The Comey Dilemma
It sounds like the President’s birthday present may be the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on the conduct of former FBI Director James Comey during the Hillary Clinton investigation. “Deepstate” theorists are keenly awaiting the release, sure that it will reveal a conspiracy to protect Clinton from the consequences of her email use.
It’s a tremendous contradiction. Comey is the “proximate cause” of the defeat of Hillary Clinton. His actions in announcing the reopening of the email investigation (the search of the Weiner laptop – there has to be a better way to say that) ten days before the election, clearly stopped the Clinton momentum and lead to the narrow results giving us President Trump. It also made all of the other influences, including Russian involvement and possible voter tampering, factors in the outcome.
In short then, Comey got Trump elected President. So what’s everyone complaining about?
The President speaks of “Comey and his band of thieves.” But theft isn’t going to be what the Inspector General finds in his report, so what will Mr. Horowitz discover?
Without any investigation, there are several areas where James Comey probably stepped over the edge of Department of Justice policies. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein has already outlined many of these actions in his letter prior to Comey being fired.
- He announced the results of an investigation without filing any charges, but used the opportunity to draw conclusions on the actions of a “suspect”. This was the July speech announcing the results of the Clinton investigation, without consulting his superiors in the Department of Justice, and determing that charges should not be filed. He then chided Clinton for being “careless,” hardly a legal determination. That decision to file charges is made by the prosecutors at Justice, not the investigators of the FBI.
- He then violated the “sixty day rule” of the Department of Justice. The rule states that the Department, including the FBI, must avoid unduly influencing elections by avoiding actions within sixty days of an election. Comey’s October 26thannouncement clearly violated that policy. In addition, that statement also was done without consultation with his superiors at Justice.
- It is now known that there was a three-week delay between the discovery that there were Clinton emails on the Weiner laptop, and permission to search those emails. Whether Comey is responsible for the delay, or his deputy McCabe, or there is some other rationale, this delay caused the “October surprise” reopening of the Clinton email investigation. Had they started the laptop search earlier they would have been able to clear Clinton weeks before election day instead of hours before.
It won’t take an Inspector General’s report to reveal these issues, they are already well known. Comey makes a strong argument for taking the first two actions, based on what occurred with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. A few days prior to the determination that the FBI would not recommend charges for Clinton, Lynch had an indiscrete meeting with former President Bill Clinton at the Phoenix Airport. This meeting created an aura of impropriety around the Attorney General. She did not recuse herself from the investigation, but stated she would accept the FBI results and recommendations. This and Comey’s desire to keep the FBI out of politics, made him feel empowered to make the July statement.
And the reaction of Republicans in Congress to that announcement, in particular the House Government Oversight Committee and Chairman Trey Gowdy; made the October letter inevitable. Comey had assured the Committee that he would notify them if anything changed regarding the Clinton emails, their presence on Weiner’s laptop was a major change.
It is also rumored that the Weiner Laptop information was already being leaked from the New York FBI office. Rudy Giuliani claims to have had forewarning of the information, and Comey probably had little choice but to get out ahead of the release.
Comey almost assuredly violated Department of Justice regulations, and while he had good reason, and felt that he also had the authority to do so, “Monday morning quarterbacking” by the Inspector General will probably find him wrong. None of these actions rise to the level of violation of law; the ultimate penalty for them would to be removed from the Director’s job. That’s happened.
The Trump campaign owes Comey a huge favor. He’s why Trump is in office; he couldn’t have strategized it better if it was planned. But instead, Comey is called a “thief,” and this report will be used to create fog and doubt around the Mueller investigation. Happy birthday, Mr. President: but soon the Mueller report will be your real present.
I was going to take this morning off, but then I heard Mr. Trump and “Comey and his band of thieves,” and I had to write!!!
