Did you read today’s Guardian on FBI Director James Comey’s statement on Friday about the Clinton emails? Or yesterday’s account in the New York Times? If you relied on such sources you’ll be none the wiser on a simple point most media, including once liberal media that deem HRC at worst the lesser evil, are at pains to obscure if not ignore. As Democrat and Republican alike pour vitriol on Comey, here’s my summary of a Washington Post piece on how the man did the right thing:
In July Comey told the world the Clinton emails had been “thoroughly investigated” and he would not recommend prosecution. That boosted Clinton, who touted it as vindication of her practise of using private servers as Secretary of State, placing official correspondence beyond the reach of democratic accountability.
Her ratings went up but the FBI now finds the investigation was not thorough, nor could it have been. Thousands of emails reside on the laptop of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife, the Clinton aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. Their failure, with or without Hillary Clinton’s knowledge, to provide all relevant evidence invalidated the July statement. This is the ‘impossible situation’ Comey was in on Friday as he announced that new emails have been found. Had the FBI kept quiet about these it would have left uncorrected a misleading statement already used by Team Clinton – but now with the collusion of the Feds – for political gain.
Many are now shrieking that Comey does not know the new emails to be incriminating (true) so should have held his tongue (false). The emails will have to be sifted and this will take time. But those who call Friday’s announcement irresponsible, some even alleging a breach of federal law on politically driven abuse of office, miss the point through muddled thinking or worse. The July announcement, that a “thorough investigation” had found Clinton culpable but not on balance of probability a lawbreaker, was now unsafe in ways that impact on the election. Not to correct it in light of emails Team Clinton chose not to release would, regardless of what those emails reveal, be the real and entirely partisan subversion of democracy.
That’s my summary of the Washington Post piece. Why has so simple yet vital a point been obscured in the overwhelmingly – and uncritically – pro Clinton Guardian?