FBI email letter raises more questions than it answers
Just when you thought the presidential race couldn’t get any weirder, along comes another “October surprise,” this one a cryptic letter to Congress from FBI Director James Comey stating that Hillary Clinton’s email saga might not be over after all.
The FBI, it seems, has been investigating whether Anthony Weiner, the former congressman and estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, exchanged sexually explicit messages with a minor. State Department emails turned up on at least one of Weiner’s electronic devices. So Comey authorized “appropriate investigative steps” to review whether any of these emails are relevant to the inquiry into whether Clinton mishandled classified information.
Nothing has emerged to contradict Comey’s original conclusion, reasonable in our view, that Clinton’s private server arrangement was extremely careless but not criminal. But the last thing the Clinton campaign wanted, less than two weeks before the election, was a spate of news stories containing the words email, FBI investigation, sexting and Anthony Weiner.
What should voters make of all this?
For one thing, Comey’s note was unnecessarily vague. It did not say whether FBI personnel have analyzed the latest batch of emails, and whether they are new or duplicates. It raised far more questions than it answered.
Despite this lack of clarity, Republican nominee Donald Trump, showing his normal penchant for hyperbole and disregard for due process, would have people believe that the email controversy is “bigger than Watergate” and provides further evidence that Clinton should be locked up.
Never mind that Comey acknowledged that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.” Or that Watergate was the worst political scandal in U.S. history. Or that under the Constitution, you don’t get locked up until you’ve been charged with a crime and convicted. Or that Trump is now praising the same FBI director he had been denouncing as corrupt.
Whether voters should think more poorly of Clinton is impossible to say. That’s why Comey — having disregarded Justice Department guidelines about commenting on active investigations, particularly ones so close to Election Day — has an obligation to accelerate the inquiry and provide voters with a more detailed update before Nov. 8.
Over the weekend, Clinton and her supporters attacked Comey’s decision to disclose the latest twist in the email inquiry. Clinton called the move “deeply troubling,” and campaign chairman John Podesta termed Comey’s letter “long on innuendo and short on facts.”
That’s one way to look at it. Another is that Comey, who has exercised unusual transparency in this case and who made an ill-advised promise to keep Congress abreast of new developments, was caught between bad choices.
Imagine the uproar had he kept mum and word of the Weiner-related inquiry leaked out even closer to Election Day. If Clinton wins, she’ll be able to point to the FBI director’s letter as further refutation of Trump’s bogus assertion that the election is rigged against him. She might even want to thank Comey.