3. Spin of the Year: James Comey’s op ed in the New York Times.
- Comey writes,
“First, the inspector general’s team went through the F.B.I.’s work with a microscope and found no evidence that bias or improper motivation affected the investigation, which I know was done competently, honestly and independently.”
How lawyerly. This is deceit: a factual statement devised to deceive. Most will read this to mean that the investigation found no evidence of bias or improper motivation..\ That is untrue. In fact, as I have already pointed out in earlier posts, there is a great deal of evidence of bias. There is no evidence that the bias affected the investigation, except the circumstantial evidence that the results of the investigation were consistent with the bias.
- He writes of the IG department’s report,
“Its detailed report should serve to both protect and build the reservoir of trust and credibility necessary for the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. to remain strong and independent and to continue their good work for our country.”
What is this, confirmation bias run amuck? Rose-colored glasses? In one of its most consequential and high-profile cases, the report shows that the FBI was mismanaged, leaked to the news media, had unprofessional agents deeply involved with the matter, and did not follow its own procedures. This report will undermine trust in the agency, and should,
4. This is, broadly speaking, a pack of rationalizations…Lawfare, a Brookings ally, published an analysis called Nine Takeaways From the Inspector General’s Report on the Clinton Email Investigation.
I could use it in a seminar on rationalizations and equivocation. Behold the Nine: Continue reading