Comey’s shameful legacy of election interference

Tuesday, I wrote that President Obama’s failure to act to prevent or halt the massive bombing of civilians in Syria by Russian and Syrian military forces will be a shameful blot on his presidential legacy.

Today, I write that the aggressive and unwarranted intervention in the presidential election by FBI Director James Comey will be viewed by historians as an equally shameful blot on his legacy at the bureau.

Recently, we learned new details of the search warrant obtained regarding the emails of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) that included emails sent by campaign Huma Abedin to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

{mosads}The evidence presented in the request for the warrant was sketchy at best.

The outrage of Democrats and a number of law enforcement professionals who believe that Comey’s intervention wrongly boosted the candidacy of President-elect Donald Trump at key moments in the campaign, and the response of Comey’s defenders, are both fairly presented in a new story in The Hill titled “FBI Director under pressure to explain the Clinton bombshell.”

My fundamental objection to Comey’s behavior, and the reason I believe it will be a dark stain on his legacy as FBI director, is not the existence of the warrant itself, but the manner in which he repeatedly injected himself into presidential politics in ways that violate Justice Department and FBI historical guidelines and traditions.

When he first cleared Clinton of any criminal offenses, he should have just stated his conclusion. Instead, he went very public with various opinions that he need not, and should not, have offered as the presidential election approached.

Comey then paraded to a succession of congressional committees, some of which were taxpayer-financed partisan inquisitions, for hearings that received saturation news coverage. There, he continued to opine about the Clinton case.

While this was happening, Trump campaigned by misrepresenting the facts of the case, unrebutted by Comey, using Comey’s comments as a political weapon against Clinton and inspiring chants from his supporters of “Lock her up!” — even after Clinton was cleared.

At the time the FBI discovered the Weiner emails roughly 10 days before the election, Comey rocked the campaign by wrongly sending a letter to multiple committees of Congress, informing them — apparently even before the search warrant was granted — including those that had been pursuing partisan witch-hunts against Clinton for years.

This letter violated the most basic Justice Department and FBI guidelines and traditions of not announcing early-stage investigations and not becoming involved in partisan politics.

And again, while Comey injected himself into partisan politics in the most grossly inappropriate manner, Trump continued to misrepresent the facts of the case and use Comey and the FBI as a weapon against Clinton.

What Comey could have done, should have done — but shamefully did not do — is order FBI agents to examine the new emails without public comment to determine whether there was any new evidence to reverse his decision to clear Clinton. Had incriminating evidence been discovered, that would have been the proper time to write to Congress — not before the search warrant was even granted, and before any evidence was even reviewed.

Finally, on the eve of the voting, Comey injected himself yet again by clearing Clinton again, but did so at a time and in a way that clearly hurt hurt her candidacy and helped Trump.

The Comey involvement in the presidential election was a disgrace throughout the campaign. In effect, he cleared Clinton twice while repeatedly acting in an inappropriate matter that helped Trump.

It is obvious to me and many other observers that the inexcusable Comey intervention clearly influenced more than 100,000 votes in a handful of states that led to Clinton, winner of the popular vote by a substantial margin, losing in the Electoral College.

I and others have called for the Inspector General of the Justice Department to review Comey’s conduct in this case and publicly announce its findings. We do not know whether the Inspector General is examining the case and could release devastating findings at some point, but whether or not that occurs, Comey’s legacy at the FBI will be tainted by the travesty that occurred.

Brent Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Chief Deputy Majority Whip Bill Alexander (D-Ark.). He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. Contact him at brentbbi@webtv.net.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.