Leftists Angry at F.B.I. Director James Comey

Well, I went back to bed yesterday after posting a couple of entries in the morning. I slept and read books intermittently, then picked up my son from school at 3:30pm. When I got back, I checked the television to see if the World Series was starting, and that's when I caught all the news about the F.B.I. bombshell.

Legal Insurrection has the story, "Who could have predicted Weiner would bring down Hillary’s campaign?"

And at Memeorandum, "Emails in Anthony Weiner Inquiry Jolt Hillary Clinton's Campaign."

The biggest kick is the leftist meltdown, heh.

Progs thought they had this thing in the bag and now the F.B.I's dropped a bummer of an October surprise on them.

Here's far left Jane Mayer, at the New Yorker, "James Comey Broke with Loretta Lynch and Justice Department Tradition" (via Memeorandum).

And WaPo's Matthew Miller, who is former communications flack for the Department of Justice, flipped his wig. You gotta love this:

I wrote a piece in July on why Comey's public comments about Clinton were such an inappropriate abuse of power. 1/ https://t.co/G8croz4qWZ

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) October 28, 2016

He flagrantly violated DOJ rules with his press conference. Then went on to break new ground discussing details of the case to Congress...2/

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) October 28, 2016

Each time, he either violated or seriously stretched DOJ rule & precedent. Press conference was the original sin, & it begat the rest. 4/

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) October 28, 2016

But today's disclosure might be worst abuse yet. DOJ goes out of its way to avoid publicly discussing investigations close to election. 5/

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) October 28, 2016

Not just public discussion either. Often won't send subpoenas or take other steps that might leak until after an election is over...6/

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) October 28, 2016

Why? Because voters have no way to interpret FBI/DOJ activity in a neutral way. Who is the target of an investigation? What conduct? 7/

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) October 28, 2016

This might be totally benign & not even involve Clinton. But no way for press or voters to know that. Easy for opponent to make hay over. 8/

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) October 28, 2016

Which takes us back to the original rule: you don't comment on ongoing investigations. Then multiply that times ten close to an election. 9/

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) October 28, 2016

For whatever reason (& there are many theories), Comey continues to ignore that. But only for Clinton. 10/

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) October 28, 2016

And then there's the precious Clinton lackey Kurt Eichenwald, bless his heart:

No emails being examined by FBI were to or from Clinton. All of this has to do with procedures followed by an aide. https://t.co/mcsBi7j7XU

— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) October 29, 2016

And Eichenwald's really only worried about the reputation of the F.B.I., not Hillary's chances or anything. Nah.

My deepest concern is not the election. It's the incalculable damage that Comey has done to the @FBI by making it (wrongly) seem political.

— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) October 29, 2016

Right.