IG has odd take on Lynch: She didn't discuss anything wrong with Bill Clinton & maybe it was okay to meet him, but was an "error" not to "cut the visit short"
So short meeting that doesn't discuss probe is OK -- but long meeting that doesn't discuss probe is an error?
- he "concealed" secret plan to do the Seacresting presser re Clinton (as he admits in his book) &
- he was "insubordinate" to do so
(#Seacresting is a ref to how Comey's family said he was wrong to do the presser with reality show style mystery)
Full disclosure: Obv it's problematic that I can quote Comey's family's criticism of his presser from his book, #toomuchtimeon1story
IG: We searched for evidence that the Weiner email search was delayed to "protect Clinton" and found "no evidence" of that after searching "emails, texts, IMs" and documents.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Sen Sasse’s statement is very in sync with Kavanaugh’s longstanding judicial concern — Congress hands off too many decisions to federal agencies, which abdicates accountability and leaves too much power with bureaucrats.
This is a more straightforward version of what conservative legal activists say about the administrative state, Chevron jurisprudence, etc.
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both show great concern about the administrative state, and their DC Circuit experience puts them in touch with these issues more than all other appeals judges around the country.
IG report also rejects Comey's famous claim that trying to follow longstanding policy put him in a dilemma between speaking or "concealing."
That's a "false dichotomy," Horowitz writes, which is DOJ IG speak for a #roasting
IG report also gives unusual internal details on longstanding issue with FBI-DOJ relations - FBI chiefs don't really think DAG is their boss and act accordingly.
Shows DAG Yates thought telling Comey not to send email letter would get "hard push back"
Comey casts himself as the one independent person in a sea of partisan hacks, while he released letter for the good of the nation, “most” of his critics would “do what was best for their favorite team.”
Does that include all the former DOJ officials who critiqued him?
Comey’s own account does show why he was totally wrong - credit for candor there - within *days,* they learned most of the emails were duplicates (the FBI had already reviewed them), and they changed nothing.
So had he waited a few days, he could have announced that or nothing.
James Comey writes that partisans will misconstrue what the FBI does no matter what, but then he says he made decisions out of concern about what partisans would say about the FBI. This book is damning in ways he may not even realize.
He writes he worried that a potential attack on AG Lynch, which might have been a lie, “would allow partisans to argue, powerfully, that the Clinton Campaign, through Lynch, had been controlling the FBI’s investigation.”
If true, of course that would be wrong; if false, then it would just be another lie. Worrying about the optics falls into the very trap partisans set for the FBI. (p. 178)
The Cambridge-Facebook story is important .. not just because of Russia or Trump or Zuckerberg or John Bolton (who used Cambridge) or Bannon or Peter Thiel or the tremendous number of intersections of important people in this story.
With stories like this, people tend to first look at what *rules* have been broken... like FB's app rules that developers agree to, or other laws and regulations that are implicated. BUT...