A group of Democratic senators on Saturday sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking for more details about the new development in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails.
The letter signed by Sens. Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Thomas Carper and Ben Cardin called a letter sent to Congress about newly discovered emails that could be pertinent to the investigation "vaguely worded" and open for misinterpretation with just a little more than a week before the election.
Are you sure you want that, Honorable Senators? A demand to replace vagueness with clarity this close to the election is like doubling down in blackjack. If that card is turned over, do you really think it is more likely to give you a 21 than a 13? I don't.
Why did Director Comey make this announcement? Would he have made it if the emails in question are really no big deal? That seems inconceivable to me. Just look at the list of people who are now seriously ticked off at him:
2. The likely majority of the next Senate.
3. The portion of American news media that is in the tank for the Democratic Party, a portion that for the sake of discussion I will estimate at roughly 75%.
The denunciations have come swiftly. Going to the WaPo opinion pages I was concerned my laptop might catch fire.
What could possibly have motivated Mr. Comey to incur all this wrath? A few no-big-deal emails? I really can't see that as a realistic possibility. The only thing I can see that would motivate this step is a bombshell big enough to show that his closing the case and making a no-prosecution recommendation this summer was clearly wrong.
The vague letter isn't going to flip the election and change numbers 1 and 2 above. Could a bombshell? Maybe. Are you really sure you want to double down, Senators?
------------------------------------------
For further reading, the two previous Attorneys General have op-eds today. Eric Holder has this article in the WaPo blasting Mr. Comey's present decision. Michael Mukasey has this article in the WSJ blasting his decision last summer. Talk about caught in the crossfire.
For word nerds, Bryan Garner at LawProse has this note on the plural of "Attorney General."
Regarding Comey's motivation and conduct, I suggest you read Jack Goldsmith's objective, non-partisan, in-depth, analysis on www.lawfareblog.com.
I agree with Goldsmith that Comey was between in rock and a hardplace in light of his previous testimony and his promise to keep Congress informed if anything came to light regarding the completed private server investigation.
But I think Comey should have informed Congress of the new email in a manner that would not have been publicized. Assuming that such a private and confidential option was feasible.
How about plural of email? If the plural of mail is not mails, why is the plural of email emails, as stated in Comey's letter and numerous news articles?
Hmmm. Plural of "email" ... I will have to ponder that.
Because an email is a analogous to a mailed letter. Thus emails.
"But I think Comey should have informed Congress of the new email in a manner that would not have been publicized."
Impossible.
Via letter, email, on the phone, or in person, the Republican Congressmen were going to make sure that the information made it out. They would have run to the cameras and there is nothing that the FBI Director can do to stop that.
Doing it by letter was likely his best option. 1) It is formal and fulfills the obligation he had to update Congress; and 2) It cannot be misinterpreted or purposely twisted by the Congressmen to say more than he wants it to.
As far as email, "emails" has become standard even though it is wrong. Technically, "email" should become "email messages" in its plural form. Americans don't like such formal expressions, so it has fallen out of favor.
"But I think Comey should have informed Congress of the new email in a manner that would not have been publicized. Assuming that such a private and confidential option was feasible."
Why? At the end of the day, Hillary's email scandal (and I think we all agree it's a scandal) is public knowledge--so why shouldn't additional developments be disclosed so as to give the public a better picture of that which is already known. The only real issue is prejudice--a statement that so and so is "under investigation" is prejudicial because the full scope of the underlying conduct isn't known. Here, we all know--Top Secret stuff was on Hillary's server, and it shouldn't have been there. So where is the possible prejudice?
In July Comey concluded that HRC did not violate the law by using a private server.
Shortly thereafter he testified that the investigation was closed, but he would inform Congress if new information comes to light.
New information came to light that necessitated re-opening the investigation.
Comey was obligated to inform Congress of this new information. He did so. But IMO he should have done so via a confidential briefing (instead of a letter that was certain to be disclosed by partisan congressman).
Congressional confidential briefings take place all the time. By not informing Congress in confidence, Comey put in motion a predictable GOP leak (of his presumably confidential letter) that would inevitably create a cloud of suspicion over HRC's head -- a cloud that he lifted in July when he concluded that no reasonable prosecutor would charge HRC with a crime. And a cloud that HRC couldn't defend against because neither she nor Comey knows the content of the new email.
In my mind, the manner in which this matter was handled has given rise to significant prejudice to HRC, especially coming 11 days before the election.
A confidential briefing (where everyone is sworn to secrecy) would have fulfilled Comey's obligation to Congress; prevented a GOP leak; and not created a prejudicial cloud of suspicion over HRC's head that she can't defend against.
By the way, I would really like to know Bill Otis' opinion on these issues, given his DOJ experience?
"In my mind, the manner in which this matter was handled has given rise to significant prejudice to HRC, especially coming 11 days before the election."
And how? That it reminds the American voters that HRC had Top Secret stuff on her hoe-brew server? That Loretta Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton is evidence of a DoJ corrupt to its core?
I have to laugh at the "cloud of suspicion" comment. What Hillary did is well-known, and Hillary brought all of this on herself. It's hard to argue that there's a whole lot of prejudice here.
The FBI seems pretty out of control just now. I also wonder what Bill Otis thinks of this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fbi-leaks-idUSKBN12Y2QD