Chris Wallace pushed James Comey to choose between "gross incompetence" or "intentionality," and it's easy to see why he wouldn't. - Hallo friend USA IN NEWS, In the article you read this time with the title Chris Wallace pushed James Comey to choose between "gross incompetence" or "intentionality," and it's easy to see why he wouldn't., we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article HOT, Article NEWS, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : Chris Wallace pushed James Comey to choose between "gross incompetence" or "intentionality," and it's easy to see why he wouldn't.
link : Chris Wallace pushed James Comey to choose between "gross incompetence" or "intentionality," and it's easy to see why he wouldn't.

Chris Wallace pushed James Comey to choose between "gross incompetence" or "intentionality," and it's easy to see why he wouldn't.

I watched the interview on "Fox News Sunday," and I'm examining the transcript today. I recommend watching the whole thing. It is painful and funny.



But I want to focus on something that happened in the end. The interviewer, Chris Wallace, quoted the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, on the FBI's handling of the Russia/Trump investigation.

We see a video clip, with Horowitz saying: "It's unclear what the motivations were. On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence. On the other hand, intentionality."

Horowitz doesn't decide. He leaves it open. It was either "gross incompetence" or "intentionality." So which was it? If you were James Comey, who was the director of the FBI, which would you prefer it to have been? Both are terrible, but for different reasons, and — if we knew which one — very different consequences.

Comey tries to avoid choosing. He intones what we already know, that the IG "doesn't conclude that there was intentional misconduct by these career special agents." That's part of the question asked and exactly not what is called for in an answer.

Chris Wallace repeats the question: "Gross negligence or they intended to do it. They intended to lie to the FISA court."

Comey uses the same move he used when the question was asked the first time. He tells us — again! — that the IG "doesn't conclude that there was intentional misconduct by these career special agents." Now, it's obvious that Comey is deliberately avoiding the question. He's supposed to pick. Which is it — "gross incompetence" or "intentionality"?
Wallace increases the pressure. The IG "just says it's one of two things, and he can't decide: gross negligence or it was intentional misconduct."

And Comey does it again! He says that the IG said "we are not concluding that there was intentional misconduct by FBI officials." Comey seems to hope to refocus on the language in the written report, which doesn't sound as either/or as the in-person testimony in the video clip.

Wallace refocuses on the in-person testimony in the video Wallace showed. Wallace says: "Did you hear what he just said here?"

Comey hedges: "I did. I don't know the context of that." Which struck me as ludicrously disingenuous. Suddenly, Comey doesn't understand what the conversation was about? But I guess he has a shred of hope that perhaps the IG was talking about some little subsection of all the things the FBI did wrong.

Chris Wallace says: "He was asked specifically, 'How do you explain it?' And he said, 'Gross negligence or intentionality.'" Pick one! Come on, Comey, it's one or the other. You've got to pick!

James Comey once again repeats the non-answer that the IG "doesn't find intentionality." He tacks on other unresponsive verbiage:

.... that doesn't make it any less important. As director, you are responsible for this. I was responsible for this. And if I were still there, I'd be doing what Chris Wray is doing -- is figuring out, "So, how did this happen? And is it systemic?" Because that's the scariest thought, is that --

In other words, he would — only if he were still in charge — just be wondering the same thing Chris Wallace was asking: Was it gross negligence (i.e., the "systemic" bad performance of the FBI or intentionality (special bad behavior aimed at Trump)? But he was in charge when all these things happen and we're talking to him now to try to find out what happened! He should be a source of the answer, not a person who be getting started looking into what happened.

Wallace abandons the question. The idea of Comey still being in charge prompts the question whether, if he were, and all these things had happened on his watch,"would he resign." Comey says "No."

Wallace doesn't ask the "gross incompetence"/"intentionality" question again, but he has a second way to try to make Comey choose. He plays a clip of AG Bill Barr saying: "These irregularities, these misstatements, these omissions, were not satisfactorily explained, and I think that leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith."

That is, the IG laid out the evidence, but refrained from making the choice between "gross incompetence"/"intentionality," so it's up to us, hearing the evidence, to do our own thinking about what to infer.

Wallace asks: "Given the repeated errors -- some would say abuses -- of the FISA process, does Attorney General Barr have a point?"

Comey says: "No. He does not have a factual basis as the attorney general of the United States to be speculating that agents acted in bad faith. The facts just aren’t there, full stop. That doesn’t make it any less consequential, any less important, but that’s an irresponsible statement."

It's "irresponsible" to say that it's possible to infer that the answer to the either/or question — the answer Comey would not give — is "intentionality" and not "gross incompetence." If so, then has Comey made his choice: the responsible inference from the evidence is gross incompetence. Or is it irresponsible to state that inference too? All responsible persons must forever hang on the cusp. Was it "gross incompetence" or "intentionality"? It was one or the other, but you can never say, you can never even speculate about which one it was?

The answer "intentionality" is horrible for Comey. You can see why he won't got there and why he wants to crush that option when he hears it from Barr. So why not go with "gross incompetence"? It's painful, but it fends off the horrible "intentionality" option? If the FBI's handing of FISA warrants is — as a systemic matter — grossly incompetent, how many other FBI investigations can be called into question? How many settled cases can be reopened? How many prisoners have new hope? How many lawsuits for damages can be filed?

Thus articles Chris Wallace pushed James Comey to choose between "gross incompetence" or "intentionality," and it's easy to see why he wouldn't.

that is all articles Chris Wallace pushed James Comey to choose between "gross incompetence" or "intentionality," and it's easy to see why he wouldn't. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article Chris Wallace pushed James Comey to choose between "gross incompetence" or "intentionality," and it's easy to see why he wouldn't. with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2019/12/chris-wallace-pushed-james-comey-to.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: