19 Jul 2016

Scott Adams and I ALSO Disagree About Politics

Politics 35 Comments

In an intriguing post, he writes (and I’m coming in halfway through his post, so click the link for full context):

To the great puzzlement of everyone in America, and around the world, Comey announced two things:

1. Hillary Clinton is 100% guilty of crimes of negligence.

2. The FBI recommends dropping the case.

From a legal standpoint, that’s absurd. And that’s how the media seems to be reacting. The folks who support Clinton are sheepishly relieved and keeping their heads down. But the anti-Clinton people think the government is totally broken and the system is rigged. That’s an enormous credibility problem.

But what was the alternative?

The alternative was the head of the FBI deciding for the people of the United States who would be their next president. A criminal indictment against Clinton probably would have cost her the election.

How credible would a future President Trump be if he won the election by the FBI’s actions instead of the vote of the public? That would be the worst case scenario even if you are a Trump supporter. The public would never accept the result as credible.

That was the choice for FBI Director Comey. He could either do his job by the letter of the law – and personally determine who would be the next president – or he could take a bullet in the chest for the good of the American public.

He took the bullet.

Thanks to Comey, the American voting public will get to decide how much they care about Clinton’s e-mail situation. And that means whoever gets elected president will have enough credibility to govern effectively.

Comey might have saved the country. He sacrificed his reputation and his career to keep the nation’s government credible.

It was the right decision.

Comey is a hero.

Actually I’d say it’s just the opposite. Americans pride themselves (foolishly, to be sure) on thinking they live under the rule of law, not of (wo)men. There is no surer way to delegitimize the US government that to have the head of the FBI say, “This person clearly broke the law and we would want anyone else to be prosecuted for this, but she’s politically powerful so the rules don’t apply to her.”

Also, in terms of ability to govern credibly, this will hang over Clinton should she win, and it will make people think less of Trump should he win.

35 Responses to “Scott Adams and I ALSO Disagree About Politics”

  1. Mark Geoffriau says:

    “Also, in terms of ability to govern credibly, this will hang over Clinton should she win…”

    I doubt it. People will forget.

  2. Andrew_FL says:

    Interestingly Charles Krauthammer (yes, yes, I know I read something by a NEOCON horror of horrors) also argued that Comey did what he did to avoid determining the outcome of the election. But whereas Adams, a Trump supporter, is confident he will win fair and square and winning that way would only delegitimize him, Krauthammer, who does not like Trump, merely said he could understand Comey’s decision, but not agree with it.

    Here’s the thing. There’s still time for the Democrats to swap out. So the whole thing’s predicated on a false assumption. If Comey had done his job, we might very well be looking at President Sanders.

  3. JohnA says:

    One thing to think about here is that Adams’s legal analysis may be wrong (it is in fact wrong). Gross negligence is an undefined term in the statute. It is often associated with recklessness, which is a much much higher standard than negligence, and often has at least a tinge of willfulness to it. As Comey noted after looking at past cases, he had extremely grave doubts about obtaining a conviction from a jury regarding Clinton’s conduct. He also noted that indicting her for this particular conduct, which doesn’t exactly have an anologue in the cases, but which does not appear to have included an intention to misuse or to be grossly careless with classified material, would be unusual. In addition, while no other Secretary of State used a private server, it is clear that prior Secrtartaries of State used nongovernment email, and as Matt Yglesias has observed, they did so when they were discussing particularly sensitive material they did not want to be seen later (something extremely common in the government and in business as well). Under these circumstances, I think a conviction becomes very unlikely.

    If you think about it this way, Adams’ point becomes right: if the government indicts Clinton and cannot obtain a conviction, then it will have deprived the Democractic electorate of its chosen nominee, and some will think without proper justification. The election will really appear to have been rigged in some sense, and real damage might be done to the fabric of the nation. I think that’s why Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would indict in these circumstances.

    • Khodge says:

      I do not quite grasp the more technical points of the discussion but I do think that Comey did harm his professional integrity by passing a recommendation to the DOJ. Lay out the facts and let Lynch decide whether or not to prosecute.

      Such an approach would have spared us the victory dance of the press proclaiming that Comey proved Clinton’s innocence.

    • macgillicuddy guerillacutie says:

      the director of the fbi doesn’t decide, anymore than any other LEO, who gets prosecuted.
      Comey suggestion that he does is superciliousness, just as it is from any other LEO. Yes they do that all the time.

  4. David R. Henderson says:

    @Andrew-FL,
    Adams is NOT a Trump supporter, as he has made clear.

    • Andrew_FL says:

      You can see where the casual reader might get a different impression, right?

    • Silas Barta says:

      That may be a non-standard usage of “clear”. If you make 99 posts that with a massively pro-Trump subtext, and the 100th is “oh I totally don’t support Trump”, then one can be forgiven (per Andrew FL) for thinking you’re a Trump supporter.

      • Gene Callahan says:

        Yes, he clearly is a Trump supporter. But genuinely worried about being killed. This is called esoteric writing.

        • Andrew_FL says:

          So he’s a paranoid schizophrenic.

          • Gene Callahan says:

            No, he’s received a number of death threats.

            • Andrew_FL says:

              I hope you see the flaw in your logic here, Gene. He’s denied he supports Trump to stave off death threats, but he’s received them anyway. So why keep denying, if he actually does support Trump?

