Paul Krugman instantly assaults FBI for re-opening Clinton investigation based on new evidence
Paul Krugman, leftist columnist for the "New York Times" and full-time advisor the Clinton campaign (just kidding--sort of), is calling the FBI director disgraceful, politically motivated, grotesque... and, at the same time, saying "none of us know what this is about, as yet."
The FBI director has informed Congress, officially, that there is potential new evidence, seemingly pertinent, to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's misuse of classified emails while secretary of state, a position of high trust in these matters, no?
Chapter 18 of the U.S. Code very clearly says at any misuse of classified infomation, by anyone privy it--and such misuse includes any sharing of it, or risk of sharing it, with any person not privy to such information. It is a criminal offense, plain and simple.
If the FBI has information--in this case from the computer of a husband of a top Clinton advisor--that might be incriminating should it WAIT till after the election, so as not to influence its result? And that ISN'T influencing its result? Should the FBI director not make known that he is reopening the Clinton investigation because of new information--a celebrated case followed step by step by the public? No make it known to protect Clinton?
Krug almost immediately had a nervous breakdown because he has staked his entire reputation on in effect campaigning non-stop, in the pages of the "Times," for Clinton and against Trump. If his gal turns out to come under criminal indictment, and Trump wins, he has thoroughly politicized himself for nothing.
The FBI director has informed Congress, officially, that there is potential new evidence, seemingly pertinent, to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's misuse of classified emails while secretary of state, a position of high trust in these matters, no?
Chapter 18 of the U.S. Code very clearly says at any misuse of classified infomation, by anyone privy it--and such misuse includes any sharing of it, or risk of sharing it, with any person not privy to such information. It is a criminal offense, plain and simple.
If the FBI has information--in this case from the computer of a husband of a top Clinton advisor--that might be incriminating should it WAIT till after the election, so as not to influence its result? And that ISN'T influencing its result? Should the FBI director not make known that he is reopening the Clinton investigation because of new information--a celebrated case followed step by step by the public? No make it known to protect Clinton?
Krug almost immediately had a nervous breakdown because he has staked his entire reputation on in effect campaigning non-stop, in the pages of the "Times," for Clinton and against Trump. If his gal turns out to come under criminal indictment, and Trump wins, he has thoroughly politicized himself for nothing.
Embarrassed agents are furious Comey did not turn the previous case he exonerated over to a grand jury.
She has no conscience and her backers are unconscious! What I sense is now damage control big time .....who is covering their asses is not hard to guess.
I read some of the tweets. He's not saying don't make it public. It sounds like he's saying if they make it public that they're opening the investigation they should say why. Saying they're investigating someone but not providing details, according to Krugman, sounds political. I do not know if he's right that this is abnormal for FBI investigations. Sadly, I would hardly trust even a non-opinion article from the NYT on this issue because they seem to enjoy slamming Trump.