By Andrew C. McCarthy
Monday, October 31, 2016
How rich of Hillary Clinton to complain now that FBI director James Comey is
threatening the democratic process by commenting publicly about a criminal
investigation on the eve of an election.
Put aside that Comey did not say a single thing last week
that implicates Clinton in a crime. The biggest coup for Clinton in the waning
months of the campaign has been Comey’s decision not to prosecute her — a decision
outside the responsibilities of the FBI director and publicly announced in a
manner that contradicts law-enforcement protocols. There has been nothing more
irregular, nothing that put law enforcement more in the service of politics,
than that announcement. Yet, far from condemning it, Mrs. Clinton has worn it
like a badge of honor since July. Indeed, she has contorted it into a wholesale
exoneration, which it most certainly was not.
Just to remind those whose memories seem so conveniently
to fail, Comey is the FBI director, not a Justice Department prosecutor, much
less the attorney general. The FBI is not supposed to exercise prosecutorial
discretion. The FBI is not supposed to decide whether the subject of a criminal
investigation gets indicted. The FBI, moreover, is not obligated to make
recommendations about prosecution at all; its recommendations, if it chooses to
make them, are not binding on the Justice Department; and when it does make
recommendations, it does so behind closed doors, not on the public record.
Yet, in the Clinton e-mails investigation, it was Comey
who made the decision not to indict Clinton. Comey, furthermore, made the
decision in the form of a public recommendation. In effect, it became The
Decision because Attorney General Loretta Lynch had disgraced herself by
furtively meeting with Mrs. Clinton’s husband a few days before Comey announced
his recommendation. Comey, therefore, gave Mrs. Clinton a twofer: an unheard-of
public proclamation that she should not be indicted by the head of the
investigative agency; and a means of taking Lynch off the hook, which allowed
the decision against prosecution to be portrayed as a careful weighing of
evidence rather than a corrupt deal cooked up in the back of a plane parked on
a remote tarmac.
Now, suddenly, Mrs. Clinton is worried about
law-enforcement interference in politics. And her voice is joined by such
allies as Jamie Gorelick (President Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general) and
Larry Thompson (Comey’s predecessor as President George W. Bush’s deputy
attorney general and an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump). Like Mrs. Clinton,
Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Thompson were delighted by Director Comey as long as his
departures from orthodoxy were helping Clinton’s candidacy. But now, as they
wrote in the Washington Post on
Saturday, they are perturbed by the threat Comey purportedly poses to
“long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing
investigations . . . in a way that might be seen as influencing an election.”
I will repeat what I said yesterday (at PJ Media) about
the Justice Department’s received wisdom that the election calendar should
factor into criminal investigations:
Law-enforcement people will tell
you that taking action too close to Election Day can affect the outcome of the
vote; therefore, it should not be done because law enforcement is supposed to
be apolitical. But of course, not
taking action one would take but for the political timing is as political as it
gets. To my mind, it is more
political because the negatively affected candidate is denied any opportunity
to rebut the law-enforcement action publicly.
The unavoidable fact of the matter
is that, through no fault of law enforcement, investigations of political corruption are inherently political. Thus, I’ve always thought the
best thing to do is bring the case when it’s ready, don’t bring it if it’s not
ready, and don’t worry about the calendar any more than is required by the
principle of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
Now, as I also discussed in that same column, the problem
with which we are currently grappling is caused by Comey’s initial flouting of
protocol back in July — the one that thrilled the Clinton camp. There should
never be any law-enforcement
commentary at any time about a
criminal investigation in which charges
have not been filed publicly. The FBI and Justice Department should resist
confirming or denying the existence of investigations; and if (as frequently
happens) it becomes publicly known that an investigation is being conducted,
law enforcement should still refuse to comment on the status of the
investigation or any developments in it.
The public does not have a right to know that an
investigation is under way. The subjects of an investigation do not have a
right to know whether the investigation is continuing or has been “closed” — a
status I must put in quotes because any dormant investigation can be revived at
the drop of a hat if new information warrants doing so.
As Director Comey and the rest of us are being reminded,
the demands of ethical law enforcement are forever in tension with the currents
of partisan politics. In law enforcement, one is always required to correct the
record if a representation made to a court, Congress, or some other tribunal is
rendered inaccurate by new information. To put it kindly, correcting
misrepresentations is not a habit of our politicians.
There is a very good argument — I would say, an irrefutable
argument — that Comey should never have pronounced that the Clinton e-mails
investigation was closed (in fact, it would have been appropriate if he had
made no public statement about the investigation at all). But having made that
pronouncement — which, again, Mrs. Clinton was thankful to have and which she
has ceaselessly exploited — he was obliged by law-enforcement principles to
amend it when it was no longer true. What if he hadn’t done so? Then, after the
election, when it inevitably emerged that the investigation was actually open,
those who had relied on his prior assertion that it was closed would rightly
have felt betrayed.
For now, everyone ought to take a deep breath. All we
have here is a statement that an investigation is ongoing. No charges have been
filed, and none appear to be on the horizon, let alone imminent.
The Clinton camp is in no position to cry foul about
anything. In announcing his recommendation against indictment, Comey not only
gave Clinton the benefit of every doubt (preposterously so when one reads the
FBI’s reports). He also based his decision primarily on his legal analysis of a criminal statute,
which is far removed from the responsibilities of the FBI. Indeed, Comey gilded
the lily by claiming that no reasonable prosecutor would disagree with his
analysis — which was a truly outrageous claim coming from an investigator with
no prosecutorial responsibilities, even if it did not inspire a lecture from
Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Thompson on Justice Department traditions.
On the other hand, Comey hasn’t said anything more than
that the investigation of the mishandling of classified information by Mrs.
Clinton and her underlings remains pending. That is a true statement. Again, it
does not mean charges will be filed. Indeed, I didn’t hear Director Comey say
he had changed his mind about the requirements for proving guilt under the
espionage act. The fact that I think he is dead wrong on that subject is beside
the point, since the Justice Department has endorsed his reasoning. So it’s not
like the recovery of additional classified e-mails from a Weiner/Abedin
computer — if that happens, which we are not likely to know for a while — would
automatically result in indictments.
It is fair enough to say that Director Comey should not
have started down the wayward road of making public comments about pending
investigations in which no charges have been filed. Such comments inexorably
lead to the need to make more comments when new information arises. Not that
the director needs advice from me, but at this point, he ought to announce that
— just as in any other investigation — there will be no further public
statements about the Clinton investigation unless and until charges are filed,
which may never happen.
As for the election, Mrs. Clinton is under the cloud of
suspicion not because of Comey but because of her own egregious misconduct. She
had no right to know back in July whether the investigation was closed. She has
no right to know it now. Like any other criminal suspect, she simply has to
wait . . . and wonder . . . and worry.
There were other worthy Democrats, but the party chose to
nominate the subject of a criminal investigation. That is the Democrats’ own
recklessness; Jim Comey is not to blame. And if the American people are foolish
enough to elect an arrantly corrupt and compromised subject of a criminal
investigation as our president, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment