COM: On hyper-controversial matters, I'd have to throw red meat to one faction -- say the more rightwing extremists -- and placate with a similar gesture to, say, the more moderate faction.
PSY: I'm guessing that you felt put upon by this situation -- under constant tension.
COM: You got it. For example, last July, when I summed up our non-case with regard to Hillary Clinton's email investigation, I felt that I had to include some harsh quotes about her sloppy security procedures -- which would provide ammunition to Trump -- as a balancer for not recommending a criminal indictment.
PSY: I have to ask a simple question here, one voiced by many in the days after: Why did you feel you had to say anything? It's my understanding that the FBI does not issue public statements about ongoing cases that do not result in charges being filed.
COM: On that July matter, and the more recent statement with regard to the emails found on Anthony Weiner's computer, I knew for a certainty that the Trump-supporting faction would leak to the press. I decided to try to dilute the impact of those leaks by issuing my own release. It was a risky strategy, I grant you, one that blew up in my face.
PSY: Why do you think it exploded that way?
COM: This is going to sound a bit strange, but I thought my reputation as a honest broker, a straight-shooter, a lawman of integrity would work its magic and--
PSY: But you issued your most recent statement with only 11 days to go before the election, something, as I understand it, that is against the FBI's own protocols. You injected yourself into a partisan fight. Your DOJ superiors advised against your plan, but you went ahead anyway. Why?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
