So there’s at least one diary here on this NYTimes story, and Hunter has also front paged it, but I’m reading an entirely different aspect of it as having the biggest import- namely, Obama’s role in the whole matter.
If you haven’t read it, it’s a lengthy and deep look at what exactly Comey did in the months, and days before the election, and tries to discern exactly why he did those things. And it is deep; penned by not less than four reporters (on the byline alone.)
One aspect of the story is that Comey may not have been as nefarious in his pre-election actions as many here like to think, but the biggest (by far) reveal in this story, which I find truly amazing, is a revelation that actually makes Comey look good in terms of informing the nation that the FBI was looking into Russian election influence. Specifically, he proposed writing an op-ed *, to be published in the Times, which would help Americans “understand the scope of the foreign interference and be “inoculated” against it”. More amazingly and equally stunning, is that the op-ed was quashed because none other than President Obama was against it, his thinking being that
… going public would play right into Russia’s hands by sowing doubts about the election’s legitimacy. Mr. Trump was already saying the system was “rigged,” and if the Obama administration accused Russia of interference, Republicans could accuse the White House of stoking national security fears to help Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Comey argued that he had unique credibility to call out the Russians and avoid that criticism. After all, he said, he had just chastised Mrs. Clinton at his news conference.
The White House decided it would be odd for Mr. Comey to make such an accusation on his own, in a newspaper, before American security agencies had produced a formal intelligence assessment. The op-ed idea was quashed. When the administration had something to say about Russia, it would do so in one voice, through the proper channels.
This revelation of course offers us an enormously changed perspective on both the mere fact of Russia’s election tampering, and further, any judgement we may make on James Comey’s disposition in revealing that fact to the electorate. Further still, is the judgement on the NYTimes decision to not publicize any of this, since we must now consider that the Times itself was dutifully acquiescing to the president’s wishes. I really can’t add anything else to this facet of the story other than to say that consistent with an anti-Comey narrative, the other diaries omit this rather important fact of Obama’s role in the op-ed never going to print, and his belief in keeping the story out of the news.
There’s also another fact of the story which strikes me most, perhaps due to my lack of knowledge on such matters although it may be elementary to others here: and that is is that both/either AG Lynch and/or DAG Sally Yates had the authority to prevent Comey from publishing his infamous October 28 letter:
Either Ms. Lynch or Ms. Yates could have ordered Mr. Comey not to send the letter, but their aides argued against it. If Ms. Lynch issued the order and Mr. Comey obeyed, she risked the same fate that Mr. Comey feared: accusations of political interference and favoritism by a Democratic attorney general.
If Mr. Comey disregarded her order and sent the letter — a real possibility, her aides thought — it would be an act of insubordination that would force her to consider firing him, aggravating the situation.
So the debate ended at the staff level, with the Justice Department imploring the F.B.I. to follow protocol and stay out of the campaign’s final days. Ms. Lynch never called Mr. Comey herself.
I had no idea this was the case, and knowing this certainly does make me angry that they didn’t stop him- ‘do no harm’ and all that. Of course, Comey should not have sent the letter.
Finally, in one glaring omission, the article fails to mention the FBI leaks from their NYC office- evidenced by Rudy Giuliani gloating about having things ‘up their sleeves’ as he obviously knew about the Wiener laptop investigation before the public. I mention this mainly because these leaks are sometimes cited as part of the justification for the Comey letter- his effort to “clear the air” and stay ahead of the aspersions being thrown such as by folks like Rudy. The Times article emphasizes that the primary motivation was Comey’s belief that he had a duty to report to congress. Many of the comments to the nytimes story do mention this omission.
In the end, Comey appears in a slightly better light, and that in total his actions may have been less ill intended than many believe. Most importantly, they show that President Obama himself did not want the Russia story to be inserted into the election lacking any definitive proof, if it was even to be mentioned at all.
* On edit, the proposed Comey op-ed story was in fact broken three weeks ago, but Obama’s actual role and position on the matter is made known by the Times story.