The Justice Department inspector general, Michael Horowitz, stated he would investigate the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey’s decision to reopen the agency’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server just eleven days before the 2016 election.

Comey had notified members of Congress of newly discovered emails that seemed to appear pertinent to the investigation. Those emails were found on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton’s longtime aide Huma Abedin, who is currently under investigation for sexting with a purportedly underage girl. Democrats and some Republicans criticized Comey’s decision to go public as political, concerned that it may tip the election in Trump’s favor.

In response to Comey’s decision, Clinton declared, “It is strange to put something like that out with little information right before an election” [1]. Concurring, Tim Kaine, her running mate, explained, “This is an unprecedented move as it happens close to an election which is in violation of normal Justice Department Protocol and it involves talks about an ongoing investigation which is also a violation of protocol” [1].

Moreover, Senate minority leader, Harry Reid affirmed that “Comey may have broken the law, especially the Hatch Act, a law that prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity” [2]. Agreeing that Comey’s actions were indeed unusual and alarming, considering how it would significantly influence the election, dozens of former federal prosecutors and high ranking Justice Department members signed a letter criticizing the FBI Director.

Trump’s campaign hoped to capitalize on the matter. Trump expressed that “Hillary has nobody to blame but herself. Her actions were deliberate, intentional, and purposeful” [2]. In addition, Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate, revealed that the Trump administration “commends the FBI and the director to keep their word for the congress and move forward” [2]. Similarly, Republican House Speaker, Paul Ryan called “Comey’s action long overdue and proposed to suspend all classified briefings for Secretary Clinton until this matter is fully resolved” [2].

In the midst of the commotion, Clinton remained confident she was in the clear. She expressed, “I call on Director Comey to explain everything and put it on the table.” At the same time, Clinton attacked Trump’s aggression on the matter claiming, “Of course, Donald Trump is already making lies about this” [3].

A week after reopening the investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived at the same conclusion it had originally reached in July, clearing Clinton of any wrongdoing. However, by that time, her campaign had already suffered substantial damage and Clinton’s comfortable lead in the polls had eroded. Comey’s letter on Friday reinforced the prevailing view of Clinton: that she is not honest or trustworthy. In a Fox News poll, only 30 percent of likely voters viewed Clinton as honest or trustworthy, compared to 67 percent who did not and three percent who did not have an opinion [2].

Following the election results, many Democrats and Clinton herself announced that the decision to reopen the case had greatly contributed to her loss. Clinton said a second letter from Comey, clearing her two days before Election Day had been even more damaging. She explained the factors that led to her loss, explaining, “There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful. Our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum” [5].

Jackson Barr ‘20 agrees, stating, “The reopening of the email probe seemed rather unnatural and was especially suspicious as it was opened just 11 days before the election which was detrimental for Hillary’s win.”

Mr. Comey’s reputation and the future of his job, too, has been brought into question. The Department of Justice has addressed allegations that Mr. Comey intentionally sabotaged Clinton’s campaign with equal concern. However, some are skeptical of what the Department of Justice would actually achieve by investigating the FBI Director. Echoing these sentiments, Katherine Wang ‘19 asserts, “Although I believe that Comey’s decision could have influenced the election, investigating the FBI director for his actions would not truly fix anything. The presidency cannot change now even if the Department of Justice finds Comey guilty.”

The high sensitivity of this matter calls for decisive and timely action in order to resolve issues effectively. This case will not likely disappear, as Trump fans may prefer, or offer the sort of comeuppance Clinton supporters may crave. However, even if investigating Director Comey cannot undo the past, it can hopefully help the FBI learn from this distasteful affair.

[1]https://www.wired.com/2017/01/investigating-fbi-director-comeys-actions-cant-undo-past/

[2]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/11/reid-wants-fbi-director-comey-investigated.html

[3]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/12/justice-department-inspector-general-to-investigate-pre-election-actions-by-department-and-fbi/?utm_term=.4abc1410f3a2

[4]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/james-comey-fbi-inspector-general-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0