Letter to | the Editor

To the Editor:

Much is being made by some conservative politicians and media over James Comey’s draft statement on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.  They claim it points to a politically motivated outcome by the FBI to exonerate her; however, it does not, by itself, show that.

First, there was no “exoneration” by the FBI. Their conclusion was that there wasn’t enough evidence to show Clinton intended to release classified material (such intent is required by the relevant law);  that is not the same as “exoneration.” It’s like those defense attorneys who claim, after a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial, that their clients have been “proven innocent.” No, the state merely failed to overcome reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds about guilt, yet the client may still have, in fact, committed the act he/she was charged with. Comey made this clear in his statement and went on to describe a disturbing recklessness in Clinton’s actions – that is far from exoneration.

Second, it is common for investigators to reach tentative conclusions. Most develop an investigative plan at the beginning of a case that includes a theory of what happened. They revise that plan (and sometimes the theory) as they gather and evaluate evidence, and eventually develop preliminary conclusions, pending the gathering of the last bits of information. They may even begin drafting their report, but it is subject to change should some surprising evidence be discovered.  At some point, they stop their efforts and write a final report. 

It is entirely reasonable for Comey to have concluded, before his agents interviewed Clinton (one of the last steps in the investigation), that he didn’t have the evidence to show she intended to violate the law, and that she was very unlikely to say she did when interviewed.

 Steve Turman, Red Oa