Countering GOP Defenses Of Comey's Letter

I would just like to push back on a couple of Republican talking points that we have heard this morning from Republicans who are trying to defend Comey, especially in regard to a possible Hatch Act violation. One line of attack is that the President is out there campaigning for Hillary and that is not a Hatch Act violation and therefore neither is Comey's letter. The insufferable Trey Gowdy has taken this line. But the Hatch Act does not cover elected officials involved in campaigning. The Act does cover non-elected officials within the government, which is exactly what Comey is.

The second line that is being used is that Comey's actions are not unprecedented and they point to the indictment of Casper Weinberger four days before the 1992 election. Evidence included in that indictment included a document that clearly suggested candidate George H. W. Bush knew far more about the details of the Iran-Contra affair than he had publicly claimed. I've heard a number of apologists for Comey point to this as a parallel incident. But the differences between the two incidents are enormous. First, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh actually produced an indictment of Casper Weinberger, meaning that the prosecutor felt that there was enough evidence that would result in a conviction. Second, the evidence that damaged Bush was there for every voter to see and each voter could make their own decision about its importance. Comey's letter provided no details that any voter could evaluate - it merely fanned the flames of rumor and innuendo.

It is important the Democrats and especially the media push back against both of these spurious points.