Democrats Don’t Care About The Health Of Democracy, They Care About Hillary

Democrats Don’t Care About The Health Of Democracy, They Care About Hillary

When liberals claim Comey is endangering democracy, they mean he’s endangering Hillary -- which to them is the same thing.
David Harsanyi
By

Though it slipped the mind of the media this weekend, FBI Director James Comey’s letter informing Congress that the bureau had found new evidence relating to the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton was entirely the fault of Hillary Clinton. She’s the one who used a secret server to circumvent transparency. She’s the one who sent unsecured classified documents on that server. She’s the one responsible for attempts to destroy the evidence related to her server. And she’s the one who lied to the American people about the entire scheme.

So it’s laughable to hear Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta and his allies demand the FBI release all new evidence in the case. After all, no one had better access to the information Hillary is seeking than Hillary.

Let’s also remember that Comey had no choice but to send his letter to Congress after being notified that pertinent evidence had been uncovered on a computer used by both Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin.

If Comey was in possession of this information and then sat on it until after the election, all the accusations panicky Democrats are now leveling against him would actually be true. Comey would have been acting in a political manner rather than reacting to events. As he made clear in his congressional testimony, new leads would be examined. He had an ethical duty to inform Congress.

The mass media’s reaction to this event, though completely expected, was breathtaking in its swiftness and synchronization. It started, appropriately enough, with a Clintonian freakout over semantics.

Republicans had the temerity to claim that Comey had “reopened” the Clinton investigation. This led to hackish attacks on the veracity of their phrasing. Technically speaking, conservatives weren’t exactly right. The investigation could not have been reopened because it had never been “closed” in the first place — even though the Left threw around that word plenty when Comey announced he would not recommend that the DOJ prosecute. The New York Times, for instance, was forced to go back and correct its initial misleading story.

Once we learned that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had tried to dissuade the FBI director from sending Congress a letter about the new emails in the investigation, citing protocol, journalists quickly became experts on official DOJ procedure. Forget the email protocol Hillary ignored for years or the protocol she circumvented when it came to her favor-trading foundation (though rarely reported, it too is under criminal investigation). This was big. Lynch was now held up as paragon of ethical law enforcement.

Hey, did we ever learn what the Justice Department’s protocol is on AGs having off-the-record meetings with the spouses of those under investigation by the FBI? What about the precedent of a FBI director conducting a press conference to explain to the public why the DOJ shouldn’t prosecute a presidential candidate though every shred of evidence points to her guilt?

Really, this news reaffirms that Lynch is a political operative. Think about this: The chief lawyer of the U.S. government attempted to pressure the nation’s top law enforcement agency to suppress news of evidence in a high-profile case, for political reasons. This is the same Lynch who, when it was convenient, claimed that she would not get involved in the email investigation to avoid any appearance of political interference.

The Clinton campaign is right about one thing: the Comey letter, and many events surrounding the investigation, are “unprecedented.” There hasn’t been a major presidential candidate in long time with this kind of ethical cloud hanging over him. This is new for all of us.

Still, many reporters acted confused and indignant, as if they couldn’t wrap their heads around Comey’s actions. As the weekend progressed, unconfirmed reports began to coagulate into facts on social media. Like so:

Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald, one of the nation’s leading Hillary apologists, wrote an entire press release fed to him by a “source” offering similar claims about the insignificance of the evidence no one had yet seen. “Also,” Eichenwald explained, “none of the emails were to or from Clinton.”

For starters, even if this were true it doesn’t necessarily matter. The new cache could be nothing, but it could be email discussions between Hillary aides who covered up illegal server activities. The cache could contain emails that might prove someone lied under oath or obstructed justice. Remember, Comey maintains the reason the FBI didn’t recommend prosecution was that the investigators lacked proof of intent, not a lack of wrongdoing.

Moreover, The Wall Street Journals reporting conflicts with much of the information liberal journalists circulated all weekend. Rather than investigators running across “may be only 3 emails” sent by Huma — and by the way, Clinton’s top aide swore under oath that she’d handed over all devices with emails on them — the Journal’s source maintains that federal agents are probably looking at more like 650,000 emails. I’m no math whiz, but that seems like a lot more. Many of them are likely from Hillary’s server.

From the WSJ:

Metadata found on the laptop used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, suggests there may be thousands of emails sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter.

Again, none of this is to say that the new information will lead to a prosecution. It seems unlikely, in fact. I suspect Comey will let Hillary skate because he thinks blowing up an election would hurt the nation. It’s going to take a smoking gun to change that outcome. Yet even that’s not enough for liberals. Now they demand Comey ignore evidence or reassure voters that this discovery means absolutely nothing — when, in fact, he doesn’t know that to be the case.

And when someone at the FBI starts pushing back against misinformation, many in the media are suddenly concerned about irresponsible “leaks” — leaks!

Without someone somewhere leaking information to a reporter, there would be no journalism. Shouldn’t the journalist’s primary concern be providing Americans with properly vetted and accurate information — one year out from an election or one day out? Or is their job to worry about how information will influence voters? Because that’s its own form of bias.

Now, I won’t lie. Watching these holier-than-thou, concern-trolling media types who’ve spent months pretending to be distressed about the health of our institutions have a collective meltdown is probably my favorite part of this horrible, caustic presidential election. When their own atrocious candidate is threatened, the Paul Krugmans and Norm Ornsteins start sounding a lot more like Alex Jones. Rigged elections, indeed.

When Harry Reid lies, smears, and destroys reputations, he proves himself no better than Donald Trump’s functionaries. And when liberals claim Comey is endangering democracy, they mean he’s endangering the prospects of Hillary winning — which to them is the same thing. They sound a lot like Trump fans who make no distinction between “patriotism” and voting for their own candidate. Both brands of hyper-partisanship are a threat to the republic.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

comments powered by Disqus