Color me unsurprised.
In what has been a ridiculously chaotic roller coaster of an election year, we just had another surprising turn of events. FBI Director James Comey’s decision earlier this week to inform Congress that he was reopening the investigation into the Clinton email scandal sent shockwaves throughout the nation. However, earlier today the New Yorker broke the story explaining that Comey’s announcement almost didn’t happen. Why? What almost kept him from announcing that the FBI had found more disconcerting Clinton emails?
To be clear – Comey can do whatever he wants, but Lynch was considered so politically tainted that there were no grounds to try & intervene— Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) October 29, 2016
Yes, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer once again stepped in to try to keep justice from taking place. Jane Mayer, of the New Yorker, explained that Lynch told Comey to keep his mouth shut and stick to the party line of “not commenting on ongoing investigations.”
Comey’s decision to make public new evidence that may raise additional legal questions about Clinton was contrary to the views of the Attorney General, according to a well-informed Administration official. Lynch expressed her preference that Comey follow the department’s longstanding practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations…Of course, Mayer and the New Yorker focus their story not on Lynch’s pressuring of the FBI Director, or on the new evidence that Hillary Clinton may be a corrupt criminal about to become President. No, they focus on what they call the “unprecedented” nature of Comey’s decision to inform Congress about the investigation. But this isn’t strictly accurate as Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com points out:
According to the Administration official, Lynch asked Comey to follow Justice Department policies, but he said that he was obliged to break with them because he had promised to inform members of Congress if there were further developments in the case. He also felt that the impending election created a compelling need to inform the public, despite the tradition of acting with added discretion around elections.
That early-July love for Comey appears to have worn off, eh? Some of this is true, but perhaps not as aberrational as the former high-ranking DoJ official would like to acknowledge. Bill Clinton won his first presidential election with a little boost from a last-week indictment of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger by Iran-Contra special counsel Lawrence Walsh, Paul Mirengoff recollects:
Weinberger had been indicted earlier in the year. But the new indictment cited a Weinberger diary entry that contradicted something President Bush had said.
The Clintons seized on the new indictment, howling about a “culture of corruption” that supposedly pervaded the administration. Bush’s poll numbers declined and Bill Clinton won the election.
Shortly after the election, a federal judge threw out the new indictment because it violated the five-year statute of limitations and improperly broadened the original charges. President Bush then pardoned Weinberger.
There’s no small amount of irony in that, nor in the sudden demands for full transparency from Hillary Clinton and the rest of her team. Had Hillary been transparent about her e-mail server from the beginning — or used the State Department system, which was designed to provide transparency to Congress and the courts while securing the information — she wouldn’t find herself in this mess.
Those things should be the heart of the story; instead the New Yorker focuses in on the FBI Director’s decision to tell Congress about the investigation. Seriously?
This may be the perfect example of just how corrupt and screwed up our justice department and the mainstream media have both become.