James Comey’s Criticism of Clinton was Unprecedented, Improper and Maybe Even Politicized

[DonViejo]

by Elura Nanos | 2:47 pm, July 6th, 2016

FBI directors don’t make public statements about investigations, even when those investigations result in indictments. The last thing the FBI ever does is detail an entire investigation that led nowhere, and then follow up with a sweeping opinion about how the subject acted. FBI Director James Comey’s public pronouncement of Hillary Clinton as “extremely careless” was both not the point and totally the point. Obviously, Comey’s opinion lacks direct relevance to a Clinton prosecution, given that Comey is not a prosecutor and that the “extreme carelessness” is not an applicable legal standard. However, the statement carries great weight in the court of public opinion – a reality that has a very useful dual purpose. On the one hand, it allows the FBI to take credit for a nonpartisan investigation that was curtailed before it became a full-scale witch-trial. On the other, it satisfied Hillary-haters with an open and credible declaration of her sloppiness.

Still, the whole idea of Comey as the lone mouthpiece for the culmination of the entire e-mail saga is bizarre. Providing a public statement about what “a reasonable prosecutor” would do is, to put it mildly, not Comey’s job. Granted, this is an unusual set of circumstances, but the high stakes strike me as a reason for the DOJ to be more controlling than ever. If we’re talking about “reasonable prosecutors,” the one thing that’s totally clear is that no reasonable prosecutor would defer to any investigator when deciding which cases to prosecute. That’s just not how it works.

Police do not dictate to prosecutors. Police gather the information and keep their mouths shut. Prosecutors evaluate the evidence and decide whether to file charges. There’s usually a mutual respect between police and prosecutors; but making public conclusions about a person’s behavior is clearly outside police authority. The FBI, in particular, is known for being tight-lipped, divulging as little information as possible outside the courtroom.

“If this was a bank robbery or a kidnapping, or any other crime, it would never have been handled this way. You do the investigation, and you take it to the prosecutors who then say yes whether or not there is enough evidence,” said Bill Thomas, the former federal prosecutor who spoke with LawNewz.com. “I think that Comey, for whom I have great respect, made a mistake when he went beyond simply announcing his decision to decline prosecution. The decision not to prosecute should not have been accompanied by a detailed statement of what the evidence could show and certainly should not have included his opinion that Hillary was extremely careless,” said Elkan Abramowitz, a white collar defense attorney.

-snip-

http://lawnewz.com/opinion/james-comeys-criticizing-of-clinton-was-unprecedented-improper-and-maybe-even-politicized/

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Well, what did people expect?

Comey, contrary to some opinion, is a conservative hack. He "cleared" HRC, and at the same time fanned the flames of paranoia, suspicion and derangement that follow the Clintons wherever they go. If she is elected, we are looking at 4-8 years of non-stop, wall-to-wall investigations, hearings, and possible impeachment.

[Bill USA]

2. Comey's statement went way beyond discussing the facts at hand. His statement that

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

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

is pure conjecture and doesn't have anything to do with drawing a conclusion as to the legality of the actions investigated.

He went on to say:

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

But then opined superfluously: "... this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."

and followed that with statement:

"But that is not what we are deciding now."

RIGHT, THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU INCLUDE IT IN YOUR STATEMENT???

Comey sounded like he was campaigning for the next GOP presidential nomination.

[DURHAM D]

3. I think he was inviting (hoping for) the Congressional hearing

so he can run his agenda some more.

[Hortensis]

4. Maybe not, but I am satisfied with his detailed

and very credible explanation that their investigation exonerated her of all possible criminal charges. No matter what he said, the media would have reacted negatively. All of MSNBC called this excellent conclusion of the FBI's case a "pall" that of course (!) would wipe out whatever benefit might come with appearing with President Obama.

Wolf Blitzer even actually speculated about whether (imaginary) FBI agents who strongly disagreed with these conclusions might release a separate statement. Just a thought to plant doubt about Comey's conclusions in America's minds....

[MaggieD]

5. He needs to be fired

And the very least he should have recused himself given that he was the lead Whitewater nothing-burger investigator. Republican hack doesn't even begin to describe that jerk.