All of which is well and good and none of which actually relates to my post about Comey's statement, which sparked your reply and this overlong and pointless exchange about superior professional understanding of his words. Whatever others thought about the investigation being over, I didn't think so, nor did I ever say I did. Because the FBI never said it was concluded.I feel like you're not reading my posts carefully enough. I used the word "misleading" and distinguished it from "false". Re-read my post accordingly, and see if that alters your comment.
Secondly, you seem to be proceeding from an incorrect application of what I have said about investigator comments. To further clarify what should already be clear:
1. When Comey made his statement in July, I don't believe he was foreclosing further investigation (contrary to how most people interpreted his words). I think he was providing misdirection as to the continuing direction of the outstanding investigations. It turns out he was right, as relevant information was uncovered that no one thought to destroy in the meantime.
2. His current statement suggests that he is unsure of the materiality of the e-mails the FBI is now reviewing. That is just investigator-speak, designed to protect against the following typical defence arguments: 1) the FBI investigation was tainted by its prejudgement of the guilt of the accused, and/or b) the impetus for the seeking a warrant to lawfully review the 650,00 e-mails was review of unlawfully obtained e-mails. I think Comey reviewed a number of sample e-mails provided by Weiner (who may not have obtained them with the consent of his ex-wife) that are clearly material to the charges the FBI were investigating, and these sample e-mails are the springboard for a complete review of Abedin's e-mails.
That's what I'm talking about when I refer to Comey's statements as misleading, but not false.
And no, I don't think either one of his statements (without a provable motivation to falsely malign Clinton) would expose him to professional discipline.
Thanks for explaining the obvious: That before his people read them he cannot actually say ( _________ insert here whatever secret thoughts you attribute to him, on whatever evidence, however thin or substantial) how material these emails might be to the Clinton matter. DUH!! i.e. What he said, and I had repeated. There is nothing at all misleading in his words, in your précis of them or my earlier one. You then went on to speculate about how he got the emails, which was not at issue between us; let's keep it so.
But thanks for ducking out to a new topic: I think, since Weiner was subject of a criminal complaint and investigation about sexual luring of a minor, that the authorities had no difficulty obtaining due authorization to search any and every computer he used. Which would have turned up the meta-data traces, copies, replies etc. of emails relevant to the earlier (and incomplete) Clinton inquiry by entirely legitimate investigative happenstance. Which new information would have entitled the FBI to their own warrant to search a private person's computer in furtherance of their investigation of Clinton. Same outcome by my scenario, Counselor if a few slight differences along the way. In any case no one has suggested or said they came by what they now have improperly. My bet is it's unlikely Abedin has any Clinton-incriminating stuff in the half-million emails that the FBI must now go through.
Too bad in all the time between Clinton's supposed offences four and more years back, no one credible coulda have been found to bend the impartial ear of a competent law-enforcement agency with their tip-off, so this bungled matter wasn't screwing up an entire Election. Oh, but the impetus came from Congress! you say. Yup. As I said, too bad no one credible …
-----------------
PS: Next time you're moved to reply to a post of mine, (and all the more if it isn't directed to you) please read it again for its literal meaning. Don't reply to what you imagine I must really be thinking. Whatever your professional experience with FBI Director's private thoughts, you haven't persuaded me you're equally expert with mine.