James Comey’s Appalling Abuse of Office
“I got a lot of respect for Jim Comey, but I don’t understand this idea of dropping this bombshell which could be a big dud,” said former federal prosector Peter Zeidenberg, a veteran of politically sensitive investigations. “Doing it in the last week or ten days of a presidential election without more information, I don’t that he should because how does it inform a voter? It just invites speculation … I would question the timing of it. It’s not going to get done in a week.”
Nick Akerman, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, was more critical: “Director Comey acted totally inappropriately. He had no business writing to Congress about supposed new emails that neither he nor anyone in the FBI has ever reviewed.”
“It is not the function of the FBI Director to be making public pronouncements about an investigation, never mind about an investigation based on evidence that he acknowledges may not be significant,” Akerman added. “The job of the FBI is simply to investigate and to provide the results of its investigation to the prosecutorial arm of the US Department of Justice. His job is not to give a running commentary about any investigation or his opinion about any investigation. This is particularly egregious since Secretary Clinton has no way to respond to what amounts to nebulous and speculative innuendo.”
— Comey’s disclosure shocks former prosecutors, Josh Gerstein, Darren Samuelsohn and Isaac Arnsdorf, Politico, 6:59 p.m. today
Former prosecutors aren’t the only ones shocked by Comey’s disclosure. I have firsthand knowledge of this and can attest to that fact.
This strikes me as an outright abuse of office by Comey. As FBI director he learned that the FBI had found new information potentially relevant to a closed investigation but had not reviewed it yet and so its significance is uncertain. What legal authority does he have to disclose this? Any? At all?
I have no expertise whatsoever on the breadth of latitude that law enforcement investigative agencies have to disclose raw investigative information, but it sure as hell seems to me unlikely that it extends to willy-nilly disclosure of that information.
This guy apparently thinks that his first obligation is to protect his own reputation from certain types of criticism.* But actually it is not.
He chose to serve his own interest when faced with what amounted to a conflict of interest. He doesn’t belong in that job.
____
*I added that link at 11:22 p.m. after reading the Washington Post article that the link is to, in which dismayed former prosecutors and former Department of Justice officials make statements similar to mine. What also is clear from that article, which reports on a letter Comey emailed to FBI employees this afternoon explaining his decision to notify Congress, is that Comey seems not to understand the role of the FBI in a matter of this sort, and misunderstands the meaning of the term “cover-up” as including ongoing investigations that have not been publicly disclosed, rather than just killing investigations.
Bev – Assume Comey is telling the truth, He learned about emails on a Weiner device yesterday.
What should he do? Put this knowledge in a drawer for a few weeks? Hope that no one at the FBI calls the WSJ about a “secret file”? Recall that Comey already looks the fool for giving HRC a clean bill of health in July.
If it came out later that he withheld evidence (even if there was nothing of substance) the cry would be “Rigged”. We do not want that outcome.
Comey was right to disclose this. But he has an obligation to confirm there is nothing of substance in Huma’s emails. He has to to do that ASAP
That this is about Creepy Weiner is totally off the charts. America looks the fool.
Put this knowledge in a drawer for a few weeks? Hope that no one at the FBI calls the WSJ about a “secret file”? If it came out later that he withheld evidence (even if there was nothing of substance) the cry would be “Rigged”?
What the hell are you TALKING ABOUT? Do you not understand what the job–the role–of the FBI IS?
Comey’s job was to oversee an FBI investigation. Period. They need a court order before they can look at the emails. They’re seeking a court order. There are about 1,000 emails. All or most may be copies of ones they already had during the earlier investigation. All of them are emails that Abedin sent to Clinton.
Withheld evidence from WHOM? Evidence of what?
Hope that no one at the FBI calls the WSJ about a “secret file”? A secret file? Really? Since when is an FBI INVESTIGATION, constituting review of newly found documents that they may already have had and reviewed, a “secret file”? And since when is it improper for the FBI or any other law enforcement investigative agency to not make public raw information that they don’t even know the contents of? Since when is it improper for the FBI or any other law enforcement investigative agency to not make public the fact of ongoing investigations and information about those investigations? Normally it’s considered improper TO do that. Rigged? How so, exactly?
What a bizarre claim.
The big story already is the utter dismay among former prosecutors that Comey did this and then emailed a letter to FBI employees explaining that he thought he thought he owed it to the American public to release information whose meaning he does not know because he doesn’t know what information is there and whether any of it is new. That’s just preposterous: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-james-b-comey-under-fire-for-his-controversial-decision-on-the-clinton-email-inquiry/2016/10/28/fbad009c-9d57-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_comey-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
And, no, I don’t recall that Comey already looks the fool for giving HRC a clean bill of health in July. My recollection differs from yours.
BK:
There is no assumption in the process. Either it is or it is not. Either the government can prove intent or it can not. “Assume” has no place in the justice system. Either the defendant has the burden of proof or the prosecution does.
