Newsweek Really, Really, REALLY Needs to Retract THIS Statement
Updated | Why did FBI Director James Comey shock Washington on Friday with an announcement that the FBI “has learned of the existence of emails” related to Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and what does it mean?
The truth is Comey didn’t have a choice. Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.
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.
— Why FBI Director Made Clinton Email Announcement Now, Michele Gorman and Matthew Cooper, Newsweek, Oct. 28 at 2:40 p.m.
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. But he does, apparently. He sure didn’t make that claim in his email message late yesterday to FBI employees, stating his reasons.
This is bullsh_t of the first magnitude. That Newsweek reporters and editors that clueless, that credulous, is … oh, I don’t know … par for the course these days? They reported this as “the truth,” folks.
You are absolutely right. I’ll just resubmit what I put in your previous posting in response to bkrasting:
“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.
That in itself is a BIG story. But since when does the FBI director make a premature or otherwise inappropriate announcement about a pending investigation because FBI agents are threatening to do so themselves?
This was an appallingly inappropriate use of the FBI itself–of the agency itself and its investigatory powers–in the service of a political goal.
If Comey was effectively extorted, that strikes me as itself a criminal act.
I don’t think there is any criminality involved. In any large government or private corporation the saying is that “Information is power.” And people will trade that information as a lever to further their own political interests within the organization. It happens all the time and it isn’t criminal.
But it is despicable. It is evidence that Comey is an incompetent leader. It is evidence that, contrary to Comey’s claims of acting out of ethical imperative, he was simply acting in his own self-interest to preserve his Republican credibility and cover up his own lack of leadership to control his staff.
Shall we pay that the FBI does not charge the Clinton’s till after the election; so Obama is not able to pardon them.
“Current and former FBI officials have launched a media counter-offensive to engage head to head with the Clinton media machine and to throw off the shackles the Loretta Lynch Justice Department has used to stymie their multiple investigations into the Clinton pay-to-play network.”
“The memo was likely the final straw for the FBI agents and officials who had been thwarted by the Justice Department in mounting an aggressive investigation of the Clinton Foundation using the full FBI arsenal typically available like subpoenas, witness interviews and wiretaps. Given the weekend leaks, it now appears that the FBI understands that the only hope for a real investigation is to shine some much needed sunlight on how Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department cowers before politically powerful people.”