,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
James Comey, a key Mueller witness, chooses to weigh in on how Mueller findings should be released and invokes his own FBI announcement on Clinton as a precedent for what to do.
A few points...
wapo.st/2ITW0kg?tid=ss…
A few points...
wapo.st/2ITW0kg?tid=ss…
Comey says his goal here is to help support DOJ "transparency" -- but it does not help to link his own *violation* of DOJ rules in the Clinton case to what Barr may do that would be *consistent* with DOJ rules....
Comey lists 4 times when findings from a federal investigation *were* released for the public interest:
Ferguson
IRS Tea Party
Padilla detention
Clinton email
The first 3 were done *by the DOJ* under the rules;
Only his Clinton case was the FBI usurping against the rules.
Ferguson
IRS Tea Party
Padilla detention
Clinton email
The first 3 were done *by the DOJ* under the rules;
Only his Clinton case was the FBI usurping against the rules.
The independent DOJ inquiry concluded Comey's Clinton announcement
- "violated" DOJ "practice and protocol," and that
- "Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General"
- "violated" DOJ "practice and protocol," and that
- "Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General"
Those are the DOJ rules and findings. People are certainly free to debate them, but it doesn't square for a former FBI official to invoke "the rule of law" while dismissing the DOJ rules *and* a DOJ inquiry reinforcing them.
And that raises the question, is the best thing for the Mueller probe having this key witness weigh in on the release of Mueller's findings -- or is this more about trying to relitigate and defend an FBI Clinton announcement that's not even an issue right now?
