James Comey squashes Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s argument: I had the choice to speak, or conceal

He saw two doors: One labeled “speak” was bad, but the other labeled “conceal” was “catastrophic.”

Screenshots of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and FBI Director James Comey

If Feinstein thought she was going to get Comey to grovel on his pre-election Clinton announcement, she was sadly mistaken.

It’s been almost six months since the 2016 presidential election, and Democrats are still obsessed on the notion that exterior forces caused the defeat of their candidate.

Kellyanne Conway’s response to Hillary’s new pity-party signs off with absolute BEST SLAM EVER

Chief among those was FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that his agency was reopening its investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails, which were routed through a private server she kept in the basement of her home.

Comey appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday on a string of matters — but Sen. Dianne Feinstein zeroed in on only that one — his October 27 announcement, less than two weeks before the election.

The California Democrat observed that this occurred two months after Comey said the FBI had concluded its investigation, and she added, “that should have been the end of the story, but it wasn’t.”

Feinstein continued her nearly four-minute monologue before she finally got to her question.

Feinstein finally asked the director, “Why was it necessary to announce 11 days before a presidential election that you were opening a new investigation on a new computer without any knowledge of what was on that computer?”

Comey laid his reasoning out, step-by-step, so that even a U.S. senator could understand it.

“Having repeatedly told this Congress we are done and there is nothing there, there’s no case there, to restart in a hugely significant way, potentially finding her emails that would reflect on her [Clinton] intent from the beginning and not speak about it would require an act of concealment in my view,” Comey said.

“I stared at speak and conceal. Speak would be really bad, there’s an election in 11 days, lordy that would be really bad. Concealing in my view would have been catastrophic, not just to the FBI but well beyond and honestly, as between really bad and catastrophic, I said to my team we have to walk in the world of really bad. We have to tell Congress that we are restarting this, not in some frivolous way, in a hugely significant way.”

But it’s pretty obvious that Feinstein would have chosen the other door — the catastrophic one.

And if he had the chance to do it all over again, the director said he would have still chosen to speak up. It’s called transparency.

Laurence Fishburne’s drunk daughter pulls Trump-card to get out of DUI, then pees in front of the cop


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles