Reply to The Role of Anti-Clinton FBI Agents

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "The Role of Anti-Clinton FBI Agents"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]Different regulatory environment, still not prohibited. And still not as bad as what Trump is presently doing with using all sorts of the encrypted and “disappearing” message apps.

And, no, what Comey did in July of 2016 wasn’t about “protecting the FBI.” Yes, the NYFO agents went totally rogue as you have written several times in this thread, but I’m not talking about October, which was the rogue agents. I’m talking about July. There was no rule, no guidance, no common sense that suggested that he should give that kind of press conference excoriating Hillary’s actions, confirming for millions of Hillary-haters that every horrible thing they’d heard from Rush et all was probably true. All the while failing to mention that oh yeah, Donald is under investigation for possible treason. [/quote]

I agree with you on all of this except Comey's motive. Comey was wrong to give the July statement but I don't think he did it in an effort to hurt Clinton. Ironically, that statement was among the justifications for his firing and he was criticized for it in the IG report. There is no defending Comey making that statement. You and I will probably have to disagree about his motive, but my feeling is that it was his effort to show that the FBI hadn't just folded but had actually found shortcomings in Clinton's behavior. Comey had an outsized view of the image of the FBI and his role in protecting that image. He wanted to show that the FBI hadn't covered up its findings, but that those findings didn't add up to enough for prosecution. He appointed himself as the official schoolmarm rapping Clinton in the knuckles with a ruler. That wasn't his role and he shouldn't have assumed it.
[/quote]

Agree that it was not Comey's place to do anything.

The problem was that the Clinton Investigation (or non-investigation) was well known.  The Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting (which, after listening to the IG testimony was probably set up by Clinton w/o Lynch cooperation) made it even more difficult.  
Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified information.  Comey said this in so many words--and, yet, did not recommend indictment.  Had the DOJ been serious about the inquiry, there would have been a Grand Jury.

So, would Clinton have been better off with the "investigation" hanging over her head with no comment?  She has no one to blame but herself.  Lindsey Graham's questioning today elicited a response from the IG which would indicate she was guilty of "gross negligence."[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics