Mr. Comey, admit it. Your choice was political.


There are those who praise Comey’s sincerity;

But his actions lacked balance and clarity.

It’s a hoot and a joke

That in her case he spoke,

But in Trump’s case he lacked the temerity.


Leave a comment
  • There's no proof of that. If he wanted to do something political, he could have taken it to a grand jury (as the Republican convention yelled) and indict her (as Mario Cuomo put it, a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich). I thought he was going to do that, especially when he said she was sending classified information over insecure links. But he didn't.

    On the other hand, you, and especially Hillary and Rahm, did not explain why they were using domains such as clintonemail and rahmemail to conduct public business, or why anyone else was using Weiner's cell phone (not to mention Weiner himself giving rise to probable cause to investigate it).

    In short, for political reasons, you wanted the FBI Director to lie to Congress. That's a crime, too.

  • You accuse AW of wanting Comey to "lie to Congress." I'm afraid you have bought into Comey's false dichotomy. In his testimony he said “I could see two doors, and they were both actions. One was labeled ‘Speak’; the other was labeled ‘Conceal.’”

    He wants us to believe that if he did not disclose a newly opened investigation, he would be "concealing." In fact, under the rules of the Department of Justice this is exactly what he is commanded to do with pending criminal investigations. That he chose at this sensitive time in the democratic process to do what he was commanded not to do, while choosing to follow the command with investigation information concerning Trump's campaign certainly suggests a political motivation. Silence on a pending investigation is not a lie.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Lying includes failure to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

    Aside from whether one wants to accept his explanation of his motivation or not, you have not cited any such "Department of Justice policy," which, under the Administrative Procedure Act would have to be a public document. Also, any such command would have to be public, but you seem the first to have mentioned it. You can also explain that if he violated a command of the Department of Justice, why Loretta Lynch nor Jeff Sessions has taken whatever action is open to them, either to publicize the violation or remove him from office (even if that would take recommending impeachment). Yet, it appears that all Lynch said was that the Justice Dept. concurred in the recommendation not to refer Clinton for prosecution.

    In short, your research here is totally unconvincing. Try again.

  • In reply to jack:

    Take a look at the United States Attorneys' Manual 1-7.530

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Deals with relations with the media. Might have been relevant to Scott Lassar telling the media there was no investigation of George Ryan; not Comey testifying to or informing Congress. Only things he said directly to the media was that he was not referring Clinton to the Attorney General for prosecution.

    Also note subsection B of that provision.

    So, so far you are 0 for 2.

  • In reply to jack:

    You can also take a look at the Attorney General's memo of March 9, 2012.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Deals with investigation of "election crimes," as defined therein. Clinton was not investigated for an election crime, but use of an unauthorized email server, or more particularly improper use of government and classified information.

  • The other thing I tried to point out (and may get lost in someone's discussion of his interpretations of Justice Dept. memoranda), is that while Comey may have been a proximate cause,the precipitating cause was,as I said, the use of the private email server for government business (which, was debated several years ago, could have constituted violations of the Federal Records Act and FOIA, and later the protection of classified information).

    This is no different than some Yahoo! commenters saying that the Chinese intentionally set up Ivanka by shipping flammable fabrics, when the real question was why she was doing her manufacturing in China rather than North Carolina.

  • In reply to jack:

    But, of course, you should add to your first paragraph that the FBI and the rest of the Justice Department determined there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Your pettifoggery does not persuade me that AW is wrong.

Leave a comment