November 2, 2016

I got played by the NYT — the headline is "Obama Criticizes F.B.I. Director: ‘We Don’t Operate on Leaks.'"

Then I watched the video:



That didn't come across as Obama turning around from the restrained, out-of-the-fray position he took yesterday, but the NYT has:
President Obama sharply criticized the decision by his F.B.I. director to alert Congress on Friday about the discovery of new emails related to the Hillary Clinton server case, implying that it violated investigative norms and trafficked in innuendo.
Where's the sharp criticism?!

Note that Obama, speaking very carefully, says:
I made a very deliberate effort to make sure that I don’t look like I’m meddling in what are supposed to be independent processes for making these assessments.
Interesting stress on how things look. But I think he means to keep looking like he's not meddling.

Now, Obama also says:
We don’t operate on incomplete information. We don’t operate on leaks. We operate based on concrete decisions that are made.
But he's speaking generally, not directly at Comey, and not purporting to say specifically that anything Comey has done constitutes "operating" on "incomplete information." You'd have to put that together yourself — or trust the NYT to do that for you.

63 comments:

Oso Negro said...

I don't trust the Stalin-facilitating New York Times to line a canary cage. Nor do I trust a word out of the mouth of the mellifluous mulatto. I want to see Hillary Clinton imprisoned for her crimes.

Hagar said...

Comey and the FBI are deviating from "concrete decisions that are made" in the White House?

Achilles said...

The DOJ has been meddling with these investigations from the start. He is just angry his administration's corruption is getting air time.

MadisonMan said...

Appearance is everything. Make sure that I don't look like I'm meddling (when I'm meddling).

bagoh20 said...

"We don’t operate on incomplete information."

Benghazi was because of a video. Let's get that guy.

Qwinn said...

If leaks revealed Republican corruption, I'm sure Obama would put a stop to any investigation of them right quick. Heh.

mockturtle said...

While I no longer read the National Review, my son-in-law forwarded me this article about Loretta Lynch's background and evident complicity in trying to bury the Clinton Foundation issue. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441675/clinton-foundation-fbi-investigation-loretta-lynch-obstruction

I forgot how to do links. Reminder, please? Thx.

mccullough said...

The tough part is figuring out when the information is complete (or as complete as it will get). The information the FBI had at the end
of June was as complete as they thought they were getting. Now there looks like some more info on the Weiner/Huma laptop. Comey is what doing what Obama says should be done

320Busdriver said...

Seems to me this guy learns most of the important things like most of us, when he hears it on the news.

So he should be interviewing the NYT, not the other way around.

Owen said...

Very interesting. Two thoughts:
(1) "I made a very deliberate effort to make sure that I DON'T LOOK LIKE I’m meddling [not, the obvious and natural expression, "that I'm not meddling"] in what are SUPPOSED TO BE [not, the obvious and natural expression, where those words are simply absent] independent processes for making these assessments." Very carefully parsed wording there.

(2) "...She hadn't made any mistakes that were --prosecutable." Damning with faint praise! Also a nice piece of misdirection, to. keep framing this as about more emails from a server, where the concern is whether any of those needles in the gigantic haystack might be "secret" and thus out of approved channels. That is just replaying the old story, about careless handling of State business. What it obscures is the elephant in the room --650,000 emails. An entire parallel universe of communication. A set of records whose extent implies --IMHO necessarily-- an entire de facto State department, but one run for private benefit, where favor-trading and pocket-lining can be done free of any accountability.

What possible innocent explanation for this file, can there be?

James Pawlak said...

If Mr. Trump (Who I did NOT support until my fellow Republicans selected him) wins, will Obama suddenly leave (Flee?) the USA to avoid prosecution for Treason. Perhaps, he might feel safer in Kenya or Indonesia or (Like Idi Amin) Saudi Arabia.

In that case, Hillary might leave our land to avoid prosecution for violations of U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115.

In the case of Mr. Trump's victory, a number of "foo-foo" Hollywood critters and their clones have pledged to leave the USA (Chiefly for Canada and not for Mexico, the latter having vastly better standards for immigrants than does Canada---Or, the USA.

Howard said...

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Hitlary. He said the exact minimum required not to be labeled a Trump enabler. The innuendo incomplete information lines were dog-whistles to the NYT and others of the government-media complex to give them plausible deniability to spin this as a hit against Comey.

Achilles said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rick said...

