Case Reopened!

FBI Director James Comey has reopened the Clinton email case less than 2 weeks before the election.  This is a stunning turn of events.  Despite overwhelming evidence that offered a clear path to indictment, Comey had closed the case while saying no prosecutor would take the case.  Much grief was heaped upon him for that, rightly so.  The question thus becomes, why revisit what has been a disaster for him?

First, it may be that the purported evidence found on the laptop shared by Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner had something that could not be overlooked and will eventually be made public.  There might be something that, if it were to come out after the election and also revealed that the FBI knew about it before the election, there would be hell to pay.  By reopening the case before the election, Comey protects what is left of the FBI's reputation.

 

Second, Weiner is making a deal.  Disgraced, political career ruined, and his marriage over, Weiner has no reason to protect Huma, Hillary, or the Democratic Party.  He knows all the skeletons and, rat that he is, he gathered evidence to give himself leverage.  He may have provided it to the FBI - which is currently investigating him - to get a better deal.  Sure, he will be hated and a pariah but he already is.

 

Third, Comey thought that his press conference and his testimony to Congress would be enough to torpedo Hillary's campaign, thus providing sufficient punishment for the transgressions he outlined while dodging direct responsibility.  With the polls showing her still leading, he decided he needed to 'remind' the electorate.  That the FBI is investigating Hillary's top aide's husband just made that reminder possible.

 

Fourth, WikiLeaks is getting the emails from furious FBI agents, not Russian hackers.  Comey wants to cut the rationale for the release by reopening the case.  This may take the focus off the continued Wiki Dumps until the election.  As such, this might be a tourniquet to stop the bleeding but perhaps saving the campaign.  That sounds rather unlikely but it was suggested.

Comey has mishandled this about as badly as it could be mishandled.  Should Hillary lose, he will go down in history along with the Daisy add, Willy Horton, and the Swiftboaters.  He has carved out a terrible legacy.  Even if Hillary is convicted of multiple felonies (highly unlikely), he will be viewed as incompetent for having closed the case in the first place.  If she wins, he's fired.  Either way, he has infuriated both the Democrats and the Republicans and will get no succor from either.  There is no good result for James Comey.  He abandoned the rule of law in July and he cannot recover.

Is it Better to Lie or Tell the Truth?

There have been comparisons of late between Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton on account of the handling of sex scandals and the actions of their respective wives.  How is it that Bill Clinton had real affairs and is now a beloved (by Democrats) former president while Weiner swapped dirty pictures online and is provoking disgust from those same Democrats?  Weiner kept doing it after he got caught but so did Clinton.  Hillary stood by her husband - Tammy Wynette-like - and Huma has done the same for Weiner.  Why should voters who want stand-by-your-philanderer Hillary as their next presidential nominee at the same time have a problem with stand-by-your-pornographer Huma?  Isn't sex something just between the married couple?  I seem to recall it was not really lying if you lied about sex.

There are two points.  One, Bill Clinton has charisma while Weiner doesn't.  Two, Bill Clinton never admitted it while Weiner did.  This is interesting because Weiner, after repeated and ever more embarrassing denials finally told the truth.  To this day, Bill Clinton has not changed his story about not having sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.  Everyone knows it's a lie but as long as he denied the truth, partisans could defend him and claim the Republicans or Ken Star or a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy were on a witch hunt.  Once Weiner came clean, he could not be defended.

Politically, Bill Clinton did the right thing.  He lied and stonewalled until everyone got tired of the story.  It is an interesting lesson.  Lying saved Clinton while telling the truth is likely to sink Weiner.  Of course, there was photographic evidence against Weiner, so he could not realistically take Clinton's route to success.

Difference in Standards

Remember a few months back when Christopher Lee - the Republican Congressman from New York - was discovered to have posted a shirtless picture of himself online? What happened? Oh yeah, he resigned the very night that it came to light. His fellow Republicans weren't going to accept this sort of behavior or the distraction that would be associated with it. The Republicans have since lost Representative Lee's seat to the Democrats in the recent special election.

Now, what about Congressman Weiner. The night the issue appeared, he lied. Then as the scandal festered, he lied some more. Then it was starting to boil so he called in all the networks and lied again. As the lies inevitably failed, Weiner came out and admitted it. See, he's taking responsibility for his bad behavior. Well, only because he couldn't avoid it any longer. So, did the Democrats follow the Republican standard and demand Weiner resign posthaste? No. They're going with an ethics investigation. Even if Weiner did resign, the Democrats are unlikely to lose the seat.

Which party is holding its members to a higher standard of behavior?