Hillary for America has organized some helpful
information-at-a-glance around Friday's "October Surprise" from FBI
Director James Comey. In addition, they offer some fact-checking around
other incendiary devices aimed at igniting the Clinton campaign.
FBI
Director James Comey is under widespread criticism for breaking
department precedent by commenting on an ongoing investigation, and
doing so just days before a presidential election. Indeed, the
Washington Post reported this morning senior Justice Department
officials made perfectly clear to Comey that he would be in violation of
long-standing DOJ policy.
Moreover, according to CNN, Attorney
General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates both
objected to Comey sending this inappropriate letter to Congress.
Nevertheless, Director Comey independently decided to move forward,
rattling the presidential election with a note that was heavy on
innuendo and extremely light on actual information or needed details.
The result? Broad bipartisan condemnation and demands for the swift disclosure of more information:
Washington Post: Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy:
“Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James
B. Comey’s decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation
into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was not consistent with
long-standing practices of the department, according to officials
familiar with the discussions. Comey told Justice Department officials
that he intended to inform lawmakers of newly discovered emails. These
officials told him the department’s position “that we don’t comment on
an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be viewed as
influencing an election,” said one Justice Department official who
spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the high-level
conversations.”
CNN: Comey notified Congress of email probe despite DOJ concerns:
“Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
objected to FBI Director James Comey’s decision to notify Congress
about his bureau’s review of emails related to Hillary Clinton’s
personal server, law enforcement officials familiar with the discussion
said. Comey decided to disregard their objections and sent the letter
Friday anyway, shaking the presidential race 11 days before the election
and nearly four months after the FBI chief said he wouldn’t recommend
criminal charges over the Democratic nominee’s use of the server.
New York Times: Justice Dept. Strongly Discouraged Comey on Move in Clinton Email Case:
“Mr. Comey’s letter opened him up to criticism not only from Democrats
but also from current and former officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice
Department, including Republicans. ‘There’s a longstanding policy of
not doing anything that could influence an election,’ said George J.
Terwilliger III, a deputy attorney general under the first President
George Bush. ‘Those guidelines exist for a reason. Sometimes that makes
for hard decisions. But bypassing them has consequences.’”
Politico: Comey’s disclosure shocks former prosecutors:
“James Comey’s surprise announcement that investigators are examining
new evidence in the probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server put the FBI
director back under a harsh spotlight, reigniting criticism of his
unusual decision to discuss the high-profile case in front of the media
and two congressional committees.”
Los Angeles Times: “The
emails were not to or from Clinton, and contained information that
appeared to be more of what agents had already uncovered, the official
said, but in an abundance of caution, they felt they needed to further
scrutinize them.
Washington Post Editorial: The damage Comey’s bad timing could do:
“Mr. Podesta said he is ‘confident’ full disclosure ‘will not produce
any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.’ If so,
the question will be how badly damaged was Ms. Clinton’s candidacy by
the 11th-hour re-eruption of a controversy that never should have
generated so much suspicion or accusation in the first place.”
New York Times Editorial: “But
Mr. Comey’s failure to provide any specifics about a new, potentially
important development, less than two weeks before Election Day, is
confounding. As Mr. Comey put it in July: “The American people deserve
those details in a case of intense public interest.” They deserve
details even more urgently today.”
Bloomberg: FBI Shocker on Clinton Fuels Criticism of Comey’s Tactics:
“FBI Director James Comey is facing extraordinary pressure to explain
himself after dropping a bombshell on the campaign of Hillary Clinton
just 11 days before the presidential election… Former prosecutors and
lawmakers from both parties expressed shock and dismay at Comey’s highly
unusual decision, which flouted decades of legal custom that call for
avoiding taking actions that could affect the outcome of an election.”
Washington Post: FBI Director James B. Comey under fire for his controversial decision on the Clinton email inquiry:
“Nick Ackerman, a former federal prosecutor in New York and an
assistant special Watergate prosecutor, said Comey ‘had no business
writing to Congress about supposed new emails that neither he nor anyone
in the FBI has ever reviewed.’”
Huffington Post: News Outlets Dial Back Reports Of FBI ‘Reopening’ Clinton Email Case:
“The story took several other turns on Friday afternoon that
complicated the early, screaming headlines, and then ensured the story
would remain a topic of discussion in the days ahead. Multiple outlets
subsequently reported that the new emails weren’t sent by Clinton and
didn’t come from her private server.”
CNN Legal Analyst, Paul Callan: Time for FBI director Comey to go: “Comey’s
public announcement in July that the FBI had concluded its
investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server
in the conduct of official State Department business and would not
recommend the lodging of criminal charges was historically unprecedented
in a high-profile political case.”
Washington Post Op-Ed by Former DOJ Spokesman Matt Miller: James Comey fails to follow Justice Department rules yet again:
“With each step, Comey moved further away from department guidelines
and precedents, culminating in Friday’s letter to Congress. This letter
not only violated Justice rules on commenting on ongoing investigations
but also flew in the face of years of precedent about how to handle
sensitive cases as Election Day nears…. The director of the FBI has
great power at his disposal…. With that independence comes a
responsibility to adhere to the rules that protect the rights of those
whom the FBI investigates. Comey has failed that standard repeatedly in
his handling of the Clinton investigation.”
New York Times: F.B.I. Chief James Comey Is in Political Crossfire Again Over Emails:
“The reaction was swift and damning, with Mrs. Clinton’s supporters and
even some Republicans blasting Mr. Comey. Indeed, Mr. Comey, who was
attacked this summer by Democrats and Republicans for both his decision
not to bring charges against Mrs. Clinton and for the way he handled it,
found himself in an even stronger crossfire on Friday.”
Los Angeles Times’ Michael McGough: FBI director should have known what his Clinton emails letter would unleash:
“Having raised new doubts about Clinton so close to an election, Comey
has an obligation —a moral obligation if not a legal one — to do
everything he can to expedite the “additional work” required to
determine whether this new information does, in fact, cast doubt on his
earlier conclusion that Clinton wasn’t criminally culpable.”
Aurora Sentinel Editorial: FBI’s Comey needs to come clean on details, motivation — or resign: “If
there’s damning or critical information about Clinton staff handling of
email that creates the clear and immediate threat to national security
that would warrant such a ploy, Americans deserve to have Clinton
explain them, and Clinton must get that opportunity. Otherwise, Comey
needs to apologize for his infelicity and possibly politically motivated
stunt, and immediately step aside.”
Newsweek: Hillary Clinton’s Emails: The Real Reason The FBI Is Reviewing More Of Them:
“Unfortunately, by trying to have things both ways – revealing the
change in circumstances while remaining vague about what the agents know
– Comey has created that misleading impression that could change the
outcome of a presidential election, an act that, if uncorrected, will
undoubtedly go down as one of the darkest moments in the bureau’s
history.”
New Yorker: James Comey Broke With Loretta Lynch And Justice Department Tradition: “Coming
less than two weeks before the Presidential election, Comey’s decision
to make public new evidence that may raise additional legal questions
about Clinton was contrary to the views of the Attorney General,
according to a well-informed Administration official. Lynch expressed
her preference that Comey follow the department’s longstanding practice
of not commenting on ongoing investigations, and not taking any action
that could influence the outcome of an election, but he said that he
felt compelled to do otherwise.”
Charlotte Observer Editorial: Comey drops Hillary Clinton email bombshell; so tell us more: “But
it is extraordinary for such volatile information to emerge so close to
Election Day and that’s especially true given how few specifics are
known. Because Comey was so vague, voters can’t know what to think. The
new emails could be anything from meaningless to evidence of criminal
activity by Clinton to most anything in between.”
ThinkProgress: The ‘new’ Clinton emails might all be duplicates:
“So, to be clear, the FBI Director delivered a gut punch to the Clinton
campaign, despite the fact that 1) he doesn’t know what he has; 2) it
may be something that he already had; and, 3) whatever it is that he
has, it reportedly didn’t come from Secretary Clinton, and was not sent
to her.”
Huffington Post: Heat Rises For FBI Director James Comey As Both Campaigns Demand Email Answers: “Both
camps demanded that FBI Director James Comey disclose more details
about the emails and the bureau’s investigation, which he made known in a
letter to Congress just 11 days before the election…. Many challenged
the FBI director’s motives, increasing the pressure on him to comply
with calls from both campaigns for more information.”
Yesterday,
Republican Congressional leaders leaked an unprecedented letter from
FBI Director James Comey, with initial reports including dire headlines
for Hillary Clinton. But like most “bombshell” discoveries about Clinton
over the course of this campaign, it fizzled rapidly as facts actually
became available. Let’s review…
YESTERDAY’S BOMBSHELL: NBC News: FBI re-opening investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server
- Jason Chaffetz: “FBI
Dir just informed me, ‘The FBI has learned of the existence of emails
that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.’ Case reopened”
- GOP: “BREAKING NEWS: The FBI is re-opening their investigation into @HillaryClinton's secret server.”
