He saw two doors: One labeled “speak” was bad, but the other labeled “conceal” was “catastrophic.”
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.
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.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein grills Comey over FBI’s actions in the 2016 election https://t.co/MeYHz2yu7l
— Daniella Diaz (@DaniellaMicaela) May 3, 2017
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.
Comey on Weiner emails: “As I sat there, I couldn’t see a door that said no action. I saw two doors, one said speak, and one said conceal.
— Christina Wilkie (@christinawilkie) May 3, 2017
“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.”
Feinstein: Why 11 days before the election?
— Cortney O’Brien (@obrienc2) May 3, 2017
But it’s pretty obvious that Feinstein would have chosen the other door — the catastrophic one.
Feinstein wanted Comey to cover-up Thousands of Hillary state department emails on pedophile Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Let that sink in.
— RockPrincess (@Rockprincess818) May 3, 2017
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.
- ‘Act like a grownup’: Drunk driver sobs when she loses plea deal by coming 4 hours late to court - July 23, 2017
- ‘I would’ve fired her the day I met her’: Glenn Beck reveals more about Tomi Lahren mess - July 23, 2017
- Canadian thug beats 74-year-old cyclist bloody with a club in road rage fit– and they say US is more violent? - July 23, 2017