What should Mr. Comey do? Go get a court order instead of violating someone’s 4th amendment rights. He knows both and yet he did it. If he is incorrect, the impact of what he did now places Weiner’s investigation in jeopardy (and his attorney will challenge it) as well as disrupting a national election with an Assumption and violating HRC’s right to a fair day in court. 8 times in front of The House so for and what have they offered up??? Nothing which can be proven except assumptions.
America does not look foolish which is why we are a nation of laws. Comey was right on the first investigation. He could not prove “intent.” As far as Weiner? Because of Mr. Comey’s efforts to snear HRC, Weiner now has an out.
Well Bev, we disagree. You would have been happy if Comey never said a word? You like the “keep em in the dark” approach? Really?
Me? I agree with the editors of the NYT:
Mrs. Clinton, as she has acknowledged, is responsible for this mess, which led Friday night to a gobsmacking headline on CNN: “Weiner Sexting Probe Leads F.B.I. to Review Clinton Case.” If she is elected, she will do well to recall that line should she ever consider being less than forthcoming.
I also agree with the editors at the WSJ:
It’s also vintage Hillary Clinton—her preoccupation with secrecy, her recklessness, her lifelong conviction that she’ll never be held accountable.
I also like the cover of the NY Post:
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-post-weiner-clinton-emails-fbi-2016-10
BJ:
Disagree? You offer up something which you know nothing about.
“1. They were not from Hillary
2. They were not from her private server
3. They were not from her investigation
4. They were not withheld from the FBI by Clinton
5. They were found on a computer seized during an investigation of former Rep. Anthony Weiner.”
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/10/28/quick-takes-clinton-email-freakout-oh-nevermind/
There is no connection to HRC until the emails are read and they can only be reviewed after a court order silly.
This an independent event from the investigation of HRC emails and server. Indeed if Weiner’s attorney is any good, he would be calling for throwing everything out as this revelation has poisoned the pot for Mr. Weiner and what ever investigation he is involved in today. He can never get a fair trial thanks to Mr. Comey. Oh but poisoning the well for HRC and disrupting an election is far more important than a fair trial for another.
NY Post, oh that is a credible reference for sure.
Run – You’re quite right – I don’t know what this is about. But neither do you, or Bev, or the press. No one knows what this is about. You don’t find that to be a problem?
Reread my comment. I said that Comey has an obligation to clear the air ASAP. That is about, word for word, what HRC has been saying. You don’t agree with her?
As for the Post; Best sports pages in print, Love page 6, interesting Biz stories and front pages that that have achieved high public awareness for decades. This morning Naked Capitalism provided the whole cover in their comments section. I’m not the only one who who thought it was worth a look.
So I don’t misunderstand you – Can you clarify your position on this whole mess? Should Comey have said anything about his knowledge of Weiner emails until after the election? Yes or no to that please.
What on earth makes you think it’s appropriate for the FBI director or any other government investigative office or department to tell the public 11 days before election day and while voting is currently occurring in more than 20 states, about the agency’s discovery a day or two earlier of raw information concerning a presidential nominee of any other electoral candidate, that the agency has yet to obtain actual access and does not know the substance and specifics of?
I have to say, you’re claim that this is fine because he doesn’t know what this is about is CRAZY. If he doesn’t know what this is about, why is he disclosing it?
If this man actually believes that he was obligated–not just authorized, but obligated–to tell the American public this, he has a seriously troubling view of what his obligations as FBI director ARE.
BK:
Comey has an obligation to get a court order and talk to the Justice Department. You can not just seize things and start investigating. Neither can he announce anything either. There is not basis for what he did other than break the law also. Yves can be wrong also the same as you.
Bev – According to Newsweek Comey had no choice. He had to inform Congress that the FBI was reopening the file. That is the law. From NW:
“Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau
had completed its review. Once he learned that
there were new emails that required examination,
Comey had to notify Congress that he had to
amend his testimony because it was no
longer true.”
Got it? He had to. So now you have the reason why he disclosed it. He was Obligated to do exactly what he did.
Does the fact that Comey was required by law to divulge this change your position?
Does this clarification cause you to rethink the last line in your comment above? You say, “he has a seriously troubling view of what his obligations as FBI director ARE.”
That’s not correct. He did what he was required to. Comey is not a fool. He had a half dozen FBI lawyers review the letter before he signed it.
Would you have preferred that the head of the FBI deliberately break the law?
The News Week article:
http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-reviewing-more-clinton-emails-514825?rel=most_read2
Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau had completed its review. Once he learned that
there were new emails that required examination, Comey had to notify Congress that he had to
amend his testimony because it was no longer true?
WOW. That is UTTER NONSENSE–although I know that that is something that COMEY is claiming. That Newsweek just repeats it as gospel is seriously outrageous.
