Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    DOJ Warned FBI Against Comey’s Email Investigation Update Letter to Congress

    DOJ Warned FBI Against Comey’s Email Investigation Update Letter to Congress

    “Lynch asked Comey to follow Justice Department policies, but he said that he was obliged to break with them”

    Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice just can’t seem to leave alone the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton for her private email server and its ramifications for national security.  The “tarmac summit” between Lynch and Bill Clinton was grossly improper, leading FBI agents to suggest the meeting was to broker “an inside deal.”  And now we are learning that “senior Justice officials” warned the FBI against Comey updating Congress regarding an email stash found while investigating Hillary’s top aide Huma Abedin’s disgraced husband Anthony Weiner.

    The Washington Post reports:

    Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey’s decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

    The bureau told Justice Department officials that Comey intended to inform lawmakers of newly discovered emails. These officials told the FBI the department’s position “that we don’t comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be viewed as influencing an election,” said one Justice Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the high-level conversations.

    “Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership,” the official said. “It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”

    The implication that Comey has gone rogue is repeated by a former Justice official, as well.

    WaPo continues:

    Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman in the Obama administration, said the FBI rarely releases information about ongoing criminal investigations and does not release information about federal investigations this close to political elections.

    “Comey’s behavior in this case from the beginning has been designed to protect his reputation for independence no matter the consequences to the public, to people under investigation or to the FBI’s own integrity,” Miller said.

    Miller and other former officials pointed to a 2012 Justice Department memo saying that all employees have the responsibility to enforce the law in a “neutral and impartial manner,” which is “particularly important in an election year.”

    Miller said he had been involved in cases related to elected officials in which the FBI waited until several days after an election to send subpoenas. “They know that if they even send a subpoena, let alone announce an investigation, that might leak and it might become public and it would unfairly influence the election when voters have no way to interpret the information,” Miller said.

    Watch the report:

    The outcry is not only that Comey has gone rogue, but that his action may influence an election. The DOJ, apparently, has gone to great lengths to not influence elections by withholding, even hiding, vital information from voters, information that may influence their vote (thus, as far as I can tell, thereby influencing elections).

    The New Yorker provides an overview of how DOJ policy in this regard has been shaped.

    Traditionally, the Justice Department has advised prosecutors and law enforcement to avoid any appearance of meddling in the outcome of elections, even if it means holding off on pressing cases. One former senior official recalled that Janet Reno, the Attorney General under Bill Clinton, “completely shut down” the prosecution of a politically sensitive criminal target prior to an election. “She was adamant—anything that could influence the election had to go dark,” the former official said.

    Four years ago, then Attorney General Eric Holder formalized this practice in a memo to all Justice Department employees. The memo warned that, when handling political cases, officials “must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality, and nonpartisanship.” To guard against unfair conduct, Holder wrote, employees facing questions about “the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election” should consult with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division.

    The New Yorker also reports that it was Lynch herself who asked Comey not to update Congress on the additional emails.

    According to the Administration official, Lynch asked Comey to follow Justice Department policies, but he said that he was obliged to break with them because he had promised to inform members of Congress if there were further developments in the case. He also felt that the impending election created a compelling need to inform the public, despite the tradition of acting with added discretion around elections. The Administration official said that Lynch and Justice Department officials are studying the situation, which he called unprecedented.

    Given how careful Comey was in his language both to Congress and to FBI employees, it seems that he felt torn about his decision given how little he knows about the discovered emails and his belief that he had a duty to update Congress.

    The New Yorker continues:

    In a letter to F.B.I. employees sent soon after the letter to Congress, Comey tried to explain his unusual decisions. In the letter, which was obtained by the Washington Post, he acknowledged, “Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.  In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season,” he noted, “there is significant risk of being misunderstood.”

    “I don’t really blame Comey,” another former Justice Department official said. “But it’s troubling.” This official thought that Comey “didn’t want to look tainted. This new information comes to him, and he’s afraid if he doesn’t make it public until after the election he’ll be impeached. People will say he lied to Congress. But in the end he did the self-protective thing. Was it the right thing? Put it this way: it isn’t what previous Administrations have done.”

    For her part, Hillary seems unconcerned about this new turn in the on-going email/server scandal having any influence on the election.

    Real Clear Politics reports on a presser she held yesterday in which she declared that the email scandal was “already factored into what people think and now they are choosing a president.”

    REPORTER: You have 11 days to go. What would you say to a voter who right now will be seeing you and hearing what you’re saying, saying I didn’t trust her before. I don’t trust her anymore right now. And they’re heading to the ballot box tomorrow.

    HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I think people a long time ago made up their minds about the e-mails. I think that’s factored in to what people think and now they are choosing a president. So I would urge everybody to get out and vote early in all the states that have early voting because I think Americans want a president who can lead our country and get the economy working for everyone, not just those at the top and who can bring our country together. I offer that I can do that. And I’m very confident that the American people know that and we’re going to continue to discuss what’s at stake in this election because I believe that it’s one of the most consequential elections ever.



    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    tom swift | October 29, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    … said the FBI rarely releases information about ongoing criminal investigations and does not release information about federal investigations this close to political elections.

    Well then, it’s a good thing Comey didn’t release any information about the federal investigation. All he did was notify Congress that an investigation is in progress; even better, that it’s an old investigation which is still in progress.

    As for why it’s happening close to a political election, the complaint should be directed at Team Hillary. They can’t obstruct, obfuscate, and delay an investigation for months on end, and then complain that the process is taking too long. They knew right from the start when the election would be held; that’s perhaps the only immutable factor in American politics—the election schedule. If they wanted the investigation wrapped up sooner, they could have strained themselves to be just a wee bit more cooperative.

    Bruce Hayden | October 29, 2016 at 9:19 pm

    Well, this is why the FBI Director is appointed to a 10 year term, and cannot be removed by the Atty General. To make him a bit more immune from political pressure – which is obviously what the AG was attempting.

    One additional thing to keep in mind here when discussing political pressure by the President and his AG is that it was documented a week or two ago that not only was Obama communicating with Crooked Hillary by email, but that her people believed that he should have known that she was communicating classified information with him via a email address, and, thus, insecurely.

    Which is why it is important that the FBI Director retain at least some independence from political interference.

    VaGentleman | October 30, 2016 at 2:25 am

    The whole thing is moot if #NeverTrump gets elected. The rational for Ford’s pardon of Nixon will come into play, the people will have spoken, and BO will ‘spare the country’ the agony of an investigation.

    randian | October 30, 2016 at 8:05 pm

    If this DoJ policy were honestly obeyed, we would expect to see announcements of completed investigations and indictments soon after an election is complete. I see no evidence of this happening, it would be big news if a candidate for any public office was indicted by DoJ right after winning an election. I can only conclude that the real purpose of the policy is to gather and then bury evidence of (Democrat) candidate malfeasance.

    As for the fraud trial against Trump U, I should point out it’s obviously politically motivated. Your Trump U education didn’t make you millions of dollars? So what? You can pay 6 figures to Yale or Harvard and they won’t guarantee your success either, yet I don’t see any lawsuits against them.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend