Unveiling the Reason Behind Loretta Lynch’s Request to James Comey
As a Democratic supporter, I’m unashamed in my frustration with those who are attempting to rationalize Hillary Clinton’s conduct, especially regarding the email scandal. Despite my belief that her actions were inappropriate, and the details often painted in a more favorable light by her supporters, it’s clear that there were serious missteps and questions that warranted a thorough investigation. The term 'matter' versus 'investigation' is a critical point in understanding the context and implications of these events.
Why “Matter” Was Not Appropriate
A matter, in the context of compliance and regulatory matters, typically involves voluntary actions where there is no formal investigative process. For example, in my experience with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a matter might involve a company proactively engaging with regulatory bodies to ensure compliance, with no associated investigative tools such as subpoenas or immunity grants. An investigation, however, is a much more serious affair, involving the use of these tools and a formal inquiry into potential violations. Therefore, using the term 'matter' would be misleading and inaccurately downplay the significance of the incident with significant consequences.
The term 'matter' was used by the Clinton campaign, and according to Robert S. Mueller in a letter to FBI director Christopher A. Wray, 'she advisors let me know their preference was to use the word matter, which to them seemed less serious than a term like investigation’ (Mueller, 2018). As Comey himself admitted, this choice of terminology ‘completely mischaracterized the nature of the investigation’ (Burns, 2018). It’s important to recognize that this choice was not about avoiding influence on the election, as some have suggested, but rather a strategic decision to minimize the perceived severity of the situation.
Communication and Transparency in Testimony
James Comey’s request for a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in September 2015 underscores the importance of clear and frank communication during his congressional testimony. The primary question at this meeting was not about the terminology used in describing the investigation, but rather about the existence of the investigation itself. The discussion centered on how to best ensure Comey could testify fully and openly while adhering to DOJ and FBI policy, which stipulates that ongoing criminal investigations should not be confirmed.
Attorney General Lynch indicated that she had used the term 'investigation' during this meeting, emphasizing the seriousness of the inquiry (Weiner, 2020). She wanted to ensure that Comey could defend his actions without misleading the public. Comey’s insistence on using the term 'matter' was not only inaccurate but also potentially misleading to the public, which could have further complicated the already tense political climate surrounding the Clinton campaign and the FBI.
Conclusion and the Broader Context
The email scandal sparked much debate and controversy, with numerous perspectives and interpretations. It’s clear that both sides of the political spectrum have engaged in selective analysis to support their views. However, it’s important to consider the broader context of these events, including the FBI’s and DOJ’s policies and the conduct of high-profile figures during the campaign and transition periods.
Ultimately, the decision to use the term 'matter' was a significant misstep, and it contributed to the depth of mistrust and controversy during the 2016 election. The impact of these actions echoes beyond the immediate context of the Clinton campaign and the FBI, influencing public perception and trust in the justice system.
Note: This article discusses a complex and sensitive political issue. Readers are encouraged to seek further independent sources for a well-rounded understanding of the events described here.