The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
The FBI and Hillary, Again
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last weekend, The New York Times published a long piece about the effect the FBI had on the outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign. As we all know, Donald Trump won a comfortable victory in the Electoral College while falling about 3 million votes behind Hillary Clinton in the popular vote.

I believe that Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate who failed to energize the Democratic Party base and who failed to deliver to the electorate a principled reason to vote for her. Yet when the Times reporters asked her why she believes she lost the race, she gave several answers, the first of which was the involvement of the FBI. She may be right.

Here is the back story.

In 2015, a committee of the House of Representatives that was investigating the deaths of four Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, learned that the State Department had no copies of any emails sent or received by Clinton during her four years as secretary of state. When committee investigators pursued this — at the same time that attorneys involved with civil lawsuits brought against the State Department seeking the Clinton emails were pursuing it — it was revealed that Clinton had used her own home servers for her emails and bypassed the State Department servers.

Because many of her emails obviously contained government secrets and because the removal of government secrets to any non-secure venue constitutes espionage, the House Select Committee on Benghazi sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, which passed it on to the FBI. A congressionally issued criminal referral means that some members of Congress who have seen some evidence think that some crime may have been committed. The DOJ is free to reject the referral, yet it accepted this one.

It directed the FBI to investigate the facts in the referral and to refer to the investigation as a “matter,” not as a criminal investigation. The FBI cringed a bit, but Director James Comey followed orders and used the word “matter.” This led to some agents mockingly referring to him as the director of the Federal Bureau of Matters. It would not be the last time agents mocked or derided him in the Clinton investigation.

He should not have referred to it by any name, because under DOJ and FBI regulations, the existence of an FBI investigation should not be revealed publicly unless and until it results in some public courtroom activity, such as the release of an indictment. These rules and procedures have been in place for generations to protect those never charged. Because of the role that the FBI has played in our law enforcement history — articulated in books and movies and manifested in our culture — many folks assume that if a person is being investigated by the FBI, she must have done something wrong.

In early July 2016, Clinton was personally interviewed in secret for about four hours by a team of FBI agents who had been working on her case for a year. During that interview, she professed great memory loss and blamed it on a head injury she said she had suffered in her Washington, D.C., home. Some of the agents who interrogated her disbelieved her testimony about the injury and, over the Fourth of July holiday weekend, asked Comey for permission to subpoena her medical records.

When Comey denied his agents the permission they sought, some of them attempted to obtain the records from the intelligence community. Because Clinton’s medical records had been digitally recorded by her physicians and because the FBI agents knew that the National Security Agency has digital copies of all keystrokes on all computers used in the U.S. since 2005, they sought Clinton’s records from their NSA colleagues. Lying to the FBI is a felony, and these agents believed they had just witnessed a series of lies.

When Comey learned what his creative agents were up to, he jumped the gun by holding a news conference on July 5, 2016, during which he announced that the FBI was recommending to the DOJ that it not seek Clinton’s indictment because “no reasonable prosecutor” would take the case. He then did the unthinkable. He outlined all of the damning evidence of guilt that the FBI had amassed against her.

This double-edged sword — we won’t charge her, but we have much evidence of her guilt — was unprecedented and unheard of in the midst of a presidential election campaign. Both Republicans and Democrats found some joy in Comey’s words. Yet his many agents who believed that Clinton was guilty of both espionage and lying were furious — furious that Comey had revealed so much, furious that he had demeaned their work, furious that he had stopped an investigation before it was completed.

While all this was going on, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, was being investigated for using a computer to send sexually explicit materials to a minor. When the FBI asked for his computer — he had shared it with his wife — he surrendered it. When FBI agents examined the Weiner/Abedin laptop, they found about 650,000 stored emails, many from Clinton to Abedin, that they thought they had not seen before.

Rather than silently examine the laptop, Comey again violated DOJ and FBI regulations by announcing publicly the discovery of the laptop and revealing that his team suspected that it contained hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails; and he announced the reopening of the Clinton investigation. This announcement was made two weeks before Election Day and was greeted by the Trump campaign with great glee. A week later, Comey announced that the laptop was fruitless, and the investigation was closed, again.

