In FBI chief, GOP picked the wrong guy to question motives

By Eugene Robinson

Next to the word “overreach” in the dictionary should be a group picture of the House Republican caucus. Once again, in their Ahab-like pursuit of Hillary Clinton, they have managed to make themselves look desperately partisan and woefully incompetent.

What were they thinking when they hauled FBI Director James Comey to Capitol Hill to challenge his decision about Clinton and her emails? Did they expect Comey, a very tough nut, to crack under their withering interrogation? Did they believe they could somehow make him change his mind? Did they not anticipate that he would stand by his decision and back it up with facts, precedent and logic?

Thursday’s hearing — called on an “emergency” basis, no less — was effectively over just minutes after it began. House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked Comey the bottom-line question: “Did Hillary Clinton break the law?”

Comey’s reply: “In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not.”

At that point, Chaffetz should just have thanked the witness, pounded his gavel and sent everyone home. Instead, Republicans went on at length in a vain attempt to challenge Comey’s knowledge of the law and his personal integrity. In the end, he suffered not a dent, not a nick, not even a scratch.

The GOP’s theory of the case is basically that Clinton committed acts that would have led to prosecution if she had been anyone else. But because she is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee or because she is a Clinton or because she is an “elite” or for some other reason, this theory goes, she was given a pass.

Comey patiently explained that this view was wrong. Quite the opposite, he said: Deciding to recommend charges would have constituted special treatment.

The key question was intent: Comey said the FBI could not find evidence that Clinton intended to do anything illegal. A low-ranking government employee who handled classified information in the same “careless” manner might well be subject to administrative sanction, including firing. But that “John Doe” employee would not be prosecuted; and if he or she had already left government service, the case would simply be dropped.

Much was made of a federal statute that would seem to allow charges in the case of “gross negligence” on Clinton’s behalf. But Comey said that the law in question, passed in 1917, has been used by federal prosecutors only once in 99 years. There are questions, he said, about the statute’s constitutionality.

Comey did not budge from his view that no “reasonable prosecutor” would seek to bring charges against Clinton given the facts of the case. He said the decision to recommend against prosecution was unanimous among the FBI investigators involved, adding that no one outside of the bureau knew of this decision until he announced it Tuesday.

The hearing was a pretty sorry spectacle. Comey’s would-be inquisitors could not come out and call him a compliant Democratic toady because clearly he is nothing of the sort. Comey served as deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration. As is proper for someone who occupies the office of FBI director, overseeing an agency he described as “resolutely apolitical,” he is not now registered as a member of any party. But for most of his adult life, he testified, he was a loyal Republican.

How embarrassing did the hearing get? Some Republicans on the committee, fancying themselves junior G-men, demanded to know the specific questions FBI agents asked Clinton when they interviewed her. Others sought to parse the language of various federal statutes, perhaps hoping to make Comey break down and cry, “OK, you got me there.” Spoiler alert: He didn’t.

Toward the end, Rep. Mark Walker, R-North Carolina, felt obliged to ask Comey, “Do you feel like this has been a Republican witch hunt?” Comey politely said no.

I disagree. It was obviously just that, a partisan attempt to wring another news cycle’s worth of headlines out of a “scandal” whose dying embers were being definitively snuffed out. I doubt those headlines will be the ones they were hoping for.

I’m certain that some Republicans sincerely believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton are the greatest master criminals of our times. But an unimpeachable authority figure and a team of FBI investigators have decided that Hillary Clinton’s handling of her emails — which, as I have written, was wrong — was not a crime. Deciding otherwise, Comey said, would be “celebrity hunting.”

Which is what Republicans tried to do at Thursday’s hearing. But they came home red-faced and empty-handed.

Eugene Robinson’s email address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, Nov. 16

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE — President Donald Trump and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick display a chart detailing tariffs, at the White House in Washington, on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The Justices will hear arguments on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025 over whether the president acted legally when he used a 1977 emergency statute to unilaterally impose tariffs.(Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Editorial: Public opinion on Trump’s tariffs may matter most

The state’s trade interests need more than a Supreme Court ruling limiting Trump’s tariff power.

FILE — Wind turbines in Rio Vista, Calif. on Sept. 1, 2023. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democrat of California, on Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2025, cast himself as the “stable and reliable” American partner to the world, called a White House proposal to open offshore drilling in the waters off California “disgraceful” and urged his fellow Democrats to recast climate change as a “cost of living issue.” (Jim Wilson/The New York Times)
Comment: U.S. climate efforts didn’t hurt economy; they grew it

Even as U.S. population and the economy grew substantially, greenhouse gas emissions stayed constant.

Welch column unfairly targeted transgender girls

When Todd Welch was first brought on as a regular columnist for… Continue reading

Did partisan rhetoric backfire on Snohomish city candidates?

Something interesting happened recently in the city of Snohomish mayoral and city… Continue reading

Comment: From opposite ends of crime, a plea for justice reform

A survivor of crime and an incarceree support a bill to forge better outcomes for both communities.

Comment: Misnamed Fix Our Forest Act would worsen wildfire risk

The U.S. Senate bill doesn’t fund proven strategies and looks to increase harvest in protective forests.

Comment: City governments should stay out of the grocery market

Rather than run its own grocery stores, government should get out of the way of private companies.

Forum: Grading students needs shift from testing to achievement

Standardized tests are alienating students and teachers. Focus education on participation and goals.

Forum: Varied interests for ecology, civil rights can speak together

A recent trip to Portland revealed themes common to concerns for protecting salmon, wildlife and civil rights.

Editorial: Welcome guidance on speeding public records duty

The state attorney general is advancing new rules for compliance with the state’s public records law.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Saturday, Nov. 15

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.