I'm a criminal defense attorney, let me tell you why Comey did this. (You'll feel better) [View all]

[Fahrenthold451]

Last edited Sat Oct 29, 2016, 12:07 PM - Edit history (13)

***Update***

La Times has the best characterization of why Comey did what he did, and it is consistent with my original post below. There's nothing there, he's simply covering his butt.

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.

Because Comey had told Congress that the FBI had finished investigating Clinton’s server, he felt he needed to let lawmakers know that agents were looking into the case again in light of the recent discovery, the official said.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-fbi-clinton-email-probe-20161028-story.html

The way the press initially handled this story is unforgivable.

----------
Original Post:

Comey knows that Hillary is going to win the election. He knows that Rs in the House will very likely rake him over the coals in endless Benghazi like hearings. Comey testified under oath to Congress that he would reopen--or at a minimum reconsider--the investigation should he get additional information. He also testified that if there is a referral from Congress regarding Clinton's untruthful disclosure to FBI that he could open an investigation vis her FBI interview.

Somebody in the know dropped some emails in the FBIs lap recently. (Was it merely a routine disclosure from the Weiner investigation? Maybe, but I'm not buying it. The timing of all this makes me believe that this was not just an innocent 11th hour discovery.)

This puts Comey in a box. He testified under oath that he would relook at things if more information comes to light--so basically he's in legal trouble (perjury allegation) if he doesn't. This is confirmed by Comey's own memo to FBI employees.

Comey said he felt “an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-james-b-comey-under-fire-for-his-controversial-decision-on-the-clinton-email-inquiry/2016/10/28/fbad009c-9d57-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_comey-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Further, if he didn't send the letter he sent today, he would be accused of political collusion with the Clintons. He's covering his ass. Plain and simple. He has bristled at the allegation that he is acting in a partisan way, and this (nothing-burger) letter is his attempt to get back to some type of perceived neutrality in advance of his anticipated testimony to Congress. Imagine if he didn't send the letter. You can just see Gowdy screaming at him, "So you had these additional emails and you kept them a secret until AFTER the election!"

My legal advice to people here is to take a deep breath. This letter is classic CYA. It's designed to protect Comey, and that's it. If he had the goods on Clinton the shoe would have dropped today. Mark Cuban's explanation that Huma was simply printing emails for HRC bears this out. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512552937

PS, watch for any and all oppo that the Clintons have to be released today and tomorrow in advance of the Sunday shows. Anything they have on Trump will come out now. The best defense is a good offense. Let's all strap in and kick this orange bastard's corpulent ass.

Couple people have asked about what the oppo probably is. Here's my best speculative shot..

Absolutely no way someone as careless as Donald Trump has not been surreptitiously audio recorded. In the modern era, everybody has a smart phone. Odds are its an attractive contract vendor who was not required to sign a non-disclosure contract. You can guess what would be in the recording.

Is that legal, you ask? New York's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05. So, while I'm not licensed in New York, if the party recording was in the room, the answer is pretty much it looks to be legal.

The person with the recording has probably already consulted with an attorney, found out that it wasn't illegal to make the tape, and they are ready to drop it. Now's the time my friend. The address to the Washington Post is --- The Washington Post, 1301 K Street NW, Washington DC 20071

PPS: Still don't feel better? Take a look at the prediction markets hours after the story dropped. http://predictwise.com/

We're gonna be fine people. We are on the right side of history.

Quick CYA footnote: A person could read this and think that I'm apologizing for Comey. I'm not. What he has done is despicable and unforgivable. At the time I originally posted this all I knew was the letter Comey wrote and that's that. People were freaking out about the (now debunked) reporting that Comey had "reopened" the investigation. I originally wrote my post because I knew that Comey felt he had legal exposure due to his prior congressional testimony and this was not the opening act of a criminal charge contra Clinton. I thought this might make people feel better.

My speculation regarding oppo was noted as speculation. I'm a hard core partisan Democrat. I can have hopes too, no?