I can see why Democrats are upset with FBI Director Jim Comey.
Comey announced last Friday that the investigation into Hillary’s email saga was starting up again. Seems while investigating the husband of Hillary’s top aide, they found emails on the husband’s laptop from Hillary’s secret server that may or may not be classified.
I see why Comey did what he did. It was a classic rock/hard place situation.
Could you imagine the uproar if he kept this to himself and then after the election – of Hillary – we found out that she was in hot water again?
Conversely, what if it turns out that the emails are much ado about nothing and he risked tilting the election away from Hillary for no good reason?
Let’s be honest. Comey really had no good options here.
So sure, Democrats are not happy. Hillary’s poll numbers are dropping and her approval rating fell even lower.
But when I was listening to the Democrats talk about this issue, it struck me that they have very short memories when it comes to such things.
I heard them using words like “troublesome, “ “double standard,” “rash,” irresponsible” and “unprecedented” to describe Comey’s actions.
But was it really all that unprecedented? Or is this just karma?
I seem to remember back in my early days in journalism there was this thing called Iran-Contra.
It was an arms-for-hostages deal that happened during the administration of Ronald Regan and George H.W. Bush.
It had to do with U.S. hostages in Iran, arms sales and Nicaraguan rebels, but we don’t need all those details for the purpose of this column.
Bush succeeded Reagan as president and the investigation carried on into his first term.
All along, Bush claimed he had no knowledge of the Iran-Contra deal and the investigation never uncovered any evidence that he did.
But Reagan’s defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, was charged with lying to Congress about his knowledge of the Iran-Contra mess. He was scheduled to go on trial in January 1993, at the end of Bush’s first term.
In late 1992, the incumbent Bush was seeking re-election against Bill Clinton. Right before the election – on Oct. 30, to be exact – special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh indicted Weinberger on new charges relating to Iran-Contra.
Walsh’s blatant political calculation was to include references to Bush in the filing, even thought the indictment didn’t name him.
Clinton seized the moment, claiming that Bush was presiding over a “culture of corruption.”
Bush’s poll numbers fell and he lost the election.
Washington Examiner columnist Paul Bedard recalls, “Many Republicans claimed that the indictment made by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh against former Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger the weekend before the 1992 election cost Bush a second term. The indictment, later thrown out, challenged Bush's claim that he did not know about a controversial arms-for-hostages deal that dogged the Reagan-Bush administration.”
That’s right, you read that right. The indictment was later thrown out. Seems the indictment violated the statute of limitations and improperly broadened the original charges.
Huh.
Never dawned on Walsh that the statute of limitations had run out before he added additional charges – right before the election?
Wonder how that could have happened?
(For the purpose of accuracy, it should be noted here that Bush pardoned Weinberger before his trial began in January.)
So really, as October surprises go, Comey is really small ball compared to Walsh, wouldn’t you say?
*****
So guess who was chosen at the U.S. Department of Justice to oversee the review of the new Huma Abedin emails?
That would be Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter Kadzik, who happens to be close friends with Hillary’s campaign guy John Podesta.
Kadzik and Podesta go way back, according to numerous reports online.
Seems they were classmates at Georgetown law in the 1970s and Kadzik defended Podesta during his testimony to the U.S. Senate during the Monica Lewinski fiasco.
And there’s this from zerohedge.com:
The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chairman, met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the U.S. Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.
The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures. The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015, email sent out by Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant. The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.
Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. Another email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.
Should Hillary’s campaign manager be hanging around with the high-up justice department guy who’s charged with investigating Hillary’s email practices?
Isn’t that a conflict of interest?
And it gets worse.
Here’s what Kadzik emailed to Podesta on May 19, 2015:
There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.
HJC would be the House Judiciary Committee. So now we have a justice department official tipping off the Clinton campaign that Hillary’s emails were going to be a topic at a House committee meeting.
And these people say the FBI director is crooked? Seriously?