Warning: With Hillary Clinton's fortunes abruptly plunged into political jeopardy, the Left's furious hackery has become so piping hot that close contact may result in severe burns. Before we get to that, let's review what we know so far. The FBI has reactivated its probe into her improper, unsecure, national security-endangering email scheme, due to the discovery of additional potentially "pertinent" evidence -- via a separate investigation into the online sexual conduct of former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, who is married to Hillary's closest aide, Huma Abedin. Agents working that case in New York have reportedly been aware of this connection for several weeks, alerting Washington of what they believed they had in their possession vis a vis Clinton's emails. As pressure grew, Comey was finally briefed on these developments. He pulled the trigger to immediately notify Congress of his decision to reinitiate the investigation (apparently over the objections of the hopelessly-compromised Attorney General). Here's Fox News' Catherine Herridge with an excellent 'just the facts' report on where things stand, cutting through a blizzard of spin:
If there is classified material among the many thousands of emails now in play, their classification levels would have to be cross-referenced with the originating intelligence agencies, which could result in a lengthy process. That's why the fallout from this new turn of events may stretch well past election day. And as Herridge notes, the "warrant issue" may simply be a shiny, distractionary object that ultimately has little relevance, especially if Weiner is cooperating with investigators and granted permission for them to access the computer in question. Speaking of which, the discovery of this new evidence calls into question whether Ms. Abedin may have lied under oath when she offered sworn testimony that she had turned over all relevant computers and mobile devices. The Daily Beast reports:
The new information that the FBI found State Department-related email on her home laptop also calls into question whether Abedin in fact turned over all of the devices she used to send and receive email while working at State. On June 28, 2016, Abedin said under oath in a sworn deposition that she looked for all devices that she thought contained government work on them so the records could be given to the State Department. (These records were subsequently reviewed by the FBI.)...in a normal election year, a normal candidate’s close aide who caused even minor embarrassment to a campaign so near to Election Day would be whisked away as quickly as possible to avoid becoming a distraction. But Huma Abedin is not simply a close aide, she’s a critical member of Hillary Clinton’s tiny inner circle that protects and — at times — enables the deeply flawed and secretive Democratic nominee.
This apparent contradiction may explain why Abedin is now claiming she has no idea how thousands of official emails ended up on the newly-uncovered computer (really?), and why the Clinton camp is spinning that she "complied to the best of her ability." It seems as though the 'best of her ability' entailed forgetting about an entire computer that she shared with her husband -- that would certainly not be authorized to contain classified information. Liberals have reacted to all of this by losing their minds at Comey, whom they'd previously defended -- as recently as last week -- as the paragon of professionalism since his July decision not to recommend charges against Mrs. Clinton. At the time, they excoriated Republicans over their totally justifiable criticisms of Comey's call:
Wash. Post Editorial Board: Republicans Are Damaging Rule Of Law By Attacking FBI Director Comey https://t.co/HEyZqdRsaK— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) July 7, 2016
Both the DNC and the embarrassing Hillary apologists on the Washington Post's editorial board are suddenly singing a different tune. Another line we're hearing is that Comey broke with "precedent" and "protocol" by sending his letter to Congress, providing new details to the branch of government before which he's testified several times. First off, it's incredible to watch Hillary Clinton and her defenders transform themselves into such sticklers for, uh, proper protocol. Secondly, having a presidential nominee under criminal investigation isn't exactly a run-of-the-mill experience for which there's lots of precedent to follow. And importantly, it is definitely not "unprecedented" for the Justice Department or federal prosecutors to act in such a significant way so close to an important election:
And let's not forget the eleventh-hour conviction of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, just days before the 2008 election. Stevens went on to very narrowly lose his re-election fight that year, which gave Democrats the filibuster-proof majority they'd need to force through Obamacare (which, I'll remind you, is melting down at the moment). Stevens' conviction was later thrown out due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct. Regardless of the facts, Team Clinton has gone all-in on a "shoot the messenger" defense, indignantly lashing out at Comey and the FBI in an effort to deflect attention and blame. But as Trey Gowdy has said, Mrs. Clinton brought all of this upon herself. Journalist Ron Fournier has it right:
If you weren't upset that @HillaryClinton violated WH, Nat/Sec policy on servers, no crocodile tears for Comey and DOJ policy.— Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) October 29, 2016
I'll leave you with Hillary herself attacking the FBI director, smiling broadly as her crowd of supporters boos. I'm sure the Left's collective pearl-clutching about how this sort of reckless rhetoric undermines the rule of law and respect four our institutions will start up any minute now:
Clinton supporters boo James Comey at campaign rally -> pic.twitter.com/3MVqe3umgB— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) October 29, 2016
Oh, and did I mention that Comey-related partisan hackery is a bipartisan epidemic?