Links

Howard said...

Mock:

google "a href"

Ignorance is Bliss said...

mockturtle said...

I forgot how to do links. Reminder, please? Thx.

<a href="Your.Url.Here">Your Clickable Text Here</a>

Achilles said...

Figures. Tried to be lazy.

a link to how to link

a href=" URL ">text /a>

You have to put a < in front of a and /a.

320Busdriver said...

Marquette poll in WI is out. Hillary retains a 6 point lead over Trump.

Supposedly 1/2 of the 1100 LV were polled before the Comey news and 1/2 after.

Feingolds lead on Johnson pared to 1 point. 45/44.

TreeJoe said...

They are pushing hard on Obama's "We don't operate off of incomplete information" as criticism. But in this situation, it's damning to Clinton. The FBI closed their case based upon incomplete information. New information has turned up, and they've reopened it. That's all we know thus far.

By the way the 650,000 e-mails on the device were supposedly were huma's and weiners from both personal and work related e-mail accounts. I would expect Huma would be a prolific e-mailer in her role as handler, compared to Clinton herself. So this still doesn't mean anything.

However, it may provide light into what was deleted.

mockturtle said...

Thanks, all!

Brent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

BTW, the last couple of days I've been unable to use the preview function without it going to error an losing the post. Any ideas on that?

Brent said...

I have said this every year on this blog -- thank you for the opportunity -
The New York Times is the single most damaging instrument destroying the social fabric of America. The Times uses it's "respectability" to run cover for every failed and regenerated leftist ideal imaginable

PB said...

I notice the Times profit plunged by over 95%. Maybe they should take a look at what they're publishing.

Otto said...

If you know that the NYTs is a fraud why do you still read it and reference it quite often at this site. I think if you do you would have to hand in your elite and pseudo-intelligent membership card. And we know how much you cherish that card.

Bob Ellison said...

"The fact of the matter is is"

traditionalguy said...

It must be November Surprise week. But the NYT putting words into Obama's interview is straight out of Bad Lip Reading.

In other breaking news, the Media has found a picture of Trump at his new Atlantic City Casino with a bad gambler standing next to him that was a known Italian Mafia high roller. But his Casino was fined for this guy twice in very public complaints back when... probably about the same year BushII got his DUI ticket.

Mada Gasper said...

Only 81% of WI Republicans support Trump per the latest MU poll. That is sad. Do these 19% really have their head so far up theirs behinds?

dreams said...

The problem with Obama is that he dishonest to the core.

Yancey Ward said...

Actions speak louder than words, Ann.

The man put in charge of the new investigation, Peter Kadzik, was just revealed by Wikileaks to be sending John Podesta information, in a leak, about DoJ business before Congress, and specifically about Clinton's e-mails as relating to FOIA requests.

MayBee said...

We don’t operate on incomplete information. We don’t operate on leaks. We operate based on concrete decisions that are made.
But he's speaking generally, not directly at Comey, and not purporting to say specifically that anything Comey has done constitutes "operating" on "incomplete information." You'd have to put that together yourself


Oh, Althouse.
That's exactly what Hillary and the Democrats' criticism has been about Comey since Friday.
He is not speaking generally.

holdfast said...

The Podesta-Kadzik Email

It's like Potesta and crew are determined to prove Trump correct on "rigging". Geez.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MayBee said...

In October 2015, Obama was happy to operate on leaks and incomplete information:

WASHINGTON — Federal agents were still cataloging the classified information from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal email server last week when President Obama went on television and played down the matter.

I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”


NYT

mikee said...

Hey, is the IRS processing conservative nonprofit applications at the same rate, or slower, or faster, than in 2012? Because the rumors, innuendo, and Congressional reports on the subject say the IRS is still impeding efforts by conservative groups to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. Just saying.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nonapod said...

We don’t operate on incomplete information. We don’t operate on leaks. We operate based on concrete decisions that are made.

One of Obama's most irritating tendencies is to employ the "we" pronoun in an attempt to shame the opposition. Using the idiom of a patronizing professor in a faculty lounge, he'll say things like "We don't do x. X is not what America is all about." or whatever. It's so disdainful and assuming, it really grinds my gears.

Yancey Ward said...

Holdfast,

I wonder if we can get Harry Reid to criticize this for what it is- a violation of the Hatch Act.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

HotAir and other cons say that BHO's words are an attack against Comey. Aren't y'all acknowledging Comey did something wrong because you don't think he followed what BHO says the gov does.

