Did FBI Director James Comey put his foot in his mouth in his “October surprise” comments about Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s email — or was he putting his thumb on the scale politically and hurting Clinton, and helping Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump?

Amid mounting criticism from Democrats, Republicans, prosecutors, state attorney generals, and former Justice Department officials, (go here, here, here, here, here, here), and a White House saying it will not defend or criticize Comey, two media outlets today raised the legitimate question of whether the FBI director was using a double standard. Questions are being asked: was he bullied by Republicans? Did the Trump campaign get to him with its claims about rigged elections? Was he doing CYA to avoid being accused of holding back info from GOPers in Congress and/or Trumpistas? The Huffington Post reports:

FBI Director James Comey privately argued against having his bureau sign onto a statement saying the Russian government was meddling in the U.S. election, CNBC first reported on Monday, citing “a former FBI official.”

A source familiar with the interagency discussions confirms to The Huffington Post that Comey declined to do so because, specifically, he was concerned the statement was coming too close to the election. The source who spoke to HuffPost is not a former FBI official and spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

The statement that Comey declined to sign off on ultimately went forward anyway. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated: “The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”

But Comey’s decision to keep the FBI off the statement ? out of concern for the electoral impact it might have ? has taken on new significance in light of his handling of a separate matter involving Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Last Friday, the FBI director sent a letter to Congress alerting lawmakers to the discovery of a computer that has material that may or may not be pertinent to the investigation into Clinton’s use of private email. In a separate letter to FBI colleagues, Comey stressed that he understood the sensitivity in making such an announcement so close to the election, but felt it was in the public’s interest to hear about the potential breakthrough and worried the discovery would have leaked prior to Election Day.

Comey has been subsequently criticized ? by Democrats, ex-prosecutors and even some Republicans ? for violating protocol that says Department of Justice officials should generally avoid making these types of announcements so close to an election.

One difference between the Russia statement and the Clinton investigation is that Comey had previously kept Congress abreast about the latter while declining to discuss the former. Thus, he may have felt an obligation to continue to update lawmakers on the status of the investigation.

Writes New York Times columnist Charles Blow:

Not only was this (Comey’s) move reckless, weaponizing the reputation of the bureau once again as a partisan political entity, but also Comey was apparently ignoring the strong discouragement of the Justice Department.

But, according to a report by The New York Times: “Senior Justice Department officials did not move to stop him from sending the letter, officials said, but they did everything short of it, pointing to policies against talking about current criminal investigations or being seen as meddling in elections.”

Comey, for his part, appeared fully cognizant of how disruptive to the election his note would be, and yet inexplicably, he sent it anyway.

AND:

Republicans may be gleeful, but Democrats have every right to be livid. This is just the latest lifeline being thrown to a Republican candidate drowning in his own ineptitude.

There is no way to know what electoral impact this will have, but I would venture that it is safe to say that it will have some. Headlines and sound bites are as deep as some voters go. The impropriety of Comey’s action requires a level of detailed assessment that is simply beyond the inclination of what I roughly call the Fickle Five Percent, the late-deciding swing voters who move between candidates based on the week’s revelations.

Add to that the fact that Trump has been encouraging his supporters to watch the polls in “certain areas,” a move that many worry could amount to voter intimidation, particularly in minority neighborhoods.

Furthermore, a senior Trump campaign official last week told Bloomberg Business Week, “We have three major voter suppression operations underway.”…..

Trump wants to win through sleight of hand and Comey most likely just increased that possibility, however slightly. Voters of all ideologies who value the integrity of our electoral process must send the strongest possible message that this is not how we want our democracy to operate. They must vote with conviction in absolute opposition.

With one week to go before election day, the FBI’s pronouncements (or lack of them) will be closely watched. At this point many Democrats believe Comey used a double standard — by mistake or (more frequently implied or said) with political intent. And: will there be any similar indications from the FBI of serious probes going on involving Donald Trump or Trump’s associates?

The one certainty: no matter what, Comey has now undone some of the work the agency did over the years to overcome its image of being a political tool under the late J. Edgar Hoover.

There is a growing consensus: no matter what the intent, Comey blew it and appears to have entered the political campaign and, no matter what the reasoning, appears to have used a double standard.

Initial polling indicates the Comey issue has not changed the election numbers for Clinton.

JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.

themoderatevoice.com/