Has FBI Director Comey Created A 'Public Interest' Exception To Its Ban On Investigation Disclosures?
from the would-be-nice,-but-won't-happen dept
We noted this towards the end of our post on how the FBI is leaking like a sieve in revealing details about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails -- that Comey seemed to be handing reporters a perfect comeback to the bullshit response the FBI normally gives that it "won't comment on ongoing investigations." As the Intercept is now noting, Comey seems to be saying that there's a "public interest" exception to that rule, though as of right now only he gets to decide what's in the public interest:Comey’s actions have raised lasting questions about when the public interest outweighs the current policy, and whether there should be a “public interest” exception to the Justice Department’s secrecy rules.Of course, the partisan folks out there have made this whole thing hilarious. Back in July, the partisan supporters of Clinton argued that such a public interest exception made perfect sense -- while the Trump supporters argued that this was an abomination and that Comey was "playing politics" in revealing information that he shouldn't have been revealing. In the last week, however, it's the Trump supporters who are suddenly big fans of the "public interest" exception to revealing details of an investigation, while the Clinton supporters are up in arms about "playing politics." Anyone who argued that one was good and the other is bad is a hypocrite. The truth is that Comey was abusing his power both times as he's done for years and years.
In his July announcement, Comey said that “given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.” Part of his goal was clearly to reassert the FBI’s independence from political pressure. “No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear,” he said.
If there were a public interest exception, there are many other high-profile investigations that the Justice Department could be encouraged to discuss.
From a reporting standpoint, of course, journalists love that Comey is willing to reveal details (and others are willing to leak more after the fact). It provides lots of news to report on -- and we, like others, are happy to report on that information. But from a general public policy standpoint, it's a serious disaster. As Alex Emmons at the Intercept points out, there's a good reason why we don't want the FBI to comment about ongoing investigations:
There’s a reason that the Justice Department has nondisclosure rules about ongoing or closed investigations. Lots of things emerge in investigations that are not true, or do not amount to crimes. Disclosing those things can ruin reputations. So it is typically left to prosecutors to decide what accusations to make public, in the form of an indictment.A public interest exception sounds like a good thing, but the reality is that it'll be used selectively by law enforcement, and that just creates a huge mess (as seen from the partisan outcry during both moves by Comey).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: disclosures, fbi, investigations, james comey, leaks, public interest, public interest exception
Reader Comments
The First Word
“The reason he re-opened the investigation is that he had no other choice. The FBI was in open revolt ( http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/303546-scarborough-fbi-director-had-mutiny-brewing ), and if Comey didn't do SOMETHING then the agents themselves would. The actual rank and file FBI agents have such a low opinion of Comey that they sat on the emails from Weiner's laptop for months before actually taking them to him.
Anybody who says that Comey shouldn't have announced or spoken about the re-opening of the investigation should be incredibly careful about what they wish for - if the investigation wasn't re-opened, then Wikileaks would be dumping the Weinerfiles right now, and those would probably be even worse than the Podesta emails.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It would be like the FBI searching your house because your roommate was a drug dealer and then getting a warrant to search your work office for proof of insurance fraud even though you are not under investigation or suspicion of the reason for the search of the house nor insurance fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Interest = When we want to stir the pot
Somehow, I suspect that when there are genuine public interests (such as security vulnerabilities in common OSes and software, which are very much in the public interest to disclose and secure) that they won't be so regarded and revealed.
So yeah, it will be used selectively by law enforcement to stir shit.
Perhaps this informs us that there should be actual advocates of public interest that have the ability to veto law enforcement action (including disclosure or non-disclosure) when not doing those things would actually be in the interests of the public.
It might be a step back towards, you know, law enforcement by consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am interested in him resigning
We don't really need another dress wearing FBI director. J. Edgar Hoover, we never missed ya. Indeed, we wished we had missed you completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a reason for the Hatch rule about not announcing stuff like this about investigations within 60 days of an election. It's not fair for the person to get charged with a crime, or accused of a crime by the government, only to be found not guilty months or years later long after they lost the election because of the baseless accusations.