Or, maybe you dispute what BHO says the gov does. I'll flip his words so your anti-BHO POV is better understood:

"I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations we [do] operate on innuendo and we [do] operate on incomplete information and we [do] operate on leaks...We [don't] operate based on concrete decisions that are made."

You cons are funny.

Owen said...

Nonapod: your comment on Obama's use of "we" is very telling. I think his whole style is incredibly supercilious and RRRR irritating (perhaps deliberately, to provoke his adversaries to overreact); but that particular mannerism is worth calling out. It epitomizes (may I use that word?) his pomposilous arrogancity of superciliousness (if there only there could be such a concatenation of words).

MayBee said...

Aren't y'all acknowledging Comey did something wrong because you don't think he followed what BHO says the gov does.


What Obama says has no bearing on whether Comey did something "wrong" or not.
What Obama says the government does not do has nothing to do with what Obama himself actually does.

Birkel said...

So PBandJ has the administrative power to remove a post made in error.

Step forward, Meade or Althouse, and claim ownership.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I only hear clicks and pops when Barry speaks.

coupe said...

Is that interviewer wearing yoga pants under her Moo-Moo?

EMD said...

You have an exclusive sit-down with the Preezy and this is what you wear?


coupe said...

I don't get the English subtitles??

Whaz-up wit dat?

Paul Snively said...

In the Journolist and Wikileaks era, when we know for a fact there is collusion at every level, among the DOJ, the FBI, the White House itself, and the media, who is actually stupid enough to believe this cant about "not meddling in independent governmental functions?" "Meddling in 'independent' governmental functions" is what leftist politics is.

JaimeRoberto said...

It's a mistake to think that you ever have complete information. Unknown unknowns can be a real bitch.

n.n said...

Innuendo is part and parcel of Mr. Pro-Choice in Chief's political repertoire. JournoLists of the Fourth Estate, and other private and public activists, foreign and domestic, will finish what he started.

Jim at said...

"We don’t operate on incomplete information. But let me be perfectly clear. The FBI acted stupidly."

dreams said...

Fox news is reporting that the FBI says Obama has painted himself into a corner based on what he said about the emails and national security.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dreams said...

I say lock both of them up.

jimbino said...

Obama says, "The fact of the matter is is that Hillary Clinton ...." showing that he hasn't improved his poor English since he took office, in spite of all the advice readily available to a President.

In comparison to Obama and Trump and for all her flaws, Hillary speaks impeccable English.

wildswan said...

The Clintons need to leave Comey with some credibility in case they succeed in making him back down and close the investigation. Then they can cite him. But I think Comey actually understands how much dirt was in Wiener's Life Insurance file and he knows that there are several copies of the drive. So Comey knows it's game over for the Clintons and they need to plea bargain with him. But it's never been game over for the Clintonistas before so they haven't yet decided to bargain. They are seeing if the vote rigging gets detected and is successful before they make a move.

Or I watch maybe too many cop shows where the good guys win at the eleventh hour.

GeekEsquire said...

"We don’t operate on incomplete information. We don’t operate on leaks. We operate based on concrete decisions that are made."*

* Does not apply in cases where police officers shoot people.

Hagar said...

I have never seen an outgoing president going to these lengths for his party in the election to choose his successor nor read about it in history.

Hagar said...

It is unseemly.

SukieTawdry said...

Entertaining interview. Clinton made a mistake, an HONEST mistake. It just got blown up as if it were some crazy thing which can happen to people when they're in the political arena for 30 years. Obama vouches for her. That's all anyone needs to know.

320Busdriver said...

This gets more maddening by the hour. Reading Andrew McCarthy in last eves National Review indicates an amazing level of meddling by DOJ in these investigations. As usual the MSM will spike it in its entirety.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dreams said...


"As usual the MSM will spike it in its entirety."

We don't have an unbiased media which has contributed to all the Dems corruption. The liberal media is corrupt along with the corrupt Dems.

mikee said...

Dear SukieTawdry, Clinton (either one) commited offenses against ethical norms, human decency, civil and criminal law, and then lied about it and obstructed justice until proven to be lying, and then all wide-eyed, innocently asked why we were still talking about such old news.

They should be no closer to any position of trust or authority than the defendant's seat, facing the judge, in a federal courtroom.