…facts emerge:
- Investigation not reopened. Huffington Post: News Outlets Dial Back Reports Of FBI ‘Reopening’ Hillary Clinton Email Case
- No emails had been withheld. NBC News: “the e-mails Comey announced today were NOT originally withheld by Clinton or campaign.”
- Emils not from Clinton’s server. Bloomberg: New Clinton E-mails Not From Her Private Server, AP Says
- Emails reportedly not to or from Clinton. Los Angeles Times: “The emails were not to or from Clinton”
- No indication emails bear significance. Comey memo to employees: “we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails”
- Many emails likely duplicates of ones already turned over. ThinkProgress: The ‘new’ Clinton emails might all be duplicates
- Comey letter violates DOJ policy. Washington Post: Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy
- Comey overruled AG Loretta Lynch. CNN:
“Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
disagreed with FBI Director James Comey's decision to notify Congress
about his bureau's review…”
- Former officials on both sides of aisle criticized Comey. New York Times: “Mr.
Comey’s letter opened him up to criticism not only from Democrats but
also from current and former officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice
Department, including Republicans.”
- Clinton and Trump both calling for more information. Huffington Post: “Both camps demanded that FBI Director James Comey disclose more details about the emails and the bureau’s investigation”
This is hardly the first time. It seems the script is always the same:
- Bombshell allegation is made hastily without facts available
- Media breathlessly covers the latest supposed Clinton Scandal
- Republicans declare that this time they’ve found the smoking gun
- Initial explosive reports slowly fizzle on account of facts
Here are just five of the many recent examples:
BOMBSHELL: @GOP, 8/30/16: “BREAKING: State Dept discovered 30 emails recovered from Hillary Clinton’s private server that discussed Benghazi.”
…facts emerge: Los Angeles Times, 9/7/16:
“There appears to be only one new communication related to Benghazi… a
complimentary note from a diplomat to Clinton, praising how she handled
herself before a Senate panel investigating the matter.”
—-
BOMBSHELL: @GOP, 5/5/16: “Hacker ‘Guccifer’ told news outlets that he repeatedly accessed Clinton’s unsecure email server & that ‘it was easy’”
…facts emerge: FOX News, 7/7/16: Comey: Hacker ‘Guccifer’ Lied About Accessing Clinton’s Emails
—-
BOMBSHELL: @AP, 8/23/16: “BREAKING: AP analysis: More than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation.”
…facts emerge: Vox, 8/24/16: “Except
it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its
coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely
no unethical conduct…. the AP excluded from the denominator all
employees of any government, whether US or foreign.”
—-
BOMBSHELL: Washington Post, 8/22/16: The FBI found 15,000 emails Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over. Uh oh.
…facts emerge: CNN, 10/7/16:
“Okay, so what’s in this latest batch? Short answer: No bombshells.
More than half of the emails are these so-called “near duplicates” of
previously released emails… There are also a number of emails between
Clinton and her close aides in which they discuss scheduling matters –
timing for phone calls, meetings, etc…. None of the new emails contained
information marked as classified or upgraded to classified.”
—-
BOMBSHELL: The Hill, 7/5/16: FBI director: Clinton emails were marked as classified at the time
…facts emerge: MediaIte, 7/7/16: FBI Director Admits Hillary Clinton Emails Were Not Properly Marked Classified
The
campaign and the DOJ are treading carefully. AG Loretta Lynch has
referred to a break in tradition. No official has yet mentioned the
Hatch Act of 1939 (tweeters have), but it appears there could be grounds for
a complaint. Looking at
this poster from the Office of Special Counsel, you can see the FBI clearly listed among the restricted agencies on the bottom left and, on the right, the second
may not involves use of official authority to interfere in an election.
There is no better time than right now to
make
a donation to help Hillary secure the White House and Dems to capture
seats in the Senate, House, and statehouses and assemblies. Let's not let this slip through our fingers.
New UPDATE! Harry Reid's 10/30 letter to Comey.
“Through your partisan actions,” he tells Comey, “you may have broken the law.”
The
Hatch Act
is what prevents members of the US military from attending political
rallies in uniform, or government workers from wearing campaign pins to
work. In other words, it applies to activity that’s a lot less
significant than what Reid is accusing Comey and the FBI of: selectively
telling the public about information that could be damaging to one
candidate, while not telling it about information that could be (much
more) damaging to her opponent.
and see letter >>>>
And now THIS >>>>
...
on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of
Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the
Office of Government Ethics. I spent much of my career working on
government and lawyers’ ethics, including as the chief White House
ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. I never thought that the F.B.I. could
be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its
investigations. Until this week.
(For
the sake of full disclosure, in this election I have supported Jeb
Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in
that order.)
Read more >>>>
