3 ms·

When would it have been alright for the FBI to release the update? If they waited until after the election, the other side would accuse them of covering it up—a

When would it have been alright for the FBI to release the update? If they waited until after the election, the other side would accuse them of covering it up—appropriately so.

Jweb_Guru 10y ago
There was nothing there, so that seems unlikely.
- fixxer 10y ago
  Luckily, we still have months of investigation on the Clinton Foundation to entertain us well into 2017.
- leeleelee 10y ago
  You only know that in hindsight. The FBI didn't know if anything was there before they had a chance to investigate, and they also didn't know how soon the investigation could be completed. So, yes, they did risk a possible scenario of coverup accusations if they decided to not notify congress the moment they started investigating again.
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    The right certainly would've complained about a coverup if Comey hadn't said anything about the additional emails before the election. It was still a gross breach in protocol and wholly inappropriate. As a rule the FBI simply does not announce they're investigating someone because it can damage the investigation, and because it could unfairly tarnish someone who has done nothing wrong. The encroachment of political calculus into the Justice Department is not a good thing. Let Democrats or Republicans howl about whatever, the DoJ and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies need to do their job the right way, regardless of partisan complaining.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > risk a possible scenario of coverup accusations That has no significance when weighed against the risk undermining democracy and effectively choosing the next President, which is what happened.
scarmig 10y ago
My direct response to your question is: the same as when the NSA released theirs. Like I said in the very post you're responding to, there are arguments both ways, but to pick and choose which argument you're using in a way that always happens to disadvantage one candidate is a scandal itself, and likely a criminal violation of the Hatch act. And as an aside, it was an update to the effect of "we don't actually know anything new, but we found something that might hold something new." And, as we know now, didn't actually contain anything new. There's a reason they call it the October surprise.
- NoPiece 10y ago
  NSA released their info on Oct 7, a month before the election. http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-blames-russia-for-recent-hacks-1475870371 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-blames-russia-for-recent-hac...
paulmd 10y ago
When they found new evidence relevant to the Clinton case. As it stands, the situation was "we found some emails of the husband of the aide of a person we investigated". That's not directly relevant to the investigation in any way, and it's not evidence of wrongdoing. They drastically jumped the gun by publically linking it as they did. At an absolute minimum they should have waited until they knew there was some data both relevant to the investigation and not previously known to the FBI. They should probably also have made sure the evidence implied wrongdoing, out of concern of influencing the election. This is exactly what Comey was told by the Justice Department, his subordinates, and pretty much everyone else. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/comey-clinton-email-justice.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/comey-clinton-...
hackuser 10y ago
> When would it have been alright for the FBI to release the update? If they waited until after the election, the other side would accuse them of covering it up—appropriately so. The FBI's and Justice Department's long-standing rules on the issue are: 1) Never discuss ongoing investigations; and 2) take great care to never say anything that will at all affect an election. So while your question is an interesting one, the FBI has two clear, long-standing answers and rules, and they violated them.

When would it have been alright for the FBI to release the update? If they waited until after the election, the other side would accuse them of covering it up—appropriately so.

Jweb_Guru 10y ago

There was nothing there, so that seems unlikely.

fixxer 10y ago
Luckily, we still have months of investigation on the Clinton Foundation to entertain us well into 2017.
leeleelee 10y ago
You only know that in hindsight. The FBI didn't know if anything was there before they had a chance to investigate, and they also didn't know how soon the investigation could be completed. So, yes, they did risk a possible scenario of coverup accusations if they decided to not notify congress the moment they started investigating again.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  The right certainly would've complained about a coverup if Comey hadn't said anything about the additional emails before the election. It was still a gross breach in protocol and wholly inappropriate. As a rule the FBI simply does not announce they're investigating someone because it can damage the investigation, and because it could unfairly tarnish someone who has done nothing wrong. The encroachment of political calculus into the Justice Department is not a good thing. Let Democrats or Republicans howl about whatever, the DoJ and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies need to do their job the right way, regardless of partisan complaining.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > risk a possible scenario of coverup accusations That has no significance when weighed against the risk undermining democracy and effectively choosing the next President, which is what happened.

scarmig 10y ago

My direct response to your question is: the same as when the NSA released theirs. Like I said in the very post you're responding to, there are arguments both ways, but to pick and choose which argument you're using in a way that always happens to disadvantage one candidate is a scandal itself, and likely a criminal violation of the Hatch act. And as an aside, it was an update to the effect of "we don't actually know anything new, but we found something that might hold something new." And, as we know now, didn't actually contain anything new. There's a reason they call it the October surprise.

NoPiece 10y ago
NSA released their info on Oct 7, a month before the election. http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-blames-russia-for-recent-hacks-1475870371 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-blames-russia-for-recent-hac...

paulmd 10y ago

When they found new evidence relevant to the Clinton case. As it stands, the situation was "we found some emails of the husband of the aide of a person we investigated". That's not directly relevant to the investigation in any way, and it's not evidence of wrongdoing. They drastically jumped the gun by publically linking it as they did. At an absolute minimum they should have waited until they knew there was some data both relevant to the investigation and not previously known to the FBI. They should probably also have made sure the evidence implied wrongdoing, out of concern of influencing the election. This is exactly what Comey was told by the Justice Department, his subordinates, and pretty much everyone else. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/comey-clinton-email-justice.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/comey-clinton-...

hackuser 10y ago

> When would it have been alright for the FBI to release the update? If they waited until after the election, the other side would accuse them of covering it up—appropriately so. The FBI's and Justice Department's long-standing rules on the issue are: 1) Never discuss ongoing investigations; and 2) take great care to never say anything that will at all affect an election. So while your question is an interesting one, the FBI has two clear, long-standing answers and rules, and they violated them.