of documents and his commitment under oath to Congress to review ‘any new and substantial information,’ the source also said.”

 

6. But didn’t the Justice Department tell him not to inform Congress of re-opening the investigation? Answer: Comey checked in with the Justice Department on the matter and was advised that the Department did not inform Congress when opening criminal investigations of public officials less than 60 days before an election. And, as stated, he replied: This is a new investigation. I testified to Congress I was closing it and under oath that I would re-open if warranted. Now, I am re-opening it and feel obligated to inform the Congressional chairs and vice chairs. In addition, that July decision to close the investigation had a very significant effect on the Presidential election, so the public deserves to know that that decision has been reversed.

 

7. So the Justice Department did advise Comey not to inform Congress? Answer: Apparently, that is right. (By the way, Comey is not unaware of Justice Department policies and practices. Before President Obama appointed him FBI Director, Comey was #2 at the Justice Department.) Comey gave the reasons explained above and went ahead. The rest is speculation. Did the top Obama appointees at Justice, knowing this announcement would be political dynamite, want to distance themselves? And did Comey let them do that? (He is sort of famous as a tough-minded “I will take all responsibility” kind of lawman. But no one knows.)

 

8. But isn’t it true that all Hillary Clinton and the talking-face legion on Sunday morning TV are demanding is that the FBI release all information and reach and announce a decision before November 8 and the election? Answer: Yes. They have literally zero other options. Typically, someone under criminal investigation (Chapter 18. U.S. Code) by the FBI is not able to demand that the FBI keep to a certain timetable and high public officials have no different rights in that regard. But let’s get real: this is a candidate for the U.S. Presidency and a gigantic amount is at stake. Apparently, there are hundreds of thousands of emails on the computer that a top Clinton aide shared with her then-husband, Anthony Weiner. The questions about each email will be, at least as I understand it: Does this convey classified information? If so, was that information classified when transmitted? Is any of this information now known to have leaked to foreign sources? And did Secretary of State Clinton knowingly and intentionally share classified information or was this more “extremely careless mishandling”?

 

9. . But should a case like this, coming up just 11 days before a U.S. Presidential election, be permitted to have potentially momentous consequences for the outcome? Answer: In one sense, this question merely rephrases earlier questions: Why did this come up now? (New evidence came to light.) Why announce it? (It already was a prominent factor in the election, this was an update.) The July testimony of FBI Director Comey to Congress appeared to take the issue of potential criminal charges against Clinton out of the election; the new evidence brought it back in and the public had a right to know. Will it, though, affect the outcome of the election?

   The “message” is awful, so portray the messenger as politically motivated, in violation of accepted practices, bearing a message of no importance, and breaking the law.

   Just two days after the FBI letter to Congressional chairmen and vice chairmen, the chief impact has been to put the Clinton campaign in full attack mode; in the context, one cannot fault them. What else can they do? The “message” is awful, so portray the messenger as politically motivated, in violation of accepted practices, bearing a message of no importance, and breaking the law. The first polls reflecting impact of the new information suggest that one-third of registered voters now are “less inclined” to vote for Clinton. Another poll suggests that Clinton and Trump are neck-and-neck in the race. Against that is the factor rightly cited by Mrs. Clinton that most voters have made up their minds about “the emails.”

 

But what will be the upshot on November 8 and beyond? Answer: Excuse me, you may be confusing me with the Oracle at Delphi. I am just a very confused and conflicted American voter. I am ever so grateful to solicit your thoughts about all this.

 

 

(Visited 185 times, 1 visits today)
   

Related Posts:

1. 20 Reasons Objectivists and Libertarians Should Vote for Trump in 2020
2. The Debate Was “Folly”—but Ask What It Accomplished
3. An Open Letter to Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia

   

About the Author: Walter Donway



Walter Donway contributes to Savvy Street on political economy, science, and trends in fiction, film, and culture. Walter Donway’s most recent book is Donald Trump and His Enemies: How the Media Put Trump in Office (Romantic Revolution Books: New York, September 2017). His Amazon profile can be found here