I’m as annoyed as anyone over FBI Director James Comey’s announcement 11 days before election that: “[i]n connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of e-mails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server.
With multiple media sources now reporting that the e-mails in question did not come from Hillary Clinton’s private server, I’m seeing a lot of outrage expressed by Kossacks throughout the comments in several diaries on the subject.
I believe it is too early to tell whether Comey’s announcement is purely political, with nothing behind it, as most commenters seem to have already concluded, or whether it is a hint of something bigger to come. That’s because we don’t know a thing about who sent the e-mails (other than it was apparently not HRC), who received the e-mails, what the e-mails say, and whether there were attachments which, themselves, could be of independent interest.
I’ll just throw out a few examples to illustrate why simply knowing that HRC didn’t send the e-mails and they weren’t found on her server is not enough to conclude this is “nothing”.
- Suppose the e-mails were sent to Clinton, but were not among the e-mails produced by Clinton or found on her server. In other words, suppose they are previously unknown e-mails that were allegedly deleted. This fact alone means the e-mails are of some interest. How much interest depends on the contents.
- Suppose under the first scenario the e-mails are not classified, but are nevertheless some form of official U.S. government business. That would contradict Clinton’s explanation for the “missing” e-mails, which is something to the effect that that they were all personal business. Worse, it makes their deletion a violation of policy, if not an actual crime.
- Sticking with the scenario where the e-mails were sent to Clinton and were not previously found, suppose they turn out to be classified government business. The contradiction of Clinton’s explanation becomes more acute, and the penalties for deletion may be enhanced.
- Even if the e-mails were not previously-unknown e-mails sent to Clinton, suppose the e-mails consist of a third party—someone in the Clinton camp— saying that HRC gave instructions that suggest that, contrary to Clinton’s statement to the FBI, she was well aware that the private server violated policy and/or the law. One reason the FBI did not recommend prosecution is that “intent” is an element of the crime of misuse of government communications. Clinton’s knowledge goes to “intent”. At a minimum, this means the investigation will be re-opened just to run down the third party statements.
- It could be worse: The e-mails were found during the Anthony Weiner investigation. Suppose someone in the Clinton camp, commiserating with Weiner or a Weiner aide over Weiner’s inability to purge damaging texts from SMS or Apple Chat, mentions that had all the communications been on a private server, they could have had an IT person purge anything damaging.
- Or suppose none of the above is true but the e-mails simply consist of someone in the Clinton camp discussing something politically embarrassing to Clinton.
The point is, they could say anything, and they could be from anyone to anyone. We don’t know yet. If it comes out before the election that they are nothing, the announcement could backfire for Republicans. But if it turns out there is something damaging there, then all bets are off.