Clearly, the FBI’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server was a thankless job. FBI Director James Comey is getting it from both sides for his decision not to recommend that Hillary Clinton be indicted for her crimes while outlining those crimes in some detail. In the Washington Post former FBI Director of Public Affairs Matthew Miller complained about the latter:
When FBI Director James B. Comey stepped to the lectern to deliver his remarks about Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, he violated time-honored Justice Department practices for how such matters are to be handled, set a dangerous precedent for future investigations and committed a gross abuse of his own power.
while the editors of the Wall Street Journal complained about the former:
Mr. Comey spent nearly all of his media appearance laying out the multiple ways in which Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for official State Department business had violated official policy and jeopardized America’s secrets. Yet at the end he declined to recommend prosecution because her behavior was merely “extremely careless†rather than “grossly negligent†as the law requires. This is a rhetorical distinction without a difference that deserves to be mocked.
Mr. Comey’s facts grossly—if we may use that word—belie his conclusion. Of the 30,000 work-related emails Mrs. Clinton turned over to State, 110 contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight email chains contained information judged to be Top Secret. The FBI also found three emails containing classified information among emails that Mrs. Clinton had deleted (rather than turned over to State)—but which the FBI was able to find through forensic analysis.
What was Director Comey trying to accomplish through his decision and speech? Ann Althouse has suggested that he was trying to follow the least controversial path. If so, it was a futile exercise.
He may have genuinely believed both prongs of his argument with an Orwellian ability to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously. He may have been directed not to recommend indictment in no uncertain terms, followed orders in the hope of holding onto his job, but engaged in a minor act of rebellion by also explaining why his decision was wrong.
May we reasonably infer what he was trying to accomplish what he actually accomplished? He provided his superiors a figleaf for not recommending prosecution. He ensured that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for president. He may have tried but clearly failed at burnishing his own reputation as a straight shooter. This:
This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
demolished that particular case.
Mr. Comey’s agency’s function was investigative not prosecutorial and in any event he should not have made decisions as a prosecutor. There was enough evidence, merely in what has been made public, for the case to go to a grand jury. Had a grand jury decided that there was insufficient evidence to go to trial, the matter would have been truly and finally ended. As it is, it will hang in the air forever.
I don’t know the specifics of what the FBI was asked to investigate but IMO the single-minded focus on classified material was an error. As I’ve been saying all along, violations of the Espionage Act were not the only problems. Violations of the Records Act were obvious and deeply disturbing. And, as Mr. Comey should surely know, intent may be inferred from a pattern of action and he made the case for the pattern in his remarks.
Well, the decision, along with Loretta Lynch’s announcement that she would not proceed, makes a pretty good case for the release of Sec. Clinton’s interview with the FBI and, predictably, there have already been calls for that release.
It could have been that Director Comey saw the disastrous results of indicting a presidential candidate this late in the race. The political results might not have been the much ballyhooed “constitutional crisis”, but it would have caused a political earthquake of significant proportion.
What he did was to allow her to be tried by a jury of her peers, but that jury will consist of the voters. It is probably the best solution in these circumstances. He gave the prosecutor’s case as well as it could be made, and he then gave jury instructions. We will know the verdict in November.
To a degree, this is somewhat of a victory for the non-elites. In times past, she would have been given a pass a long time ago. She is one of the protected class, and if they allow the mob to burn her at the stake, any one of them could be next.
which is very much what I’ve been saying: it was a political decision.
“Splitting the baby” is one biblical reference that comes to mind regarding Comey’s decision and statements. Another is Pontious Pilate washing his hands.