Ex-Bush Lawyer Says Comey Violated Hatch Act Commenting on Emails

[mystery-ak]

Newsmax
Ex-Bush Lawyer Says Comey Violated Hatch Act Commenting on Emails
Sunday, October 30, 2016 04:14 PM

By: Cathy Burke

The former chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration has filed an ethics complaint against FBI Director James Comey, alleging he violated federal law banning executive branch employees from certain forms of political activity.

In a stinging op-ed commentary for The New York Times posted Sunday, Richard Painter, who worked in the White House Counsel's office between 2005 and 2007 as chief ethics lawyer, accused Comey of violating the Hatch Act.

"The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election," he wrote, explaining why he filed his complaint on Saturday with the Office of Special Counsel and with the Office of Government Ethics."

LawNewz.com posted a copy of the complaint.

"I write to request investigation of apparent violations of the Hatch Act by the Director and perhaps other officials in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in connection with highly unusual public statements while voting is underway about the status of an investigation concerning a political candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton," Painter, a Clinton supporter, wrote.

"I also request that the Office of Government Ethics ask the FBI to conduct an internal investigation of whether there has been misuse of official position, 5 CFR 2635.702."

Painter acknowledges it isn't clear Comey "personally" wanted to influence the outcome of the election, though he says specific intent isn't required.

"The rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is no other good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election," he wrote in his op-ed.

"Absent extraordinary circumstances justifying it, a public communication about a pending FBI investigation involving a candidate for public office that is made on the eve of an election or, as in this case, while voting is in progress, is very likely to be a violation of the Hatch Act," he wrote.

"It is also a misuse of official position. The fact that politically motivated members of Congress want the communication to be made publicly only enhances the seriousness of the violation; it is not an excuse."

In an interview with LawNewz.com, Painter said Comey could've sent the letter after the election without having "breached that promise to update" lawmakers about the investigation. He also said Comey could've asked lawmakers "that the letter would not be released or discussed publicly right before the election."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Painter-Bush-lawyer-Comey/2016/10/30/id/756041/

[mountaineer]

"The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election," he wrote

Wow, what a really stupid thing to say, especially for a former chief ethics lawyer. Or does he not really believe that the truth matters?

[Oceander]

It cannot be the case that specific intent is not required.  There is definitely nothing but politics behind this so-called "ethics" complaint.  A second complaint should be filed against this jackass who, in turn, as attempting to influence the election.

[Free Vulcan]

Pfft. Guy's grasping at straws and doing Reid's dirty work.

Real question is why are they all so worked up if this is nothing?

[mountaineer]

Former U.S. Secret Service agent Dan Bongino sees it just a tad differently:

Daniel Bongino
14 hrs ·

I was a federal agent for over a decade. During my time as a federal agent, I was the lead investigator in a number of federal criminal-investigations.

I have never seen a criminal case handled like the Hillary Clinton investigation. Here are just a few of the anomalies that should leave you scratching your head:

1) Why is the FBI seizing computers now from the Weiner household and why didn't they seize all of the evidence at the start of the investigation? If it was a genuine investigation into the transfer of classified information electronically, and otherwise, then why not seize ALL of the computers from the start? I used to enjoy working counterfeit currency cases and I can't imagine a scenario where we would initiate an investigation but NOT seize the counterfeit printing devices.

2) Why agree to forgo prosecuting Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin, potential co-conspirators, and destroy the computer evidence they possess, before charging them with a crime? That's not the way the process works. In order to build leverage against a criminal conspirator you typically draw up a federal complaint, or you get an indictment. Second, you get an arrest warrant from a judge and then you ask the arrested individual if they wish to cooperate, potentially using their cooperation against co-conspirators. Third, if the cooperation is worthy, then a 5k letter is issued to a judge which indicates the subject's level of cooperation and how that should be considered in sentencing the cooperating defendant. None of that was done in this case. They essentially asked Hillary's co-conspirators "help us, pretty please."

3) Why would you allow a co-conspirator in a criminal case to act as a lawyer for another co-conspirator? There is NO attorney-client privilege if the attorney is a part of the investigation. Allowing Cheryl Mills in the room for the questioning of Hillary Clinton when Mills was also part of the investigation allowed both Clinton, and Mills, the opportunity to coordinate their stories. It's difficult to coordinate a false story if you're questioned separately and that's why we rarely, if ever, put multiple subjects in the same interview room.

If you're a liberal then feel free to ignore all of this. I understand that Hillary is your political messiah and facts are irrelevant so you can move along now. But, for those interested in the future of the country, this should deeply concern you. Ask any honest federal agent, Democrat or Republican, if they've ever seen a serious federal investigation handled like this, and I'm absolutely sure they'll confirm what I'm telling you; something stinks in this case. Just like something seems to stink every time a Clinton touches it. Are you sure you want this stench back in our White House?

Posted on Facebook