ORDER IT NOW

At about the same time that the House Benghazi Committee sent its criminal referral to the DOJ, American and British intelligence became interested in a potential connection between the Trump presidential campaign and intelligence agents of the Russian government. This interest resulted in the now infamous year-plus-long electronic surveillance of Trump and many of his associates and colleagues. This also produced a criminal referral from the intelligence community to the DOJ, which sent it to the FBI.

Yet this referral and the existence of this investigation was kept — quite properly — from the press and the public. When Comey was asked about it, he — quite properly — declined to answer. When he was asked under oath whether he knew of any surveillance of Trump before Trump became president, Comey denied that he knew of it.

What was going on with the FBI?

How could Comey justify the public revelation of a criminal investigation and a summary of evidence of guilt about one candidate for president and remain silent about the existence of a criminal investigation of the campaign of another? How could he deny knowledge of surveillance that was well-known in the intelligence community, even among his own agents? Why would the FBI director inject his agents, who have prided themselves on professional political neutrality, into a bitterly contested campaign having been warned it might affect the outcome? Why did he reject the law’s just commands of silence in favor of putting his thumb on political scales?

I don’t know the answers to those questions. But the American public, and Hillary Clinton, is entitled to them.

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, FBI, Hillary Clinton 
Hide 14 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. polistra says:

    Well, Hillary is President now, so none of this matters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    The DNC lost the election for the Democrats when it stole the nomination for Hillary Clinton. As for the political intrigue involving the FBI there are no innocent parties. And polistra has it right. Donald Rodham Trump has effectively reversed the results of the election.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /anapolitano/the-fbi-and-hillary-again/#comment-1851056
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Probably because the one is real and the other bogus…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. dearieme says:

    Surely the Russian schemozzle is essentially a fabrication designed to justify spying on Trump and his people. If the matter were thoroughly investigated it might result in jail time for Obama rather than Trump.

    By contrast Hillary really did engage in espionage: perhaps, even, as part of a bribery deal. No wonder that investigation was cut short.

    Dear God, Washington is corrupt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. “I don’t know the answers to those questions. But the American public, and Hillary Clinton, is entitled to them.”

    What the American public was entitled to was the indictment and conviction of Hillary Clinton, since the evidence of her guilt was clear and well-known. How Comey can justify what he did isn’t in question, since he can’t. That he is still in charge of the FBI is absurd and a travesty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gustafus
    Trump looks like a player now.... I was and am a fervent supporter... but it looks as though it's business as usual.

    Comey is dirty... why hasn't he been replaced? Is this more of the same ole same ole... he's got stuff on Trump?

    I'm distressed by this.... our guy is failing us
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. bob sykes says:

    None of these shenanigans changed one single vote. They are irrelevant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. The Scalpel says: • Website

    Hillary Clinton is guilty of so many intentional legal, ethical, and moral violations, that she is entitled to live in fear of prosecution and in the shameless knowledge that she is thoroughly despised. Thanks be to God or Putin or aliens or whomever, that she was not elected president. If that happened, there is an excellent chance we would already be in World War III

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. @polistra
    Well, Hillary is President now, so none of this matters.

    The DNC lost the election for the Democrats when it stole the nomination for Hillary Clinton. As for the political intrigue involving the FBI there are no innocent parties. And polistra has it right. Donald Rodham Trump has effectively reversed the results of the election.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. woodNfish says:

    Why would the FBI director inject his agents, who have prided themselves on professional political neutrality…

    Oh BS Judge! Remember J. Edgar Hoover? He had a file on every member of Congress and the administrations. If that wasn’t political I don’t know what is.

    I don’t know the answers to those questions. But the American public, and Hillary Clinton, is entitled to them.

    Fuck Hillary Clinton! The only thing she is entitled to is a trial for espionage and a quick hanging.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    It seems to me like the Judge was going after Hillary relentlessly all through last year, so this seems like an interesting change of emphasis. I do think the Judge is interested in seeing justice served, whether that means charging, convicting or acquitting Hillary. I also agree Comey's behavior was reprehensible all round; rather than resigning honorably when he felt he could no longer carry out his investigation due to political pressure from the Obama White House, he publicized details of the investigation in order to embarrass Obama and Hillary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. jtgw says:
    @woodNfish

    Why would the FBI director inject his agents, who have prided themselves on professional political neutrality...
     
