{"id":6286,"date":"2016-10-30T20:34:53","date_gmt":"2016-10-31T01:34:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/?p=6286"},"modified":"2016-10-30T20:34:53","modified_gmt":"2016-10-31T01:34:53","slug":"comey-and-the-national-security-community","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/2016\/10\/30\/comey-and-the-national-security-community\/","title":{"rendered":"Comey and the National Security Community"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you’re tired of the usual voices lamenting or championing the Clinton email incident, Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare<\/strong><\/em> offer an extended analysis<\/a> of FBI<\/strong><\/em> Director Comey’s actions from the perspective of professionals working in the national security arena.<\/p>\n

5) Why did [Comey publicly announce his recommendation], and was he justified in doing it? <\/strong><\/p>\n

Comey answered this question in part in his press conference. He stated at the outset that Justice Department and the rest of the government \u201cdo not know what I am about to say.\u201d And he later explained: \u201cIn this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.\u201d<\/p>\n

There were surely other reasons for Comey\u2019s \u201cunusual transparency\u201d that he did not mention. Primarily, the public perceptions that the independent judgment of Comey\u2019s superiors, the President and the Attorney General, was tainted on the matter.<\/p>\n

In October 2015, President Obama stated<\/a> that Clinton’s personal email server \u201cis not a situation in which America\u2019s national security was endangered,\u201d and the following April, a few months before Comey\u2019s press conference, Obama said<\/a> of the Clinton email controversy that Clinton \u201cwould never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.\u201d Both of these statements gave the appearance to many observers that the President had prejudged legally relevant aspects of the investigation. And, of course, Clinton is also the nominee of the President\u2019s own party.<\/p>\n

To make matters worse, Attorney General Lynch was compromised not just by these statements by the President, but much more so by Bill Clinton\u2019s controversial private visit<\/a> on her airplane on the Phoenix tarmac; by the Clinton camp floating the possibility<\/a>, a few weeks before Comey\u2019s press conference, that she would consider keeping Lynch<\/a> as her Attorney General; and by Lynch\u2019s own unclear statements<\/a> the weekend before Comey\u2019s press conference about her role in the final decision to prosecute.<\/p>\n

In short, Comey\u2019s superiors were compromised in a fashion that threatened to taint the investigative conclusions, including his independent recommendation not to prosecute. This taint around the Clinton investigation was the original set of factors that hemmed Comey in from the beginning.<\/p>\n

In this highly unusual circumstance\u2014a circumstance made more unusual by the fact that the central focus of the investigation was the Democratic nominee for the presidency\u2014we believe Comey was justified in announcing his recommendation and reasons for non-prosecution in public. Comey\u2019s unusual action was the least bad option he had for preserving the integrity and independence of his investigation and recommendation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, if you want a black & white judgment on Comey, Clinton, or for that matter, Trump – you won’t get it in this article. But you will get an up close and personal view of Comey’s actions and why his hand may have been forced. But they do make the following important remark:<\/p>\n

… if there is more that Comey can say, he should probably do so\u2014even at the risk of sliding further down the slippery slope he is on. Specifically, assuming the following statements are true, it would be worth Comey\u2019s saying them publicly:<\/p>\n