There has been a lot of attention targeting FBI director James Comey's decision to announce that the agency will be looking at some emails recently discovered related to Hillary Clinton's private server. Okay, so that's not quite true. This is just how the media is portraying the story.
Before I go any further, I feel obligated to mention my limited information. I have to turn to the media to know what's going on. Like usual, the media has been conveniently omitting key details.
Let's start with the basics. It sounds like Comey felt obligated to inform Congress about the new information since he testified under oath that the investigation was over. Additionally, there have been reports that FBI agents knew about the emails but only recently informed Comey of the new developments. On top of that, Comey indicated that he was concerned over the consequences of withholding the information.
I honestly can't validate what I just wrote. Since we are supposed to presume innocence until guilt is proved, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I reserve the right to change my mind if conflicting evidence is provided.
Numerous people have complained online about his decision to go public with this information so close to the election. I have been struggling with those complaints. There has been a serious issue with the media's reporting in this regard. The letter in question was sent to Congress. We have not been told how the media obtained the information. Since I couldn't find any references to the letter on the FBI's website, the most logical conclusion is that it was leaked from Congress. In other words, Comey did not go public with it.
In all fairness, even proof that he didn't go public would be insufficient to show there was nothing wrong. In the middle of an election, a leak was not out of the question. There is a good chance he knew that. Even so, there is a big difference between informing Congress and going public. It seems to me that he would be more likely to hold a press conference if he was really trying to influence the election rather than rely on the uncertainty of a leak. Also keep in mind that he sent the letter to the democrats as well. They could have always found some form of preemptive strike.
Harry Reid has gotten involved. He wrote a letter to Comey, claiming that he might be in violation of the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act prohibits government employees under the umbrella of the executive branch from using official duties in a way that influences an election. There has been no evidence presented that in any way indicates that these actions from Comey are political.
In the letter, Harry Reid insists that the FBI needs to release "explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government."
There are two key differences here between what Comey did and what Reid did. Let's start with the first. Comey wrote to congress about the existence of emails that they are interested in looking at. He also indicated that he didn't know what was in the emails. There were no indications that the new evidence pointed to guilt. Reid outright accused Trump of wrongdoing without providing evidence.
The other difference is that Harry Reid went public. You can find this letter on his website, his Facebook page, and from his Twitter account. One thing is very clear from Reid's actions. His comment about Trump's connection with the Russian government was not meant for Comey. This was not a leak. He targeted the letter more to the public than the FBI, and he wanted to use that accusation to help Hillary.
Keep in mind who we are talking about. While I don't like writing what I keep reading elsewhere, Reid's history is certainly relevant. In 2012, he aggressively pushed the idea that Romney did not pay taxes. This turned out to be perhaps the single biggest whopper of the last election cycle. When asked about it, he bragged about the success of the deceit. The man has no credibility.
There's one last thing I wanted to say. Let's forget about the letter of the law for a moment. Let's discuss ethics. Which is worse, informing congress about changes made without any accusations since testimony was made under oath regarding a presidential candidate or going public with an accusation of a presidential candidate's wrongdoings without providing any evidence?
No comments:
Post a Comment