In his new book, Comey offers an interesting justification, which I hadn't considered in my 2016 analysis. Comey says that he considered Clinton a lock for the 2016 election, so better to get it out before the election rather than have that linger with a post-election announcement.
So, Comey says he didn't think it would flip the election. It is worth pointing out that, in my initial assessment of Comey's announcement, I didn't think it was likely to flip the election either. So, can I blame Comey if he thought the same way? I was wrong. Maybe he was too.
A couple of points to consider.
First, if Comey thought that there were any circumstances in which Republicans would treat Clinton's election as legitimate, he was deluding himself. They were chanting "lock her up" at the Republican convention, Trump had refused to say that he would accept the results of a Clinton victory, the party was still in its Benghazi-haze, and a bunch of them still think she murdered Vince Foster with her bare hands.
Pizzagate. Pizzagate. You can't reason with people like that. You can't placate them, and there is no point trying.
That said, Comey may have thought that an open approach would avoid the appearance of illegitimacy, and thereby convey legitimacy. Bullshit, because the Republicans will believe anything about Hillary Clinton, but he may have thought it.
So, should we buy that Comey was really thinking about this when he re-opened the "investigation" in October, and handed the White House to Trump?
Two main possibilities:
1) I eventually decided that Comey's goal was to take down Clinton. See, for example, this post. Perhaps I was falling prey to the teleological fallacy. Basically, that's when you assume that the outcome is the intent.
2) People aren't always honest about their motives-- even with themselves. Perhaps Comey is cozying up to Trump's enemies because of the position in which he now finds himself, and that requires telling a different story.
The teleological fallacy is real, and it may have infected my reasoning. However, Comey's animosity towards Clinton was obvious, not just in his actions, but in how he spoke of her when he announced that she wouldn't be charged. Dude just didn't like her. Period. His silence on Russia, and his advocacy for silence on Russia. You have to look at the totality of his actions, and the totality of his actions throughout the 2016 election did not make it look like he just assumed Clinton would win and wanted to convey legitimacy. If you care about legitimacy, you put the Russian interference out there. Comey was blocking federal confirmation of Russian interference in 2016, even though the FBI had confirmed it. Why? See my previous post.
Did Comey just assume Clinton would win, and want to make sure everything looked on the level? That's hard to square with the speech he gave when he announced that she wouldn't be charged, and even harder to square with blocking federal confirmation of Russian interference in 2016, even though the FBI had confirmed it.
Why is Comey saying what he now says? I don't know. Maybe I did commit the teleological fallacy, but I also think it is important to look at the totality of peoples' statements and actions.
When you look at everything James Comey did, remember that he didn't just go after Flynn, and he didn't just make that October, 2016 announcement. He excoriated a presidential candidate while explaining that she couldn't be charged with any crimes. That was... really weird. He also stood in the way of the federal government confirming Russian election meddling in 2016. During the election.
When Trump fired Comey, it was obstruction of justice. He was trying to get the FBI to stop investigating Flynn and anything Russia-related. Comey himself, though? Don't make him out to be something he isn't, and remember to look at the totality of what he did.