    Oh BS Judge! Remember J. Edgar Hoover? He had a file on every member of Congress and the administrations. If that wasn't political I don't know what is.

    I don’t know the answers to those questions. But the American public, and Hillary Clinton, is entitled to them.
     
    Fuck Hillary Clinton! The only thing she is entitled to is a trial for espionage and a quick hanging.

    It seems to me like the Judge was going after Hillary relentlessly all through last year, so this seems like an interesting change of emphasis. I do think the Judge is interested in seeing justice served, whether that means charging, convicting or acquitting Hillary. I also agree Comey’s behavior was reprehensible all round; rather than resigning honorably when he felt he could no longer carry out his investigation due to political pressure from the Obama White House, he publicized details of the investigation in order to embarrass Obama and Hillary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " he publicized details of the investigation in order to embarrass O and HRC"

    This is a beyond absurd viewpoint : O and HRC embarrassed themselves in multitudes of manners, and the idea that they could be "embarrassed" from outside sources is that of unadulterated ignorance and non-comprehension.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. gustafus says:
    @Gandydancer
    "I don’t know the answers to those questions. But the American public, and Hillary Clinton, is entitled to them."

    What the American public was entitled to was the indictment and conviction of Hillary Clinton, since the evidence of her guilt was clear and well-known. How Comey can justify what he did isn't in question, since he can't. That he is still in charge of the FBI is absurd and a travesty.

    Trump looks like a player now…. I was and am a fervent supporter… but it looks as though it’s business as usual.

    Comey is dirty… why hasn’t he been replaced? Is this more of the same ole same ole… he’s got stuff on Trump?

    I’m distressed by this…. our guy is failing us

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. They are all corrupt, every last one of them. That some people prefer one flavor or sort of corruption over another is a difference without substantial importance. Bottom line is that we no longer make even a credible pretense of living in a representative republic. We are ruled by people who are firmly convinced that they are our betters. The party they claim fealty to is unimportant, nor is there any difference in their overall outlook.

    There is only one way these sorts of people are gotten rid of, and the day to take care of that is not yet upon us. When it comes, stand by. It will be preceded by even more reprehensible despotic behavior.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @jtgw
    It seems to me like the Judge was going after Hillary relentlessly all through last year, so this seems like an interesting change of emphasis. I do think the Judge is interested in seeing justice served, whether that means charging, convicting or acquitting Hillary. I also agree Comey's behavior was reprehensible all round; rather than resigning honorably when he felt he could no longer carry out his investigation due to political pressure from the Obama White House, he publicized details of the investigation in order to embarrass Obama and Hillary.

    ” he publicized details of the investigation in order to embarrass O and HRC”

    This is a beyond absurd viewpoint : O and HRC embarrassed themselves in multitudes of manners, and the idea that they could be “embarrassed” from outside sources is that of unadulterated ignorance and non-comprehension.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I didn't say that O or HRC were blameless or that they hadn't embarrassed themselves in other ways; I'm agreeing with Judge Nap that Comey publicized aspects of the investigation in an unprofessional manner. If he believed that he couldn't do his job under the political constraints, he should have resigned; this is what ethical civil servants do when they disagree with their political masters. They shouldn't become politicians themselves.

    Something tells me you're not actually in Mensa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. jtgw says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " he publicized details of the investigation in order to embarrass O and HRC"

    This is a beyond absurd viewpoint : O and HRC embarrassed themselves in multitudes of manners, and the idea that they could be "embarrassed" from outside sources is that of unadulterated ignorance and non-comprehension.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    I didn’t say that O or HRC were blameless or that they hadn’t embarrassed themselves in other ways; I’m agreeing with Judge Nap that Comey publicized aspects of the investigation in an unprofessional manner. If he believed that he couldn’t do his job under the political constraints, he should have resigned; this is what ethical civil servants do when they disagree with their political masters. They shouldn’t become politicians themselves.

    Something tells me you’re not actually in Mensa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Pericles says:

    Nice summary, thanks. A similar deeper look into the surveillance of Trump and aftermath would be interesting and useful. It is a bit odd that the mess finally ends up at Susan Rice’s door, with some potential to become former president Obama’s problem, then a couple of days later … Let’s bomb Syria! Let’s lean on North Korea! Strange new respect!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation