FBI Director, James Comey, stated in public testimony on Wednesday that he had only two doors available to him just eleven days before the Presidential election when new Hillary Clinton emails surfaced on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. The two choices he had were to either conceal these new emails from Congress and ultimately the American People or to reveal that new Clinton emails were found that may be important to the case.
He wanted the public to go back with him to October 27, 2016 and asked what would any reasonable person have done, reveal or conceal? He said in his testimony that in hindsight that reveal was still the correct position.
There was an obvious third door that most reasonable people would have gone through, however. If confronted with this new information eleven days before when the American people went to the poles, the most prudent action would be to delay notifying Congress until the weekend before the election. A solid week would have been enough time to ascertain whether these new emails would show ‘intent’ from Clinton that may lead to an indictment. The FBI didn’t have to go through every email. They could have prioritized their inquiry to just the missing emails from her first three months sent from Clinton’s Verizon Blackberry.
Comey even stated in his testimony, “We never found any emails from her first three months. She was using a Verizon Blackberry then and that's obviously very important because if there was evidence that she was acting with bad intent, that's where it would be.”
If the new emails were damaging enough, Comey could have then notified Congress the Sunday before the election that new emails were found and the electorate would have been informed before voting. If there was nothing there, then Comey could have notified Congress after the election of what had occurred. This is called discretion and is what would be expected by all reasonable people even if the FBI was obligated to share with Congress any new information.
This glaringly obvious third choice makes one wonder if the true story is being hidden. Perhaps Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley is wondering the same thing; in his opening statement he pointed out that the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act became law in December 2016 and still the FBI had not updated its policies or educated its employees of their new protections. I believe Grassley wants someone to shed some light on what actually transpired.
The story of James Comey interjecting himself in the Presidential election actually began back in July 2016 when he held a press conference. Comey outlined how Mrs. Clinton gave untrue public statements, he questioned her judgment, and said she was “extremely careless” handling classified information that foreign agents probably gained accessed to. Comey then said that he decided there would be no prosecution because he couldn’t prove she intentionally mishandled classified material. Of course, it’s not the FBI’s job to bring charges, but just to investigate and bring all evidence to the prosecutors who then make the determination.
The reason Director Comey gave this press conference was because he felt that Attorney General, Loretta Lynch could not be the one stating there would be no charges because otherwise the public would believe the system was corrupt and the DOJ would lose all trust.
The likely scenario is that Loretta Lynch simply told the FBI that if there wasn't a smoking gun that showed intent, to stand down. There was no way the DOJ was going to prosecute the leading DNC candidate, Hillary Clinton, who would be nominated by the party later that month, unless there was clear intent.
As a patriot, this probably didn’t sit well with James Comey. Since the FBI cannot prosecute cases, he had to comply with Lynch and bring the matter to an end. This is why Comey laid out Clinton’s misdeeds before the American people. He wanted everyone to know the truth even though there would be no prosecution that would bring accountability and justice.
When the new emails were discovered on October 27th, James Comey could only see his two doors. Choosing the reveal door was a way to bring justice, not prosecutorial, but public justice. If there was a smoking gun of intent, these new emails would show it.
The backlash against Comey caused the FBI to actually get through all the emails in a weeks’ time and the Director came forward the Sunday before the election again stating there was nothing there to show intent and there would be no criminal charges.
Sen. Grassley asked Comey in the public hearing about an email the FBI discovered where Lynch provides assurances to protect Clinton by making sure the FBI investigation “didn't go too far.” Comey didn't comment.
The real question that remains is did Loretta Lynch interfere with the investigation and choose not to prosecute because she was trying to protect Clinton or was it because there really is the standard of intent that must be legally proven. If the former is true, then Hillary did get a free pass. It wasn’t because of Comey as President Trump recently tweeted, but the free pass came from Loretta Lynch.