Former FBI Director James Comey was out today with a quick response cued up with the New York Times to the IG report which excoriates him calling him “insubordinate” and saying that he violated multiple procedures in the handling of the Clinton email case and that the FBI basically took it easy on Clinton people while doing everything as harshly as they could by comparison with regard to the Trump/Russia investigation.
Comey’s response is clearly very crafted and so him, narcissistic to the end.
He says while he doesn’t agree with their conclusions, he respects their work.
From NY Times:
First, the inspector general’s team went through the F.B.I.’s work with a microscope and found no evidence that bias or improper motivation affected the investigation, which I know was done competently, honestly and independently.
The report also resoundingly demonstrates that there was no prosecutable case against Mrs. Clinton, as we had concluded. Although that probably will not stop some from continuing to claim the opposite is true, this independent assessment will be useful to thoughtful people and an important contribution to the historical record.
The report actually showed a lot of bias by among other people, Peter Strzok, but then inexplicably said that there was no evidence the bias affected the investigation.
It did not conclude there was no prosecutable case against Clinton. In fact, it concluded that Comey had no right to make that conclusion and that he improperly took the responsibility away from Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
After Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced she would not recuse herself from the Clinton email investigation and would instead rely primarily on my recommendation, I chose to do something unprecedented: In July 2016, I separately and transparently announced to the American people what we had done, what we had found and our view that Mrs. Clinton should not be prosecuted. Before 2016, I could never have imagined doing such a thing, because the normal practice was always for the F.B.I. director to coordinate statements with the attorney general and for leaders of the Justice Department to report the details of the completed investigation.
But even in hindsight I think we chose the course most consistent with institutional values. An announcement at that point by the attorney general, especially one without the transparency our traditions permitted, would have done corrosive damage to public faith in the investigation and the institutions of justice. As painful as the whole experience has been, I still believe that. And nothing in the inspector general’s report makes me think we did the wrong thing.
No, the normal course is for the AG to make the announcement not the FBI Director, and if the AG were somehow compromised, for her deputy to make the decision. And he still doesn’t apparently care about propriety, despite the IG report pointing out his failure.
He then dealt with their criticism of his reopening the case close to the election.
Similarly, I never imagined the F.B.I. would face a choice in late October 2016 either to tell Congress we had restarted the email investigation in a significant way or to conceal that fact. But to have concealed it would have meant to hide vital information: That what I and others had said publicly and under oath to Congress was no longer true. I chose to speak and tell the truth.
But the problem was the FBI had already concealed the information for over a month before Comey wrote the letter and told Congress and the information was apparently leaking out that they had the emails. That’s why he went so public with it then, because he was afraid they were going to get nailed for hiding them.
He goes on at length to talk about the “hard decisions” he had to make.
No, it’s really not hard if you adhere to proper procedure. It’s hard when you’re trying to dance, cover-up and be political, that’s what’s hard.
He dismisses all the impropriety found in the IG report by saying they didn’t find the evidence that the bias affected the investigation.
As F.B.I. director, I wanted a second set of eyes on the agonizing decisions we made during the 2016 election, knowing full well the inspector general’s office could draw different conclusions. I also was confident that even if it disagreed with our decisions, it would find the F.B.I. team made them without regard for political favor or partisanship.
The inspector general’s office has now reached that very conclusion. Its detailed report should serve to both protect and build the reservoir of trust and credibility necessary for the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. to remain strong and independent and to continue their good work for our country.
Our nation’s institutions of justice are up to the task of protecting the rule of law and defending truth and transparency. All of us should stand up and support them.
Unreal the absolute nerve of this guy.
Democrats are already praising the ‘statesman-like’ response and/or saying that the report just shows his actions hurt Clinton.
They leave off the insubordination, the bias, the improper actions, the favorable treatment given to the Clinton people, the improper closeness with the media revealed.
And that’s just what’s been seen so far in the 500+ report.