Wednesday, June 20 , 2018, 4:19 pm | A Few Clouds 66º

 
 
 
 

David Harsanyi: James Comey Didn’t Sink Hillary. Hillary sank Hillary

Hillary Clinton was back yesterday, taking "absolute personal responsibility" by blaming Russia, FBI Director James Comey and misogyny for her second presidential election loss.

If the election had taken place on Oct. 27, Clinton maintained, she'd be president.

Perhaps if we were to all live in a vacuum where the electorate ignored everything the Democratic Party's flawed nominee said and did (and tried to hide), she would be in the White House -- although even that's debatable.

Clinton's counterfactual tale about the infamous Comey letter has been a security blanket for many Democrats. But, as luck would have it, the FBI director was testifying in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, and he reminded us of some factors that Clinton ignored.

That's because even if we concede that Comey's letter to Congress helped sink Clinton, Clinton deserved that letter and Comey had no choice but to send it.

In essence, what many Democrats have been arguing for the past six months is that Comey should have actively buried evidence that was pertinent to an ongoing congressional investigation — one that incidentally turned up plenty of potential wrongdoing — because it might hurt their preferred candidate's chances.

Comey confirmed that the FBI learned that classified emails were forwarded from Clinton's email account by Clinton aide Huma Abedin to her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, so he could print them out. (This appears to be illegal, but perhaps all those immunity deals Comey was handing out came in handy.)

Her computer, like other servers and laptops Clinton's staff tried to dispose of, hide, clean and whatnot, were supposed to have been in the hands of the FBI.

It's worth pointing out that everything in the Comey letter was almost surely going to leak anyway, not only because of its connection to the Clinton investigation but also because this "fella Anthony Weiner," as Comey referred to him, had access to classified information.

That may not have made things any better for Clinton, but it certainly would have made the FBI look like it was actively protecting a candidate — which is undoubtedly why Comey said it was potentially "catastrophic."

Whatever his political calculations, however, there was simply no reason for him not to apprise Congress of that kind of discovery.

As an article by Newsweek pointed out at the time, Comey had an ethical obligation to inform Congress despite the best contrary efforts of overt partisans like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, not only because Department of Justice rules maintain that relevant committees should be apprised of new evidence but also because Comey had informed Congress that he had completed its review.

Once he did that, and once he came into possession of significant evidence that would have to be examined by the FBI, Comey had a duty to notify Congress to amend his initial testimony, which was no longer true.

Setting all that aside, however, it's also worth reiterating that it was Hillary, not Comey, who initially set up a secret server to circumvent transparency, likely to hide favor trading related to her foundation.

It was Hillary, not Comey, who sent unsecured classified documents through that server, which she almost surely knew was wrong. (The New York Times pointed out that chances are high these documents were intercepted by foreign powers.)

It was Hillary, not Comey, who was responsible for attempts to destroy all evidence related to that server.

It was Hillary's people, as Comey noted in his original congressional testimony, that had "cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery." And it was Hillary's aide who failed to inform the FBI about classified emails on her computer.

It was Hillary who ran a poor campaign and lost to one of the most unpopular presidential candidates in history. As former President Barack Obama's adviser David Axelrod pointed out Wednesday, she never took responsibility for any of it.

He said: "But Jim Comey didn't tell her not to campaign in Wisconsin after the convention. Jim Comey didn't say, 'Don't put any resources in Michigan until the final week of the campaign.' One of the things that hindered her in the campaign was a sense that she never fully was willing to take responsibility for her mistakes, particularly that server." 

Moreover, as Comey basically admitted again today, Clinton had clearly broken the law. The only struggle was proving intent (though gross negligence was the standard).

So rather than smearing Comey, Clinton should be thanking him for not suggesting she be indicted.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @davidharsanyi, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >