James Comey’s abuse of power

[swag]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comeys-abuse-of-power/2016/07/06/7799d39e-4392-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html

By Matthew Miller

Matthew Miller was director of the Justice Department’s public affairs office from 2009 to 2011.


Excerpt:
. . .

In this case, Comey ignored those rules to editorialize about what he called carelessness by Clinton and her aides in handling classified information, a statement not grounded in any position in law. He recklessly speculated that Clinton’s email system could have been hacked, even while admitting he had no evidence that it was. This conjecture, which has been the subject of much debate and heated allegations, puts Clinton in the impossible position of having to prove a negative in response.

In several instances, Comey made assertions that are outside the authority of the FBI. He inserted himself into a long-standing bureaucratic battle between the State Department and the FBI and intelligence agencies, making claims about classification practices at the State Department that do not fall under his jurisdiction. He raised the possibility of administrative sanctions that could be taken, another decision that is not his to make — any such sanctions, if appropriate, would be decided by the State Department, not the director of the FBI.

He also substituted his judgment for that of prosecutors. Career prosecutors at Justice have been working hand in hand with FBI agents on the case, even joining the interview with Clinton. While it is hard to imagine they would have reached a different conclusion about the appropriateness of charges, they deserved the ability to make that decision privately, in consultation with the FBI, rather than hear the agency’s recommendation at the same time the public did.

Comey argued that his statement was appropriate because this case was a matter of unusual public interest. But the department investigates cases involving extreme public interest all the time — suspected terrorist acts, alleged civil rights violations by police and possible crimes by financial institutions, for example. It is for precisely these situations that the rules exist, so that the department cannot speak outside the bounds of court when it does not bring charges.

Imagine a situation in which the Obama Justice Department investigates major conservative activists such as the Koch brothers for possibly violating the law, but finding no reason to bring charges, the attorney general holds a news conference to outline all of the ways in which she finds their conduct deplorable. A Republican attorney general declining to bring charges against union officials but publicly excoriating their behavior would be similarly objectionable.

. . . more

[Gothmog]

1. Great editorial

[Igel]

2. I have no objection to what he did in principle.

Perhaps I'd disagree with some aspects, but if he'd just stuck to a narrow script it would have been worse for all but believers. Lynch said she was all but deferring, so defending the DOJ when the DOJ doesn't defend itself is like being more righteous than Jesus. It's straining for a point that fails.

I suspect that Comey didn't say what he said on his own, that he had political and perhaps legal cover. I haven't heard HRC making accusations that he went overboard, and if I were her I might well have said that the best way of putting this to rest isn't what looks like a cover-up but making clear what happened and that it doesnt' meet the standards. The (R) committees ready to grill her will have little to say except to point out glaring inconsistencies that are reasonable and already known.

Had Comey said, "Sorry, no evidence for charges. No questions, I'm late for lunch" immediately the suspicion would have been that his boss, who endorsed and was campaigning with HRC, had said a few words. "No, the President didn't discuss this" would have been another typical lie--"typical lie" when we disagree, but God's honest truth when we want to believe.

This may not convince a lot of people, but I figure a lot of in-betweeners will say, "Eh, sounds reasonable." Yeah, she messed up, and that's a problem. Then again, she did mess up and most of the argumentation is about whether we should be allowed to admit it or whether we have to deny that doing something wrong is actually doing something wrong. The real issue isn't whether she messed up, but whether she messed up in a serious way that compromised security and showed a flagrant disregard of the laws and regs. Is she lying, or just in error about a number of points? Comey addressed those.