It seems like a century ago that Hillary Clinton was outed for the use of a personal email server after which the FBI’s investigation threatened to derail her nascent presidential ambitions.
Now fully three years later, James Comey’s new book is proving that Hillary was lying then, as we all knew she was.
Shortly after the investigation was made public, the NY Times ran a story about how the nature of the investigation was criminal.
Hillary exploded and the NYT issued a correction that the investigation simply concerned a ‘security referral’. But Comey’s book corrects the record: “By the time of the news story, we had a full criminal investigation open, focused on [Hillary’s] conduct.”
Game, set, match.
Here’s more from Redstate…
Bill and Hillary are both talented attorneys and know how to parse language with the best of them. They’re at their best when attempting to convince the public they’re innocent victims of a nefarious conservative plot to take them down.
A shining example comes out of James Comey’s book. Interestingly enough, the story appears in The New York Times, the same news organization that cowered in the face of Clinton campaign protests about a story they wrote in 2015:
James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, confirms in his new book that the bureau had already begun a criminal investigation focused on Hillary Clinton’s handling of her email in 2015 when her campaign and its allies excoriated journalists for reporting that such an inquiry was being contemplated.
The New York Times reported in July 2015 that two inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department recommending an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled sensitive information by using a private email server as secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, relying on a statement from President Obama’s Justice Department, complained vigorously to The Times, resulting in two corrections to the article.
The corrections said that the inspectors general had made a “security referral” rather than a “criminal referral” and that the referral did not request that Mrs. Clinton specifically be investigated. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign called the article an “erroneous story” with “egregious” errors that misled voters into thinking that she was at risk of being investigated by the F.B.I. for possible criminal violations when the referral was a more routine security matter not focused on her in particular. Critics of the news media, including the public editor of The Times, agreed.
Naturally, there is a “but” that follows:
But in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership,” his memoir that is scheduled for release next week, Mr. Comey said the word-parsing by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the Justice Department was actually misleading because the F.B.I. was already conducting a criminal investigation focused on Mrs. Clinton by that point.
“Though The Times may have thought those clarifications were necessary, their original story was much closer to the mark,” Mr. Comey wrote. “It was true that the transmission to the F.B.I. from the inspector general did not use the word ‘criminal,’ but by the time of the news story, we had a full criminal investigation open, focused on the secretary’s conduct.”