Comey has jeopardized the FBI's reputation as a non-partisan institution with these leaks so close to an election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I live in Maricopa County, and I can tell you right now that Arpaio is very much somebody who also has a reputation for those who are not paying attention and another for those who are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comey needed to spike the coverup ahead of time
Comey wanted to provide a "scandal canary" to make sure that the presstitutes wouldn't so quickly "forget".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How's that FBI investigation into Prenda Law coming along? We have a "public interest" in an investsigation disclosure on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason he re-opened the investigation is that he had no other choice. The FBI was in open revolt ( http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/303546-scarborough-fbi-director-had-mutiny-brewing ), and if Comey didn't do SOMETHING then the agents themselves would. The actual rank and file FBI agents have such a low opinion of Comey that they sat on the emails from Weiner's laptop for months before actually taking them to him.
Anybody who says that Comey shouldn't have announced or spoken about the re-opening of the investigation should be incredibly careful about what they wish for - if the investigation wasn't re-opened, then Wikileaks would be dumping the Weinerfiles right now, and those would probably be even worse than the Podesta emails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a fair argument, but it's also conjecture, and I don't consider Scarborough to be the most reliable source. As far as FBI agents giving the docs to Wikileaks, that's not mentioned in your article at all and seems to be a rhetorical fluorish on your part and not a reasonable expectation of anything that would have actually happened.
I agree that Comey was boxed in in this situation -- but I believe he boxed himself in with his unprofessional and unprecedented press conference back in July.
I also agree that if Comey hadn't sent the letter, someone else in the FBI probably would have leaked the information.
But here's the thing: the information they have is nothing. The only reason anyone's talking about it at all is because it's got the FBI director's name on it.
If an anonymous FBI leaker had said "We might have more Clinton e-mails, but we don't know for sure and if we do we don't know what's in them," that would have lit up certain corners of the Internet, sure. But it wouldn't be the media firestorm that "FBI director reopens investigation" is. (He didn't, by the way; the investigation was never closed. The FBI leaves investigations open for a very long time.)
Per your hypothetical that "Wikileaks would be dumping the Weinerfiles right now, and those would probably be even worse than the Podesta emails" -- well, I've already covered the first part. As for the second part, your suggestion that the files on the Weiner laptop are "probably [...] even worse than the Podesta emails" -- what do you base that on?
Because I think logic dictates that if (1) there are people within the FBI who were likely to leak the story to discredit Clinton and (2) those e-mails actually discredit Clinton, then (3) they would have been leaked by now, with or without Comey's vague letter to Congress.
Maybe there is some bombshell in there that nobody's found yet and that's going to blow Clinton wide open in a way that no previous investigation has. Maybe. "Probably" is not the word I'd use.
What I'd say is probable is that there is nothing in Abedin's e-mails on that laptop that we don't already know. And if there is new information, it is, at best, the same sort of controversial but not explosive revelations we've seen before: the DNC was in the tank for Clinton and unethically influenced the primary campaign; there was too much overlap across Hillary-as-government-official, the Clinton Foundation, and Bill-as-paid-speaker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious
So to reveal a small amount of information and leave it hanging -and even say "we will say no more about this" is ludicrous. It is precisely why we have a "cone of silence" rule about disclosing investigations. Comey seems to be replacing it with Heisenberg's principle - we can know one thing or the other about an investigation, but not all things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps the FBI is hoping to achieve the same goal with Ms Clinton as they have accomplished in the past. Provide some basis for believing that a person is despondent, and drive them to suicide, or what looks like suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Delusional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did Techdirt give up talking about Tech to sell out to MSM?
Techdirt please go back to writing about cool Tech topics rather than the political crap because you are appear to be as bought as all the other MSM.
AND People ask yourself this. If you (like Huma Abedin) felt it necessary to email yourself copies of information sent to you by Hillary and file it under "LIFE INSURANCE" just why the hell would you need to do that, if she was such a great person? The answer is, the folder is full of information that can be used to blackmail HRC or at least keep yourself alive if trouble starts brewing. She is an evil, terrible person and is one of the biggest criminals this country has every seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did Techdirt give up talking about Tech to sell out to MSM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]