The IG’s report on the Clinton email investigation has been released…
…and it’s 568 pages long.
Who’s going to read that? Not even bloggers like me, unless they’re gluttons for punishment or unusually OCD. So we’ll have to rely on summaries, reports, social media, pundits, and the like. I eagerly await Andrew C. McCarthy’s take.
Right now, though, I want to mention that I don’t think you’ve ever seen a post on this blog about a report coming out that predicts the report will make a significant difference, will deeply implicate someone important in government (enough to cause an actual criminal prosecution, that is), or will cause something really fundamental to change. Oh, maybe I wrote something like that many years ago, although I don’t think I did. But those days are gone, if they ever existed. The IRS scandal in particular underlined that fact; the abuses were clear and egregious and nothing ever happened that meant much of anything in terms of a redress or punishment.
So I’ve been expecting nothing special for this one. And my impression is that’s what we’ve got, although there are some fascinating disclosures.
The gist of the report appears to be that Comey and company acted very strangely, in a way that seems unprecedented and certainly could easily give a person the idea that there was some pre-existing political agenda and bias, but no evidence was found that any bias contributed directly to those actions. That is, we can infer political bias from their odd behavior, but we can’t prove it (although we can’t explain it in any other way, either).
So all the IG can do is shrug at this point and issue tons of verbiage.
At least, that’s what I glean from various articles I’ve read (see this, for example, as well as this and this, and I’m sure many more will be forthcoming).
Think about it. Not only does the IG not want to rock the boat too much, but what would you imagine that such “evidence” would consist of and how on earth could political bias be proven to affect the legal decisions made? Short of a memo or recording in which Comey calls his staff together and makes a speech sounding something like this?: We all know that we are liberal Democrats and leftists who would dearly love for Hillary Clinton to become our next president, so despite the fact that we realize she’s guilty as the day is long, I hereby direct you to absolve her of guilt in order for her to be elected, so do we all pledge today…
Needless to say, that sort of evidence will not be found. And short of that, the IG (Horowitz) refuses to draw any conclusions about the reasons for Comey’s “departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms.” And what was that “departure” to which the IG is referring? It seems to have been the public statement Comey made about Hillary that exonerated her from criminal prosecution while still saying she mishandled classified information.
Of course, in a 500-plus-word document, there’s a lot more than that, and we’re just beginning to digest it.
[ADDENDUM: See also this from William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, and this at the Federalist. And then there’s this from Ben Shapiro and this from Trey Gowdy.]
This is pretty much my take, it is pretty hard to *prove* that political bias drove the decisions, although many will conclude that that was the case. Ace seemed to hope that someone would go up against the wall, but I didn’t expect that. I don’t think that the report will do much to change opinions in the short run, but the evidence it provides is useful, might effect voters, and may even make a difference.
What a hoot.
I could trot out the old chestnut; “if it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck…”. But, will refrain.
Besides in today’s climate that would only apply to Conservatives or Trumpsters (well, to white men in general in the eyes of some); and in those instances the walk and talk would not have to be overly strange to prove bias and malevolent intent.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Many years ago my mother accused me of heartlessly teasing one of my younger siblings. I took this accusation very, very seriously. So I launched a serious and detailed investigation and after quite a long time was able to report back to my mother that I did not, in fact, tease my younger sibling.
For some odd reason she punished me anyway.
Like you Neo, I had no expectations that anything of substance or with serious criminal implications would come from this exercise. Wasn’t the investigation completed last fall? They’ve been reviewing and amending the report from then until just a few weeks ago. And didn’t Rosenstein predict this outcome a few months ago?
From what I’ve seen though, the credibility and veracity of the FBI under Comey are shown to be quite low.
Attorney Warns: Aaron Rich Refuses to Authorize Wikileaks To Reveal Info on Seth Rich
Former President Obama’s White House Counsel, representing the brother of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich, refuse to authorize Wikileaks to release information that would reveal whether Rich received payments about from the whistle blower organization, an attorney who’s been subpoenaed by Rich’s legal team warns.
Aaron Rich, the brother of Seth Rich, filed a lawsuit in April in US District Court in the District of Columbia, against the Ed Butowsky , a wealth management and financial adviser who financed a private investigator to help the Rich family find Seth’s killer(s); Butowski’s attorney, Ty Clevenger; Matt Couch and his media company, America First Media; and the conservative-leaning newspaper the Washington Times for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy, among other actions.
Last week, Twitter sent out notices on behalf of Rich’s legal team to Clevenger, Butowski, Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Roger Stone, Kim DotCom, Matt Couch, the Gateway Pundit and Gateway Pundit reporter Cassandra Fairbanks, demanding they turn over all direct messages from their accounts to Aaron Rich’s Democrat-connected attorneys.
The main reason Rich’s lawyers “unlawfully” subpoenaed the private messages of opposing counsel and investigative journalists, Clevenger warned in an interview with the Gateway Pundit, is to retaliate against him after he demanded the Rich family authorize WikiLeaks to reveal what it knows about the DNC data breach.
There are so many guilty of sedition and arguably even treason, that to prosecute even the majority, much less all might well precipitate widespread rebellion.
Yet, a continuing absence of accountability and consequence for one side will result effectively, in the elimination of redress of grievance. In which case rebellion will also manifest.
Those enabling the Left’s gutting of America’s constitutional and cultural institutions clearly fail to foresee the storm they are brewing. Exclude a group from accountability to the rule of law and you guarantee “politics by ‘other’ means”…
The choice the Left is gradually forcing upon us is to either fight for liberty or submit to ideological enslavement.
568 pages? Yikes. Neo’s waiting for Andrew C. McCarthy’s take, but in times like these, I always rely on “The Huffington Post.”
Their headline:
DOJ Watchdog Report Takeaway: FBI Hurt Hillary Clinton, Not Donald Trump.
Just as I suspected. Trump must be some kind of genius to have pulled this off.
Art,
Isn’t a refusal to release information that could disprove an accusation, an implicit admission that the accusation is in fact, true?
In effect, Aaron Rich is admitting that Seth Rich was a whistleblower. He just doesn’t want to confirm it because that would precipitate a formal murder investigation.
The only reason to keep information secret is because exposure will harm the holding party.
Obviously, that also applies to the FBI Rosenstein’s refusal to release materials requested by Sen. Grassly’s committee.
It’s now been confirmed that Rosenstein made a veiled threat to expose Senator’s “dirty laundry” if they keep investigating the FBI’s conduct in various matters. This despite the legality of constitutional oversight.
He’s effectively threatening to take them down with him.
I keep comparing all of this to Watergate, and it amazes me how much worse this all is than that episode. Yet, nothing is going to happen. I suppose it could be because the target here are Dems and NoTrumpers, instead of a sitting Republican president. And also, in the case of Watergate, it was the press leading the charge, and that CERTAINLY won’t happen now.
I guess I answered my own question. Wake me up when someone is actually indicted, or goes to jail. Until then, just another day here in the good ol’ USA.
It is foolish to believe a member of the protected class will ever hold another member of the protected class responsible for the crimes they commit. The unprotected live under the lash of the law when they commit a crime. People like Comey and the rest skate, and receive cushy jobs at a ‘think tank’ or as analysts on the msm.
I would like to be shown that I am wrong, but will not hold my breath.
You got it backwards, Neo.
The IG is saying Comey “acted very strangely, in a way that seems unprecedented and certainly could easily give a person the idea that there was some pre-existing political agenda and bias” against Democrats.
This is fairly obvious since the strange unprecedented actions include insubordination to Loretta Lynch, who is presumably a Lib Dem, which Comey clearly is not.
Sure thing, Manju, sure thing.
I guess you failed to read the links in the addendum.
Gowdy:
Sure thing—bias against Hillary and Democrats.
And all those emails that are quoted—surely, bias against Hillary and Democrats.
And this:
Tons of bias against Hillary and Democrats. Tons.
Or this:
More bias against Hillary and Democrats, no doubt.
Neo,
You’re quoting rabid RWingers claiming that Comey is biased against their side. I know that’s what they think, but that’s not what the IG says.
The report says Comey didn’t get along with Lynch. Lynch, if she is biased, would be biased in favor of Clinton.
Comey’s wrongdoing was insubordination to Lynch, and violated department rules to keep investigations confidential.
This had the effect of hurting Clinton. But the IG concludes that Comey real motive was to preserve the integrity of the FBI, since he thought Lynch was compromised.
Manju:
You keep mentioning Lynch. I know that there are one or two points on which Comey’s actions may have had some negative effects on Clinton. Those points are far FAR outweighed by the opposite—far more numerous actions that helped Clinton and Democrats and hurt the opposition. Those quotes I offered describe some of them.
What’s more, if you actually read what I wrote, some of it is quotes from the report itself.
So no, not “rabid right-wingers” (are there any other kind, Manju?).
Stop wasting your time and mine, and everyone else’s.
“Stop wasting your time and mine, and everyone else’s.”
Dude…you just trod on the Boss’ last nerve. I’d hide out for awhile if I were you. Or not & let the rest of us enjoy seeing her spank you again.
Besides “usurped the authority of the Attorney General”, the big deviation from FBI Policy include was announcing the re-opening of the Clinton Investigation during an election year.
This is a two-fer (making an investigation public and violating the election year rule). The IG (in ch 10) compares this to the treatment Trump got (secrecy). He concludes that Comey thought there were special circumstances for the Clinton case, but not for Trump’s. So anti-Dem political bias could not be established, though of course that the way it looks.
In this section, he also looks at FBI leaks designed to make Clinton look bad. Specifically, he wants to know if Comey released this info because he feared that it would leak anyway. Comey appears to suggest this but the IG points out that he also said he said this as “consolation” to himself after the fact. But his decision to publicly disclose this info was not guided by fears of anti-Clinton forces within the FBI leaking.
The Lovers Texts go in the other direction to be fair, but the biggies appear to be Comey’s Right-Wing bias.
“Comey’s Right-Wing bias.”
Where to begin? Why not float this at Vox or Huffington or NYT? Oh, never mind.
Funny how trying to uphold the law (and save your sorry backside—but perhaps the order should really be, save your sorry backside and um, er, uphold the law) is proof of “right-wing bias”.
Alas, Comey’s “road to Damascus” would appear to run straight through Anthony Weiner’s hard drive.
But, as I’ve said before, we are—more than we know—indebted to Anthony Weiner (Thanks Tony!) and also to Huma Abedin (Thanks Huma!!) and, most of all to Hillary Clinton (Thanks Hillary!!!), without whose critical assistance, Comey would not have “seen the light”; no, Comey would not have had to “re-open” his investigation of HRC’s peripatetic emails.
In other words, without the noble (and wholely selfless) assistance of these three stooges, Comey would not have had to give his “right-wing bias” free reign.
(We are also indebted to the NYPD for their—I guess one can only call it “naive”; or worse, “lawless” according to some “experts”—insistence to uphold the law.)
I guess this can only mean that Anthony, Huma and Hillary—in their selflessness and nobility (and eagerness to uphold the law)—also exhibited “right-wing bias”. QED.