emptywheel

Well, @emptywheel is right in that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the respective investigations. But if can't make public the Trump CI one, you cannot do what Comey did on July 5. You give a 2-3 sentence OPA written release of declination @AdamSerwer

The argument is not that they should have disclosed the investigation publicly, it’s that they put their thumb on the scale for one of the two candidates.

You may have missed my point elsewhere, but FBI didn't make a "conscious decision" to reveal the Hillary investigation. That started out as public.

Complain abt Comey's July comments by all means, and Oct comments they precipitated. But there was never a way they couldn't discuss the Hillary investigation publicly, so Q was how they should. And FBI is going to hide a CI investigation, correctly so.

Which is also what I was saying. Inability to discuss the CI was legitimate. But it also created a duty to not exacerbate the imbalance between the two investigations as Comey egregiously did.

BTW, re your post Marcy, how likely do we think it is that Papadop would not have informed higher ups about the "dirt" he'd been told of? One detail that I think deserves more attention is that per NYT, Papadop kept informing campaign officials of his efforts to broker meeting

He had to have, given how they charged it (which is what the earlier post argues). It's just that Mueller is hiding that for now.

Right. And I guess then the Q becomes what the brain trust did with the info?