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)
He goes on to defend his Clinton press conference “in hindsight” by saying Ds and Rs had their predictable political response to it. But what about the widespread criticism from nonpartisan legal experts? He doesn’t address that in this chapter.
Comey makes the rather histrionic rationalization that “no matter what” was found on Weiner’s laptop — if the FBI did not do PR and announce the search *before* learning the facts, it would be “catastrophic to the integrity of the FBI and DOJ.”
p. 196
p. 196
But that is backwards. If there was nothing legally important on the laptop - which the FBI later concluded - there is noting catastrophic about using the normal process to find the facts.
Law enforcement gets leads all the time that must be pursued, but go nowhere. He made a mistake in promoting a lead, without facts, in the heat of an election. People do make mistakes. But doubling down on it now, after everything, with the benefit of hindsight? #AHigherLoyalty
Comey says he told DOJ he planned to make the unusual announcement about the emails before finding out what was in them, was advised against it but not ordered against it, and thus he concluded, “once again it became *my* responsibility to take the hit.”
The Comey leans on a self-pitying partisan frame, saying his “haters from July.. switched positions” after his letter. Doesn’t really reckon with the fact that the letter was “misunderstood” in the “middle of an election” exactly as he seemed aware it could be. 
Then James @Comey blasts the critics of his October letter as driven “around the bend” and moved to “hysteria.”
He insists he didn’t violate DOJ policy (many legal experts say he did, though as a unique situation it’s somewhat debatable).
He insists he didn’t violate DOJ policy (many legal experts say he did, though as a unique situation it’s somewhat debatable).
