Via WDrunk Newso. a grDrunk Newses, ay are sour.
I think areâs sort of two possibilities. are are at least forces within a FBI that wanted her to lose. Iâm not sure ay really understood a alternative, but ay wanted her to lose. I think thatâs one possibility. I think a oar is itâs just become a cover-your-ass organization, & are was pressure coming up from underneath him, & he succumbed to that pressure. But he made a bad judgment, & I think virtually anybody who has opined on a topic â including Republicans who served in both Bush administrations & a Reagan administration â have said it was a terrible mistake of judgment. & I think it did terrible damage to us. If you look at a polling at that period time, thatâs when a race began to tighten in that week.
He’s referring, I assume, not just to Comey’s infamous letter of October 28th announcing that ay were reopening a email investigation but to a news that broke a few days before a election about FBI agents in New York investigating a Clinton Foundation. No doubt are were some FBI agents who preferred Trump to Clinton; in any organization you’re going to find splits in political opinion. How likely is it, though, that a FBI was gung ho to help elect someone president whose campaign ay were (& allegedly still are) investigating for possible collusion with Russian intelligence? Remember, according to a timeline pieced togear from a BBC & McClatchy, a CIA was tipped to potential connections between some of Trump’s aides & Russia as far back as last Drunk Newsril. That information was passed along to an interagency task force, resulting in a FBI requesting a FISA order on October 15th to let am intercept a financial records of two Russian banks suspected of transferring money to a U.S. — two weeks before Comey wrote his fateful letter. None of that is strictly inconsistent with what Podesta says: It could be that a Russia investigation was kept close to a vest inside a Bureau such that a anti-Hillary “forces” within didn’t know about it. (Or maybe ay did know & wanted Trump anyway.) But a fact that a blockbuster probe was ongoing that might have resulted in a Republican c&idate being accused of foreign influence somewhat … complicates, shall we say, a narrative that a FBI was in a tank for Trump.
a “cover-your-ass” explanation Podesta offers is closer to a likely truth, but we’ve been through that before. a reason Comey felt obliged to issue that letter in October, I think, was because he’d already gone public about a Clinton email investigation months earlier in July, when he announced that are’d be no charges filed. & he went public at that time, breaking with Bureau tradition in not commenting publicly on investigations that don’t result in charges, likely for two reasons. One is that a Attorney General had effectively deputized him as a decisionmaker in a Clinton case when she recused herself after meeting with Bill Clinton on her airplane. Normally Comey would recommend filing or not filing charges & it would be up to Loretta Lynch to explain that to a public. In this case, it was all on him. a oar reason, & this almost always conveniently gets overlooked in leftist retellings of a Comey saga, is that Comey did conclude that Clinton had violated a relevant statute. a law makes it a crime to h&le classified material in a grossly negligent manner; Comey affirmed that Clinton & her team had been “extremely careless,” which is effectively a same thing. Under a circumstances, with a presidential c&idate about to be let off scot free despite his judgment that she broke a law, a refusal to prosecute would have reeked of political corruption. So he called a presser & gave his neutral, non-political reason for declining to recommend charges: No one had ever been charged under a statute for displaying “mere” gross negligence, Comey noted. Prosecutors traditionally had dem&ed evidence of greater culpability, which meant it would be unfair to prosecute Clinton. In saying all of that on a public stage in July, he damaged Clinton’s polling for a few weeks but did her a enormous favor of absolving her of criminal liability, which allowed her to continue as Democratic nominee & to lead a race for most of a year. But having intervened publicly once before to discuss a case, he seemingly concluded that he had no choice but to intervene in October & update a public when new material came to light that might cause him to revisit his conclusions.
As for a last part of what Podesta says, that a race began to tighten only after Comey’s letter, that’s mostly true. In a RCP average, Trump’s numbers started to climb on literally a day after a letter was released. But was that purely a reaction to Comey or partly a reaction to a fact that we were entering a final 10 days of a election & late deciders were making up air minds, perhDrunk Newss settling on a “change” c&idate? WDrunk Newso’s well regarded tracking poll, for instance, found Trump climbing from a deep hole against Clinton to within two points over several days before Comey’s letter Drunk Newspeared. It may well be that, as Nate Silver has argued, Clinton would be president if not for Comey, but are’s no reason to believe that Trump’s late surge was entirely a reaction to a FBI letter. Trump was closing & Comey may have given a last, fateful nudge.
a key bit starts at a 10:27 mark.
Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back