        • Silas Barta says:

          In other news, if you make a 99 posts with the subtext “evolution is just some nutty materialistic fad”, and in the 100th say “Oh I Totally Endorse evolution as a Nice, Useful, Accurate scientific theory”…

          • Gene Callahan says:

            ‘In other news, if you make a 99 posts with the subtext “evolution is just some nutty materialistic fad”’

            Who has done that, Silas?

    • Gene Callahan says:

      Well…. he’s regularly said he supports Clinton, because if people think he is supporting Trump, they send him assassination threats.

  5. Tel says:

    That was the choice for FBI Director Comey. He could either do his job by the letter of the law – and personally determine who would be the next president – or he could take a bullet in the chest for the good of the American public.

    Actually, by letter of the law, it is not the job of the head of the FBI to make that decision at all. Decisions about prosecution would be the responsibility of the Attorney General. Comey’s job is merely to collect evidence, which he did.

  6. Tel says:

    There is no surer way to delegitimize the US government that to have the head of the FBI say, “This person clearly broke the law and we would want anyone else to be prosecuted for this, but she’s politically powerful so the rules don’t apply to her.”

    If I understand correctly, Adams considers the present regime already unredeemable, regardless of what is attempted, but at least of the American public get behind Trump, the situation might have some aura of democracy about it.

    That said, it’s a bit of a stupid argument because it presumes that the Democrats are incapable or replacing Hillary with Sanders in the case of a prosecution… and anyway there’s zero chance of the AG allowing prosecution so the entire thing is irrelevant.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “That said, it’s a bit of a stupid argument because it presumes that the Democrats are incapable or replacing Hillary with Sanders in the case of a prosecution…”

      No it doesn’t. It assumes that a campaign thrown into chaos like that in July has no chance of winning.

  7. Gene Callahan says:

    “Americans pride themselves (foolishly, to be sure) on thinking they live under the rule of law…”

    Bob, you’re thinking that the American public is a seminar at the Hayek PPE center. For the attendees there, your statement would be true.

    But I guarantee you that over 90% of voters could not even DEFINE “the rule of law” for you, and don’t care in the least whether they “live under it.” They want THEIR SIDE TO WIN. And if there side was denied victory by the FBI, they would think that is illegitimate.

    • Andrew_FL says:

      You’re actually right about this one.

    • Silas Barta says:

      It doesn’t matter whether they use that specific term — they believe in it by different words e.g. “no one is above the law”, “even the president can be sent to jail”, etc.

      • Gene Callahan says:

        Well, the actual evidence is, while they might say those phrases, they don’t in fact believe them: how many republicans were in favor of prosecuting Bush for the Iraq War? How many Democrats are in favor of prosecuting Clinton for her obvious flouting of national security laws? A very small percentage. The fact people like to repeat some “sacred phrase” is no evidence that they believe it applies in practice!

        • Silas Barta says:

          I was addressing Bob’s original point about people believing in the mythos, not the “in practice”.

        • Silas Barta says:

          Specifically, I was referring to this exchange:

          “Americans pride themselves (foolishly, to be sure) on thinking they live under the rule of law…”

          Bob, you’re thinking that the American public is a seminar at the Hayek PPE center. For the attendees there, your statement would be true.

          • Gene Callahan says:

            Then you are in a complete muddle, mashing together two completely different issues in your head.

          • Gene Callahan says:

            Issue 1) Do Americans really live under the rule of law?

            We all agree this is a “No”: *in practice* the government does not follow R of L.

            Issue 2) Do Americans really believe in the rule of law?

            Bob thinks this is “yes.” I’m saying it is a “no.” You cite the fact that they SAY PHRASES indicating they believe in the rule of law to indicate that they do believe in it. That’s nonsense: You find out if someone really believes lying is wrong by seeing how they act, not by hearing them repeat “Lying is wrong.”

            So, whole different issue: do the American PEOPLE, as a practical matter, believe in the R of L. No they don’t. They believe their side should win.

            But they are good at repeating empty platitudes!

  8. Gene Callahan says:

    “their side”

  9. Reader says:

    What else do you disagree with him on?

  10. Gene Callahan says:

    In fact, “no one is above the law” is pretty much a phrase people only use when THE OTHER TEAM’S GUY appears to have committed a crime. When their guy appears to have committed a crime, the proper phrase to use is “Witch hunt!”

    • Silas Barta says:

      Again, the issue was about Americans’ *pretense* to believing in the rule of law. You found out that the seriousness of this belief can be refuted easily — great work! Or, it would be, if I claimed and/or believed that.

      So, if you prefer, Bob and I were referring to the “belief in belief, if that makes it clearer. You were objecting to the quoted claim on the grounds that “lol they can’t even *define* the rule of law” — but that’s irrelevant. They can certainly define “no one is above the law”. The “fact that you can catch them in a trap about how they apply that” doesn’t vindicate your original argument.

      Feel free to make a third post about how the belief isn’t serious, though! I’m sure someone out there is still arguing it!

    • Silas Barta says:

      So (under your 1/2 notation above), if that was your argument, it wasn’t relevant to bring up “lol they can’t define rule of law” in support of your criticism.

Leave a Reply to Reader

Cancel Reply