What Comey testified to under oath is what was true when he testified to it under oath. There is no obligation to apprise investigators, a grand jury, the FBI, Congress, or any other investigative body or agency, that something that was true when you said it has now changed. This is NOT an instance of misstating a fact and learning later that the fact you stated was not true when you stated it; that may or may not require correction, depending on the circumstances, but it is NOT what happened in THIS circumstance.
If Comey truly doesn’t recognize the difference, he’s wayyyyy over his head in that job he has.
This is bullsh_t of the first magnitude.
As far as the timing issue goes, it is more devastating than most realize. It is widely accepted among psychologists that the period of short-term memory for most people is about two weeks. You can remember day by day what happened in the last two weeks,and what happened in that period tends to be uppermost in your mind, with all before that “in the past,”” whether Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns or his groping or whatever. It will be this Comey bit that will be the top item, unless we have something even more dramatic prior to the election.
Regarding Comey, I get it that supposedly he only learned of this, whatever it is, two days ago, so no way to have it out a week earlier and thus less politically damaging. As it is, about the worst they are likely to find is a few more emails that might have something in them that were later classified, which was pretty much it in the thousands of other emails looked at already. Oh, I think maybe they found three or so that were classified at the time?
And of course this whole issue has become entirely political and of no real import. I mean, does anybody think she will use a private email server while she is in the White House? Is that the issue? Or is it finally after all these decades nailing her with having committed an illegal act, when Trump has been guilty of that over 1,000 times, but, hey, who cares, he is a billioinaire and made out of course settlements on all of them or else bribed attorneys general such as the one in Florida to just drop it.
No, as I just explained in a new post, Newsweek’s statement about the law is bullsh_t. Newsweek was using Comey’s own early-on claim, which he apparently stopped using by the time he sent an email to FBI employees late yesterday.
He might well have broken the law by doing what he did. But he sure as hell wouldn’t have broken the law had he not done that.
http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2016/10/newsweek-really-really-really-needs-to-retract-this-statement.html
Would you have preferred that the head of the FBI deliberately break the law?
Broken what law? Name the law or you are just blowing smoke. There is no law requiring the FBI director to release preliminary information on an investigation it hasn’t even done yet.
Are the emails from or to Clinton? He doesn’t know because he hasn’t seem them yet. Are they related to any other investigation that the FBI has done? He doesn’t know because he hasn’t seen them yet.
The responsible thing to do was to wait until he had a determination of their relevance before making a public announcement. He is not withholding anything because at this point he doesn’t even know what he is holding. It may be absolutely nothing.
But Clinton is correct. At this point Comey has muddied the waters and the only way he can fix it is to immediately tell the public everything he knows and everything he does not know.
The back story to this is management incompetence. The New York FBI office is upset at the DC office because they pulled off and replaced the local FBI agents in the investigation of the Eric Garner case because they were refusing to aggressively pursue the case.
In retaliation, the New York agents were threatening to prematurely leak the email information in defiance of FBI protocol. Comey fell prey to the blackmail and felt that he had to get ahead of the leakers to preserve his credibility with Republicans in Congress. Comey was just covering his own ass. The fact that he can’t control his own office indicates gross incompetence.
I just posted a post titled “Newsweek Really, Really, REALLY Needs to Retract THIS Statement” that deconstructs that The Law Made Him Do It bullsh_t. My post is at Newsweek Really, Really, REALLY Needs to Retract THIS Statement.
I think the head of the FBI may well have deliberately broken the law–by doing what he did do.
http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2016/10/newsweek-really-really-really-needs-to-retract-this-statement.html
BillB You ask me what law. I don’t know. I gave you the link to the Newsweek article. Do think the folks at Newsweek are making this stuff up? Why?
“Do think the folks at Newsweek are making this stuff up?”
Presumably your excerpt from Newsweek is what some PR flack in Comey’s office told them. They listened, wrote it down, typed it up and printed it. They are English majors, not lawyers. They just write down whatever anyone tells them. As many journalists have argued, it isn’t their job to fact-check what people tell them. They just report it. You should realize that you can’t take anything in the media at face value without checking it yourself.
Notice that your excerpt does not mention any legal obligation to notify Congress. It just says that Comey felt he should — out of loyalty to Republicans, out of some secret agreement with the committee chairman, because he was being pressured by leakers in his own department, out of a selfish desire to cover his own ass with conservative critics?
He doesn’t say. But it is quite clear there was no legal obligation for him to do so. In fact, department policy is not to interfere in elections unless there is a solid basis for fact, not on the basis of unsubstantiated innuendo.
Justice department policy is that announcements pertaining to elections must be approved by the Justice Department Public Integrity Division to protect against the appearance of bias. Comey bypassed the approved policy procedure, against the explicit recommendations of Justice officials.
It’s rather ironic that Comey, who has made a big deal alleging that Clinton carelessly bypassed official policy, while he himself is bypassing official integrity policies of the Justice Department. Comey could have avoided this mess if he had simply followed proper procedures. Instead, he is operating as a loose cannon, a renegade.