Surprise: Eric Holder Defends Comey's Premature Exoneration of Hillary

Guy Benson
|
Posted: Oct 19, 2017 10:25 AM
Surprise: Eric Holder Defends Comey's Premature Exoneration of Hillary

In fairness, if there's anyone in the country who understands how to run an airtight law enforcement operation, it's this guy.  Plus, he's a straight-shooter who unfailingly tells the truth and always respects the free press, so his credibility is beyond reproach.  Starting to draft memos clearing Hillary Clinton of legal wrongdoing before she and other key players in here email scandal were even interviewed by investigators was a-okay, Eric Holder explains.  But of course:

Anyone who isn't a partisan Democrat -- Holder is as partisan as they come, and may be auditioning for his party's base these days -- would likely take issue with the head of the FBI starting the process of 'exonerating' a presidential candidate of alleged crimes prior to the substance of the probe being completed. Any appearance of impropriety or political favoritism should have been zealously guarded against.  Instead, we had a preliminary exoneration being crafted long before crucial facts were mined and witnesses grilled, and we had a secretive meeting between the Justice Department chief (Holder's successor) and the subject's husband, details of which are still dripping into the public eye.  

Even if you're inclined to agree with Holder's Comey apologia (somewhat ironically, he's blasted Comey's handling of the entire matter in the past), major holes remain in the fired FBI director's judgment.  As I've written for months, Comey was wrong on the law (the relevant statute within the Espionage Act did not require proof of criminal intent) and wrong about his excuse for ignoring the letter of the law (Clinton's conduct and subsequent string of lies were robust indications of intent).  Add in this latest evidence suggesting that Comey made up his mind before decisive facts were gathered, and the whole thing starts to stink.  A cynic might even be forgiven for wondering if the system was, to borrow a phrase, "rigged."  Trey Gowdy is right:

“Whenever somebody decides to charge someone, there are lots of layers of scrutiny. When you decide not to charge someone, there aren’t that many layers of scrutiny but there ought to be at least a couple,” Gowdy said. “The media should do it but also Congress should look at this decision not to charge and whether or not it was made before you interviewed two dozen witnesses, including the target of the investigation, yeah we need to talk to him again.” ... “His ostensible reason for taking that decision away from the Department of Justice was that meeting on the tarmac but yet a month and a half earlier he is memorializing a decision he’s already made so the chronology does not add up,” Gowdy said. “His answers have been all over the map.”

More testimony, please.  The polarization over Comey is extraordinary. Ask Republicans, and he let Hillary off the hook (I agree; see above). Ask Hillary, and he 'shivved' her by making a necessary disclosure to Congress that the FBI was pursuing newly-discovered information pertinent to the case. Parting thought: Aside from Congressional hearings, what -- if anything -- will be done about this Russia-tied investigation? Does bribery count as collusion?