Comey being Comey

Its chaos, but I’d say the near term chaos is overstated, with the long term chaos unappreciated:

  • Hillary is still going to win
  • But it’s going to be close, say an Electoral College victory of less than 300 votes
  • Thus it’ not going to be a shaming defeat for the fever swamp right, and they’ll continue to cry rigged for 4 years, maybe even with a superficial appearance of legitimacy.
  • Polarization as usual, when perhaps there was faint hope of moving past.

On some deets here:

  • The Clintons are corrupt, with the nature of their corruption generally being this whorish acceptance of donations for ambassadorships / bureaucratic appointments / advisory board seats….
  • That kind of political business is baked into the cake now, and it’s not really disqualifying of the Clintons.  It’s kind of the way it is.  It no doubt gets remarked on candidly sometimes in private emails of the people involved (both parties).  These aren’t ‘smoking guns’.  We’d be well served if everyone could be realistic here.
  • But, we all got to pretend right….  So the donation business is probably a ‘reasonable’ explanation for the Clinton private server.  The donation business is a reason one subverts FOIA, because the donation business invariably gets mixed into daily govt activity, and you can’t just let do-gooders or journalists or Republicans peruse that.
  • Secondarily, they probably wanted to subvert FOIA to shield some sensitive government business.  Like Benghazi, IE, stuff with the weightiness of Benghazi.  Which is to say, I ain’t making a value judgment on Benghazi.  I’m just saying at various points people in the administration would have wanted to shield their discussion of sensitive stuff from FOIA, again so do-gooders or journalists or Republicans couldn’t make hay with it.
  • So there, you end up taking your sr. govt conversations about real, important stuff into unsecured networks.
  • These are all felonies.  And such that Comey let them off in July because there was an explanation of ‘no intent’ to mishandle…. There was intent, and the intent was to subvert FOIA.
  • I don’t think Comey’s decision to not prosecute in July was wrong as a master of judgment and prosecutorial discrimination.  Ya know, the Clinton machine broke the law, willfully…. But it would have been extreme to set the course for that magnitude of systemic clash over this.  It’s not actually a ‘public corruption’ kind of ‘public corruption’.
  • And it would have been fruitless.  Like I say, the Clinton transgressions weren’t great enough and thus Comey wouldn’t have won the court cases.
  • PS:  Comey no doubt could have referred credible indictments against the inner Clintonites for lying to the FBI during the email investigation.  Easy indictment, even if there’s no malice or real deceitful intent on the part of the interview subject.  FBI and DOJ loves doing that as a matter of practice (Martha Stewart).  They didn’t, again as a matter of prudence and who’s ox would be gored.
  • So now with the Weiner emails, you’ d figure with errant govt docs on this private laptop Comey could have said “we made a determination of no intent on the mishandling of classified material in July and that still applies”.  Easy call.
  • He didn’t, and…. ya know, the institutionally safe position was no doubt to maintain that the investigation had been concluded.  I don’t think he’s a crack up or an amateur.  So something different had to move him off the safe position.  Or actually, this actually may be the safe position given the nature of whatever this new thing is…
  • Harry Reid on Comey ‘violating the Hatch act’:  laughable, whatever Comey is doing is not a violation of the Hatch act.  He’s materially doing his job for good or for incompetence, but he’s not violating the Hatch act ie being a govt employee materially participating in a political campaign.
  • On this supposed norm of not doing investigations as we all close in on election day:  BS, give me an example.  It’s a historical pattern, certainly, but not a held norm.
  • I find the Terry McAuliffe / FBI guy McCabe and his wife nexus superficially suggestive:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/28/chaffetz-asks-deputy-fbi-director-for-documents-about-wifes-political-ties-to-clinton/  I’m sure the Vox guys are on the case at this moment to swat it down with a Voxsplainer.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s