All of us strive for perfection; none of us achieve it. But some come closer than others and James Comey seems to be one who has those special characteristics that make a human being about as good as it gets. His June 8, 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee demonstrated his many strengths. The key may be the way in which he skillfully applied situational ethics to complicated issues.

No longer hamstrung with the constraints of still holding public office, Comey was able to give reason to his seemingly unfathomable public engagement with the Hillary Clinton e-mail issues.

Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) asked Comey, “Let me go back if I can very briefly to the decision to publicly go out with your results on the email. Was your decision influenced by the attorney general’s tarmac meeting with the former president, Bill Clinton?”

COMEY: Yes. In an ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the justice department.

Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in open setting is that at one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a “matter,” which confused me and concerned me. But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the (Justice) Department if we’re to close this case credibly.

This is the first time that I have heard that former Attorney-General Loretta Lynch may have been applying pressure to Comey to downplay the FBI investigation of the e-mails. I think that I mistakenly assumed that Bill Clinton crossed the Phoenix tarmac to try to influence Lynch and she could find no polite way to ask him to leave. Whether that meeting influenced her or not, it became clear to Comey that the AG’s office would inaccurately downgrade the investigation by calling it a “matter” rather than the investigation that it actually was.

Some might say that the Director of the FBI has no business pre-empting the Attorney-General. It is true that that the FBI gathers information for Justice Department and standard protocol is for a spokesperson for the Justice Department to announce decisions on prosecutions. But Comey was concerned that Lynch had a political motivation to not prosecute Clinton. Comey preferred that a non-prosecution be the result of insufficient evidence rather than political preference. The way he announced the non-prosecution on July 5, 2016 seemed awkward, because it was. But he wanted the decision to close the case (at least before Anthony Weiner’s laptop), to be one based on the same standards as other decisions to not prosecute cases.

It obviously hurt Hillary Clinton that Comey made the announcement rather than Attorney-General Lynch. But it seems that Lynch forfeited the right to make that call. It probably would have been good if Bill Clinton had never crossed the tarmac, but wittingly or unwittingly, Lynch gave the Clintons what they wanted. Comey felt that he had to do what he did not want to do, influence the election.

Comey’s honesty also came through when he said that he used non-legalize language to describe his concerns about Donald Trump. “I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document. That combination of things I had never experienced before, but had led me to believe I got to write it down and write it down in a very detailed way.” In Comey’s mind, the situation required him to do what he had not done for two previous presidents – write contemporaneous memos to document the meetings.

Throughout his testimony, Comey referred to common sense. That is not a legal term, but it is a human term. He rose above the restraints of his office to utilize good judgment. That is a rare occurrence in Washington and must be fully appreciated.

Comey also repeated acknowledged that he “might be wrong” about recollections or even decisions that he made. That humility makes him an approachable human being with whom others can engage in non-threatening conversation.

In the past, when Comey has confused us, it was because he was never free to give full explanations. One June 8 he did. Not only did he acquit himself well, but he also made a good case for the logic of situational ethics.

The post Comey’s Situational Ethics Make Common Sense appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Having worked with high school students for the past 45 years, there are a couple of descriptors of life that involve the word “shit.” Some call it Murphy’s Law, but to students, the appellation “Shit happens” seems to have more resonance. And how better to describe the moment when then dog ate your homework than as an “Oh shit” moment.

A lot of progressives and even some Republicans are disturbed by FBI director James Comey’s letter last Friday to leaders of Congress stating that the Bureau was going to further investigate e-mails from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The reason is that they were found in an unrelated investigation.

Why did Comey send this letter at this time? After all, his one-time boss and former Attorney General Eric Holder had established a rule that investigations of political figures should not be announced within sixty days of an election, unless the circumstances were extremely unusual. The problem with Comey’s call last Friday was that he told the public just enough to say that he was further investigating e-mails, but he gave no indication of whether urgency or serious matters of national security were involved.

An even greater question is why Comey sent his letter without first running it by Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Standard protocol is for the FBI to investigate possible wrong-doing and then to recommend to the Justice Department whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant judicial review, or possibly even prosecution. The attorney-general is the director’s boss, something that J. Edgar Hoover did not recognize in his day but which subsequent directors have. What would give cause to Comey to move ahead as if he was a prosecutor without running the flag up the pole for Attorney General Lynch to see?

One explanation is that because the investigation involved Hillary Clinton, and because several months ago her husband, former President Bill Clinton, somehow positioned himself on the Attorney General’s airplane at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, perhaps Comey thought that Lynch had been compromised and could not be impartial in this investigation.

There may well have been substance to this line of thinking, but there is protocol for what to do next when such a development occurs. Rather than free-lancing it, the Director of the F.B.I. could have taken his information to top aides of Lynch who had not had personal contact with Bill Clinton. [Comey was an assistant Attorney-General in the George W. Bush administration]. They could have decided what to do next. Instead of following proper channels, Comey pulled an end run around the Justice Department and went directly to Congress.

There may indeed be circumstances in which government officials should not work within proper channels. The morality of what to do when in messy situations is never easy. But in this case, Comey was taking action without a “wing-man.” He was flying solo and the only person who could explain what he was doing was himself.

That is where it gets particularly sticky. The Director of the F.B.I. is not supposed to talk to the press about on-going investigations. So what we have here is a classic “Catch-22” situation. The Director chose to not follow established procedure and instead to take unilateral action. Perhaps it’s warranted. But how can anyone know when the Director is not allowed to, and has chosen not to, speak about the situation. In essence, the nation is being held hostage for reasons only known to the Director.

I do hope that this is an “Oh shit” moment for Director Comey. I hope that he is wishing that he had a “do-over.” From a global perspective, nothing short of the future of the United States is at stake. From a personal perspective, Comey is a man with what seemed to be an impeccable record who seems to have tarnished himself inaptly.

Perhaps if he just said, “Oh shit,” we would all understand.

The post James Comey’s “Oh shit” Moment appeared first on Occasional Planet.