General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHas the FBI ever publicly scolded a candidate or former government official before?
Does the FBI have a history of doing this?
If not, what entitles James Comey to do it today?
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)lapucelle
(18,252 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)That is the question we should all be asking ourselves several times a day until he is punished for what he has done.
Man I am sick of all these bullshit claims of sexism.
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)Maybe Comey was simply employing Clinton rules or maybe he feels entitled to editorialize for some other reason.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/when-the-media-play-by-clinton-rules/
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)PatSeg
(47,418 posts)if in this instance, there was any sexism involved, but as a woman I can tell you that sexism is alive and well. We will see much more of it in the next few months. Women candidates are pretty much always treated differently than their male counterparts and judged for things that men rarely are. Donald Trump's hair is a very rare exception!
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)What should Comey be punished for?
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)1-7.550 - Concerns of Prejudice is an interesting read.
My question is whether the director was justified in impugning Mrs. Clinton's character or competence given the fact that there was a recommendation that no charges be filed.
Can anyone remember the FBI ever doing this before?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I have seen no evidence to suggest that. The DoJ has not claimed that. The Administration has not claimed that. (as far as I know). It was a prepared statement that I'm sure went through many hands before being made public.
Comey and the justice department are in line on this issue. Comey isn't recommending prosecution and Justice isn't going to prosecute, so concerns that this statement will prejudice a pending prosecution are not relevant.
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)Comey did state at the outset that nobody else knew what he was going to say.
"This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say."
Here's the transcript.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)Even he himself admitted: " I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details."
What made him think he had license to cherry pick facts that would impugn someone's character and competence and feed them to a hungry press? Is that ethical? Is it advisable?
Comey clearly didn't get the results he would have liked from the exhaustive investigation, so he presented information that supports a Republican narrative. I think that today Comey was extremely careless in his handling of very sensitive information. He should step down.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)"I think that today Comey was extremely careless in his handling of very sensitive information. He should step down."
Now where have we heard this before ?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)he's not following stated protocol, and he's commenting on an ongoing investigation, which is usually a big no-no. The only way I can see that he can be telling the truth and isn't violating Justice Department policies is if Lynch gave him pre-approval to announce his findings to the public, but she could really only do that if she knew she wasn't going to prosecute already (Comey definitely couldn't have made this statement if the DOJ were going to prosecute).
The way this whole thing was handled is very shady, but still, I don't see the sexism that seems so apparent to others.
arthritisR_US
(7,287 posts)Collin Powell went before the UN with a presentation of lies and his emails concerning the run up to those lies and the aftermath have never been investigated. To date, it is my understanding that not one email of his has ever been submitted for scrutiny. It appears transparency only becomes an issue if the target is a woman.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)I don't think this has to do with Hillary being a woman. I think this has to do with the fact that Hillary is a Clinton and nothing more.
arthritisR_US
(7,287 posts)witch hunt.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)There is a lot of sexism out there but I just don't see it here.
arthritisR_US
(7,287 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)'clap or you hate women' before November. Trump will absolutely destroy her if that's all she's got.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of sexism being thrown at Hillary but if after every negative point that is brought up against Hillary is responded to with 'well that is because sexism' or 'at least she isn't trump' will get very old and will be ignored come November because of it being over used.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Maybe it is to her advantage. Maybe his public "talkin' to" will satisfy and quiet people who were calling for indictment?
karynnj
(59,503 posts)It is certainly not an accomplishment.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I just kind of see it as a statement of finality. "It was stupid, the FBI is over it."
TipTok
(2,474 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)karynnj
(59,503 posts)I think this is the best the Clinton team could have gotten - and what I think almost everyone expected. She herself has admitted this was a bad idea and it has cost her a lot of grief.
I think he had to put out a full statement of what he found and then the conclusion. There is very little new here. In terms of impact - I suspect it is a minor Clinton gain. The statement is tough and it contradicts many things her team claimed, but the key important thing is that there will be no indictment. I suspect that this result is close to what was already factored in.
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)was deposed under oath by the FBI concerning campaign contributions.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Hubert Humphrey and lots of other lefties.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)that he could blackmail them with if it became necessary. It's hard to imagine he got shit on Truman or Stevenson that was true.
spanone
(135,828 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)That is what they found.
Did you expect him to sing her praises?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Thank you in advance.
B2G
(9,766 posts)I don't see how anyone could be.
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)Nothing more, nothing less.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)muntrv
(14,505 posts)underpants
(182,788 posts)He knew this was his only chance to try her and it served as a bonus to offer mouth words to keep this nothing burger alive on the press.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I think it's clear that Clinton and her team were careless. But it did not rise to the level of a crime. That's pretty much what he said.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)He was supposed to genuflect and thank her for the opportunity to practice his investigation skills.
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)is that considered a free pass? What an interesting and privileged perspective on justice and the law.
For my part, I find it troubling that a conservative-leaning government official armed Trump and company through unethical speculation.
I find it ironic that it was Comey (who himself was hacked this year and whose department is currently being sued for carelessness that led to the murder of several people) who did the tut-tutting.
PJMcK
(22,034 posts)Director Comey had to make a public statement. After all, they usually never comment on an investigation that turns up empty; new evidence might come to light in the future.
But this case is unique since it involves a candidate in a presidential election. In this case, a "no comment" from the FBI would be a serious comment. Because the Attorney General has sort of withdrawn from the case, Director Comey had to make the public statement.
His editorializing, however, was improper and I hope he feels good about himself tonight. He's probably already looking for a new job because he's not going to like the new boss come next January.
madamesilverspurs
(15,800 posts)He was also part of the team that failed to indict either Clinton during the Whitewater 'scandal'.
That makes the score: Clinton 2, Comey 0
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 5, 2016, 03:19 PM - Edit history (1)
you also aren't satisfied with the verbiage used to clear her of criminal charges? Aren't you just satisfied that you can now put this behind you and focus on getting Clinton elected? It's like stages of grief- first everyone was relieved and now its on to some vindication emotion.
The election is 4 months away. To me anyway, that is more important that word parsing of the Director of the FBI.
lapucelle
(18,252 posts)alc
(1,151 posts)I think his "public scolding" was intended to be enough punishment to still punish others in the future.