From The Hill:
FBI Director James Comey distrusted former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and senior officials at the Justice Department, believing they might provide Hillary Clinton with political cover over her email, according to a new report published Saturday by The New York Times.
The Times described Comey’s “go-it-alone strategy” in the Clinton probe as emerging largely from his suspicions that Lynch and others at Justice might seek to subtly downplay the Clinton investigation.
As an example, the Times reported that Lynch, during a meeting in September 2015, called on Comey to use the word “matter” instead of “investigation” when publicly discussing the case, three people who attended the meeting told the Times.
Lynch reportedly reasoned that the word “investigation” would raise a number of other questions.
Furthermore, she argued that the department should maintain its policy of not confirming investigations.
After referring to the FBI the question of whether classified information had been improperly handled by Clinton through her use of a private server, a step toward a criminal investigation,
Justice clarified that it was not a “criminal referral.” This also raised suspicions at the FBI, according to the Times. Clinton seized on the wording to say that what the FBI was conducting was “not a criminal investigation.”
Lynch came under pressure to recuse herself from the investigation entirely after she had a discussion with former President Bill Clinton in June 2016 on he plane as it sat on the tarmac of Phoenix’s airport.
Lynch did not recuse herself, but the situation did lead her to say she would accept what ever conclusions career prosecutors and the FBI reached.
6 comments:
I don't believe it. Comey mangled the wording of the statute to justify not asking that charges be filed.
That makes more sense to me. How did Comey do that? Can you explain?
Comey said there was no clear evidence that Hillary intended to break the law. The law does not require an intent to violate the statute. The law only requires mishandling of classified information. The effect of inserting intent where there is no need to have intent to break the law allowed Hillary to avoid charges when it is pretty clear she mishandled classified information and thus broke the law.
Ok, gotcha. But his statement that she had no intent may have gave him an excuse to let her off the hook - and that seems to have been his intent - but it has no binding legal power. Am I correct?
If you are asking whether charges can still be filed against Hillary, then yes they can. If you are asking whether charges were likely to be filed in the absence of the FBI requesting, then it is highly unlikely. If the police tell the prosecutor there is no case, the prosecutor (justice dept. in this case) almost always listens. Comey, in my opinion, was just playing the part he was expected to play while providing himself political cover. Otherwise, why insert words into a statute?
Got it. Thanks. I don't have the language you have so I am not very good at thinking the issues through and asking the right questions.
:)
Post a Comment