4 ms·

Comey was in a bind. Internal leaks were happening - if word got out of more Clinton email investigations before he made it public, he'd have been screwed and w

Comey was in a bind. Internal leaks were happening - if word got out of more Clinton email investigations before he made it public, he'd have been screwed and when it leaked, he'd look very partisan. If he were to publicly announce it as a major issue, he'd have looked partisan. Instead he tried to walk the middle ground by announcing it publicly and downplaying its significance. It was a challenging situation and it seems a fairly reasonable response to me. About as principled as he could be given the situation at hand.

makomk 10y ago
Also, the reporting was atrocious and definitely shaped the anti-Comey narrative. For example, any leaks of information that were pro-Comey or anti-Clinton were spun as obviously Comey's doing, because no-one would dare leak anything without his support, and as proof the FBI was anti-Clinton. Meanwhile, any leaks that hurt him or helped her were taken as pure fact. It even turned out that the timing wasn't just dictated by Comey, but by the deputy director (apparently a Clinton ally) delaying telling him until well into the pre-election period. This was naturally spun as more proof the FBI were out to get Clinton. The press systematically ignored or downplayed evidence that contradicted their preferred angle.
hackuser 10y ago
> Comey was in a bind. Internal leaks were happening - if word got out of more Clinton email investigations before he made it public, he'd have been screwed and when it leaked, he'd look very partisan. Comey's priorities must be far greater than personal fallout: He is responsible for things so important we don't even question them (or don't want to): The law, justice, one of the most important institutions in the U.S. (the FBI), and in this case, arguably the most important institution in the world, the sanctity of U.S. democracy. I don't care if he was in a bind; that is not a concern at all with these stakes; he shouldn't have the job if he can't handle these situations. It may appear to civilians as if it is a bind, but my understanding based on what a large number of former top officials said is that the FBI and Justice Department have two unambiguous, long-standing policies on these issues: 1) Never talk about ongoing investigations, and 2) never say anything that will influence an election in any way. You don't want the head of the FBI making decisions every four years (or 2 - they could influence every House and Senate race) on what election-related information they will reveal. Finally, did Comey reveal every investigation that might have influenced the election? No, only one. What about the one into Russian interference, for example? The only violation of those policies, ever AFAIK, was what Comey did.

makomk 10y ago

Also, the reporting was atrocious and definitely shaped the anti-Comey narrative. For example, any leaks of information that were pro-Comey or anti-Clinton were spun as obviously Comey's doing, because no-one would dare leak anything without his support, and as proof the FBI was anti-Clinton. Meanwhile, any leaks that hurt him or helped her were taken as pure fact. It even turned out that the timing wasn't just dictated by Comey, but by the deputy director (apparently a Clinton ally) delaying telling him until well into the pre-election period. This was naturally spun as more proof the FBI were out to get Clinton. The press systematically ignored or downplayed evidence that contradicted their preferred angle.

hackuser 10y ago

> Comey was in a bind. Internal leaks were happening - if word got out of more Clinton email investigations before he made it public, he'd have been screwed and when it leaked, he'd look very partisan. Comey's priorities must be far greater than personal fallout: He is responsible for things so important we don't even question them (or don't want to): The law, justice, one of the most important institutions in the U.S. (the FBI), and in this case, arguably the most important institution in the world, the sanctity of U.S. democracy. I don't care if he was in a bind; that is not a concern at all with these stakes; he shouldn't have the job if he can't handle these situations. It may appear to civilians as if it is a bind, but my understanding based on what a large number of former top officials said is that the FBI and Justice Department have two unambiguous, long-standing policies on these issues: 1) Never talk about ongoing investigations, and 2) never say anything that will influence an election in any way. You don't want the head of the FBI making decisions every four years (or 2 - they could influence every House and Senate race) on what election-related information they will reveal. Finally, did Comey reveal every investigation that might have influenced the election? No, only one. What about the one into Russian interference, for example? The only violation of those policies, ever AFAIK, was what Comey did.