However, that “promise” (and you still have not produced a citation) would be contradicted by FBI policy on the disclosure of investigations during an election.
If you’re commenting on this subject you should be better versed on the matter. It is not my responsibility to do your homework for you.
But, at any rate:
A Non-Partisan Explanation of James Comey's Clinton Email Decision
FBI director James Comey's election-eve decision to publicly revive his investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a…
So why did Comey make his revival of the inquiry public?
He has explained in a letter to FBI employees that he was simply correcting the record and honoring a pledge he had previously made to Congress.
When Comey testified before Congress last July he had told that body that his inquiry into Clinton’s emails had been “completed.” For a lawyer, if you make a statement to a court or other tribunal, and you later discover that the statement is false, or has become false, there’s often a duty to come forward and correct or supplement the record. In Comey’s case, he had not only left Congress with the impression that his inquiry was over, he had also pledged to be transparent with them and to keep them updated (which was, in retrospect, an unwise and unnecessary commitment). That left him in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t spot.
You are trying to obscure the fact that no law was broken and that the law — specifically the Fed Records Act — did not prohibit this practice.
What is more important keeping a “promise” to . Gowdy or allowing a fair — though that was already a very open question — election?
Reasonable people would say the latter.
- The “appeal to the masses” is a logical fallacy.
- A person who follows a religious code of ethics would disagree with you. The keeping of a promise is a matter of personal character and trumps (no pun intended) secular concerns.
Do not expect the world to adhere to your own personal moral code or system. That would lead to catastrophe. Perhaps it did — I mean of course Donald Trump.
I never expect the world to adhere to my moral code. I simply point out that many people people do.
But Comey was not motivated by scout’s honor, but by an apparent dislike for HRC.
Opinion stated as fact.
And there are grounds for objection. Not the ideal candidate, but less harmful than Trump. Regardless of relative merits, the matter is ultimately about what’s fair.
Your comment on “less harmful than Trump” involves peering into the future. I am unable to do that.
Further, what is “fair” is a matter for priests and philosophers. We are neither. Some would say that the result was quite fair, because Mrs. Clinton should rightly face a consequence for her actions. But I do concur that both sides of that coin can be argued.