Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.

[poli3]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: New York Times

"During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention...

The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.

The document complicated that calculation, according to officials. If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation....

Mr. Comey’s defenders regard this as one of the untold stories of the Clinton investigation, one they say helps explain his decision-making. But former Justice Department officials say the F.B.I. never uncovered evidence tying Ms. Lynch to the document’s author, and are convinced that Mr. Comey wanted an excuse to put himself in the spotlight."

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html

---

So, for those who want to call Hillary a 'weak candidate', remember this. Russia specifically interfered to help Trump, and the FBI director was manipulated by Russian intelligence efforts to intervene on behalf of Trump. Without Trump, Russia wouldn't have gotten involved (therefore Comey wouldn't have said anything) and Hillary would've won the electoral college normally against any other republican.

[tenorly]

1. Comey belongs to Opus Dei (far-right Catholics), and they've wanted a fundamentalist gov't forever.

Anyone even casually acquainted with them can tell you that they demand absolute fealty and obedience from their members - even extranumeraries (lay people) like Comey.

They definitely had an oar in this one.

[videohead5]

2. Hillary's E-mails

You hear the right saying well Hillary should have known those e-mails had classified information in them.not really because all of the e-mails originated from the State Department and they declassify information everyday.I'm guessing most of the information that was deemed classified was not classified by the State Department it was classified by other agencies.no doubt Hillary's server was a bad idea but she never had it set up to receive classified information.the thing most people do not know is State.gov the mail server that those e-mails originated from had been hacked and those e-mails had already been exposed before they ever got to Hillary's server.well the right says but she might have not known but she still should have been indicted for being careless with classified information.that comes under the espionage laws.they would have to prove Hillary was a spy which there has never been any proof of that.

[red dog 1]

4. "well the right says ..she still should have been indicted for being careless w/classified info"

I say, (along with many others), that JAMES COMEY is the one who should have been indicted for clearly violating the 1939 Hatch Act by sending his Oct. 28, 2016 letter to Congress.

If Comey hadn't sent that letter, we'd probably be discussing President Clinton now.

[markpkessinger]

3. A comment I posted to the article

I wrote:

The theory promoted by this article concerning Comey's motives and reasons fo deviating from long-standing policy of his agency is one I've heard before. It doesn't pass the smell test. Look, even if Clinton had won the election, and Comey had been accused of enabling her to win, he would have been able to defend himself against that charge more than adequately simply by pointing to the policy. Indeed, that's one of the principle reasons an agency such as the FBI has such a policy to begin with: to shield itself and its employees from accusations of politically-driven differential treatment. So I find the suggestion that he felt he had to deviate from the long-standing policy in order to shield himself against accusations against which that very policy would have quite adequately shielded him to be an insult to your readers' intelligence.

I find myself having utterly lost patience with the cherished American myth that there is some supra-political sweet spot at which federal law enforcement personnel -- not to mention Supreme Court nominees --arrive by virtue of carrying a shield or donning a robe. Whenever we hear an FBI director or a Supreme Court nominee vehemently denies that their personal politics could ever play any role in their administration of their duties, that should stand out as a major red flag that that the person is either lying or is seriously deluded. And that makes the person dangerous in any event.

[red dog 1]

5. + 1

[DonViejo]

6. Locking...

The consensus of Forum Hosts agrees this is not LBN, but rather, opinion and analysis.

From the SOP of the LBN Forum

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.