When FBI Director James Comey chucked protocol out
the window and took it upon himself to hold a press conference to announce that
no charges would be recommended against Hillary Clinton in the private email
server case, rather than passing his recommendation to the Justice Department
as is usually done, he put himself, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the
American electoral process in a difficult situation.
Apparently unaware of the old dictum, ‘when you’re
in a hole, stop digging,’ Comey on Friday, Oct. 28, publicly announced that in
the investigation of former congressman Anthony Weiner for possible criminal
violations, there might (my emphasis) be emails on a computer shared by him
and his wife, Hama Abedin (a Clinton aide) related to the investigation of
Clinton’s use of a private server when she served as secretary of state.
According to news reports, this announcement was made over the objections of
the Justice Department and some senior FBI officials, because, coming as it did
just days before the election, it could be seen as impacting the outcome of the
election (intended or not).
Now, while many have excoriated Comey for his
actions, others have sprung to his defense. The Republicans who damned him for
not recommending Clinton be prosecuted, are now hailing him as a hero. Even
some of his critics are saying that he is an honorable man who has done the
wrong thing for the right reasons.
I’m not going to get into the argument of Comey’s
honor or lack thereof, but there are some things about this situation that
bother me, and I do believe they should be considered.
One: during the first press conference in which he
said he would not recommend prosecution, he went on to make some snarky
comments about Clinton’s judgment, which had no bearing on whether or not a
crime was committed. During the second, however, he said these new emails might be related to the email server
case (which means that they also might not), but he gave no details, nor did he
make any editorial comments. The fact that the FBI didn’t even get a warrant to
search the computer in question until Sunday, two days after the announcement,
leads me to believe he hadn’t even seen them, so was, therefore, only
speculating on their relationship to the previous investigation, which then
causes me to wonder why he couldn’t have waited until carrying out the search
and knowing whether or not they bear
on the case.
Oh sure, there was the fact that his fellow Republicans
had savaged him before, and if he didn’t come forward now, and the emails later
turned out to be the smoking gun they’ve been looking for, he’d be accused of
withholding evidence. That, of course, nicely ignores the fact that coming out
with incomplete information before the election, which fed the GOP rumor mill
for an entire weekend, could affect the outcome of the election, and if it
turns out that there is no there there
in this situation, what a shame that would be. This is one of those ethical
dilemmas people in government sometimes face, and in this case, I believe Mr.
Comey failed the test. In worrying more about his reputation than the integrity
of the electoral system, he has set a bad precedent, and has put himself and
his agency in a no-win situation. Will the FBI now ignore Justice Department
rules and make public announcements in sensitive cases based on the personal
feelings of the director? Will partisan pressure be what determines what is
made public and what is not?
Maybe James Comey felt pressured and took the
actions he did to relieve some of that pressure. Maybe it was not his intent to
influence the outcome of the upcoming election (a blatant violation of the
Hatch Act if he did). Whatever his intent, his actions have set a dangerous
precedent in an era when hyperpartisanship is the rule rather than the
exception, and will have a long term effect on the conduct of elections in this
country.
Maybe he should have given a bit more thought to
that before opening his mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment