Harry Reid tells Director of the FBI, James Comey, he "may" have violated the Hatch Act. The New York Times says if the election goes to Mr. Trump, then Mr. Comey "might" be guilty of violating the law which forbids federal employees from using their offices to influence political activity, elections.
All this implies there is some doubt about whether Mr. Comey violated the law.
The Times, and others, point out Mr. Comey's intent must be assessed to convict him of violating the law.
Yes, that's what trials are about, weighing alternative interpretations of actions.
But this is also what arrests are about, and what timing is about. And what law is about.
Judges have a process by which they can issue an interim decision when timing is critical to outcomes.
Unless I'm mistaken, the only remedy for the current situation is to publicly arrest Mr. Comey, and make him do a perp walk in handcuffs, to say to those impressionable voters out there who are wondering if the FBI investigation of emails associated with Mrs. Clinton implies she has done something wrong or even illegal, to say to these folks, no, actually it's the Director of the FBI who has done something wrong.
He has taken action which can only be seen on face value as one which was motivated by trying to influence an election. He can be tried on this charge. We can take all the time he needs to prepare his defense, but for now, he belongs in jail.
Mad Dog,
ReplyDeleteI appear to be one of the only Dems in all the land not ready to throw ole Jim in the clink and toss the key..I'm not typically wishy washy on my opinions, especially with Republicans involved, but in this particular case I can see both sides. Perhaps he acted hastily, inadvertently put his fingers on the scale, turned his back on precedent-but I believe he didn't break the law if malicious "intent" was required to do so. I don't think Comey released the letter in order to influence the election. My money is on a combination of what he believed was right, an impossible desire to make all parties happy and a strong desire to cover his own butt. Granted it's speculation on my part-but right now we're all specualting..Damned if you do, damned if you don't..The outcry would be at least as loud if he had waited till after the election to come forward.
If the shoe were on the other foot- you, me and a lot of others would be crying foul if the FBI sat on the fact they were investigating Trump till after the election. I understand all this talk of precedent-but has there ever been this type of investigation cropping up just before a Presidential election? The FBI doesn't know what it has in the emails and he said so.. Maybe he decided to go with the public's right and ability to make an an informed decision.
I did see that former AG Alberto Gonzalez, a Republican appointed by Bush, strongly opposes Comey's actions. Gonzalez's argument, and it's compelling, is that the bureau's first priority is the integrity of the investigation, so if going public would interfere or damage the investigation, it's the wrong decision. He may be correct on this-Comey very well may have made a bad decision-but that doesn't mean it was a criminal one..
All this being said, should Hillary lose the election based on all this, I'll be the first on my block with a James Comey voodoo doll...
Maud
M,
ReplyDeleteYou are the person who should serve on a jury.
On the other hand, politics is a socially constrained form of warfare and as Michael told Tom Hayden in "The Godfather" you are a good consigliore, but you are not a war consigliore.
Mad Dog