James Comey felt compelled to report to Congress and the nation that the FBI had found new emails that might or might not be significant.
However, when he was asked to sign a joint statement that the nation’s intelligence agencies had concluded that the Russian government was behind the hacking of Democratic Party emails, he said he agreed with the conclusion but refused to sign.
CNBC reported:
“FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI’s name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former bureau official tells CNBC.
“The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.
“In the end, the Department of Homeland Security and The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued the statement on Oct. 7, saying: “The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations. … These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process….
“According to the former official, Comey agreed with the conclusion the intelligence community came to: “A foreign power was trying to undermine the election. He believed it to be true, but was against putting it out before the election.” Comey’s position, this official said, was “if it is said, it shouldn’t come from the FBI, which as you’ll recall it did not.”
“Comey took a different approach toward releasing information about the discovery of emails on a laptop that was used by former congressman Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, the official said.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Meanwhile, no investigation when emails are deliberately destroyed. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html And we have Huma saying that she does not know how her emails ended up on “that” computer. I’m guessing a very tech savvy person would know. For those of you who are fans of Stieg Larsson recall how Plague is able to tap into villain psychiatrist Dr. Teleborian’s computer and download files. The captured files are leaked to an investigative reporter which then leads to the confiscation of Teleborian’s computer. It’s all explained in the third book of the series, “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.” What if fiction is truth?
I think Hillary might be fortunate in a way that this is the major whoop tee do for this week. I saw much more negative danger if there was more emphasis on the foundation…and after she is elected, and I believe she will be…..I hope some of the ways in which the Clinton foundation works is compared for parallel actions by the charter foundation sponsors. Maybe not….it might not be much the right would want to talk about after the election.
Kadzick….Kadzick….assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik. Where have I heard that name?
I am not a Trump supporter nor a conservative of any stripe….I just like following the players, their relationships. I enjoy examining the claims and counter claims. Even more interesting is who knows who, who has dinner with whom.
If there was ever a time for a Hermeneutics of suspicion all around, I say to myself, now would be the time.
Unbelievable.
I thought it was very fishy that Comey wouldn’t sign the Russian accusation, but it was okay to implicate Clinton. Who paid him to do this? Did he want to be on the good side of Trump? He got it.
Just heard the broadcast of Hillary speaking in Cincinnati. She briefly addressed the issue of the lastest (and as yet unknown) emails and then moved on to a get-out-the-vote message. Other familiar points. Working hard for other Democrats in Ohio as well.
Clearly, attacking Comey was not a good idea.
JB2,
Many veteran prosecutors were stunned that Comey injected himself into the election with no facts, no evidence, just speculation. He has politicized the FBI.
This man put his name on the line since he sparked a controversy over extortion of Apple over encryption last year. His credibility started shaking, as he deliberately framed Apple as an accessory to criminal and threatened them with a lawsuit for refusing the request for unlocking passcode of iPhone that belonged to one of the suspects in San Bernardino shooting. And he hired professional hackers instead for doing so. He has some issues on professional judgment, and it’s becoming a more serious problem for him.
Our most venerable institution. How could it be ?.
Is anyone truly shocked that (Federal police ) and prosecutors could be as partisan or fallible as anyone else.
I suppose nobody remembers J Edgar Hover blackmailing Martin Luther King. No body remembers FBI operatives infiltrating the anti war movement and being the instigators of violence.
No body remembers this as well.
https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-agent-who-killed-boston-bombing-suspects-friend-was-twice-accused-of-police-brutality
A small [read BIG] point here.
http://fair.org/home/nyt-leads-with-russia-hack-conspiracy-despite-no-evidence-in-next-to-last-paragraph/
I am in no way persuaded this is a Ruskie operation. Simply not enough evidence despite what well compensated government contractors say. They depend upon those contracts to survive.
There is SIGNIFICANTLY more evidence about Russian hacking connections to the Trump campaign than there is that Hillary Clinton did anything illegal.
What is beyond dispute is that having her private server was 100% legal. There was absolutely nothing wrong with a sec’y of state using a private e-mail account instead of the state department e-mail. Not only was it accepted practice at the time and no one thought twice about it, but we have documented evidence that Colin Powell confirmed this at the time and recommended it. It’s outrageous that anyone said she should not have listened to Powell since Powell was telling her what accepted practices were and he wasn’t advising her to break the law. That is beyond dispute. And the other laughable faux outrage is that Hillary didn’t take Powell’s “advice” and use AOL — far more vulnerable — instead of setting up her own server. That very good and smart decision would have been lauded as an example of why we should trust her if the situation had been reversed. The Republicans would be saying “how dare Hillary think that using a public server at AOL that is completely hackable is a good idea — why didn’t she do what Powell did and make sure she had a secure and private server that she could control?” And if she had disregarded Powell’s advice, and kept it on the state department server that WAS hacked, the Republicans would have said “what bad judgement Clinton showed to intentionally disregard Powell’s good advice to have a private e-mail account when she knew the state department servers were subject to hacking”. See? No matter what, Comey would have decided to “investigate” whatever faux charges of corruption or incompetence the Republicans could come up with. Anyone who watched the ten different Benghazi “investigations” knows that is true. Comey, like Starr, was determined to do a non-stop investigation until he found something to taint Hillary with. Right before the election.
So why the faux outrage? Because in combing through every single one of 30,000 e-mails, the FBI found a few that were not properly marked classified that got through. Comey decided he didn’t trust Hillary Clinton nor her aides when they told him these kinds of “little c” mis-marked and not very confidential e-mails are on non-secure servers all over government because no department or official who gets dozens or hundreds of e-mails has managed to catch every one. So Comey did a basic perusal of Powell and Rice and Cheney and even without checking very carefully (because he hoped not to find any) Comey was immediately faced with the evidence that Hillary was telling the truth and every one of those officials had so-called classified material on non-secure servers. Comey quickly stopped looking at Cheney, Rice and Powell’s e-maiils for fear he’d come up with 1,000 classified e-mails that would make those guys look like criminals and Clinton look good and said “well, she was extremely careless” because that was the best way to slime her that he could think of at the time. He couldn’t bring charges because then the fact that he had tried to cover up the same so-called “crimes” that Powell, Cheney, and Rove did would mean that Comey was brought up on charges himself.
Later, Comey learned that one of Hillary’s top staffers’ computers had work e-mails on it — which is a perfectly legal thing to have. But Comey wanted to influence the election so he stayed quiet for weeks and then suddenly sent a letter — with an advance copy to a Republican — in which he did his best to imply he found more criminal evidence when he had done no such thing.
Something is terribly wrong when the only way the Republicans can win elections anymore is by lying (see Trump’s endless lies) and targeted investigations of non-crimes that produce no evidence of crime but lots of incriminating insinuations in letters by Republican officials that are released for maximum exposure. (See Benghazi hearings and Comey). And the people who are condoning this are playing a very dangerous game — the same game that the people who supported Hitler played. They thought they could use a little intimidating tactics and lies and smears to make an election go their way. What they did is allow a man they thought would be on their side to be elected and use those same underhanded tactics they created to seize complete power and wipe them all out. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I hope there is no one voting for Donald Trump who is under any illusion that they will be safe from his wrath and the “we can do anything to smear our opponents” tactics that they have created just for him to use to give himself more power. that’s exactly what many people in Germany thought. And if you think that is alarmist, then I suggest you read some history.
Looks like maybe the IRS also has a double standard. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html?_r=0
Well, let’s see: when Comey helped let HRC off the hook before the convention, when the AG of the United States met privately with Bill Clinton on the tarmac of an airport, that was just fine and dandy. So double standards seem to be very popular these days in American politics.
MPG, ever hear of the Hatch Act?
Michael Paul Goldenberg, what happened at that meeting?
For example, Bush and Cheney “met” with energy company officials and they re-wrote the rules so that regulations were gutted.
Bill Clinton met with the AG and what? If he had met with the crazed Republicans after Benghazi hearing number 8 found nothing, and as a result there was not Benghazi hearing 9, 10, 11, 12 and so on, what would that have meant? That his meeting resulted in “only” 8 investigations that didn’t find anything and prevented the next 8 politically motivated ones?
I don’t understand what you think this meeting on the tarmac of an airport led to?
Comey has disgraced the FBI AND SHOULD BE REMOVED
Comey’s purpose- generate more ad buys, enriching media. Clinton added broadcast ads to retain a lead. And, Trump bought more, thinking he has a renewed chance.
It’s manipulation to make media giants rich, with pawns strategically placed for the result.
The only beneficial part is that a small amount of the ad buy, is spent on media-related employment, for the 99%. That spending pries a little money out of the pockets of the richest 0.1%.