Former FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday regarding possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump in the FBI’s investigation of collusion between his campaign and the Russian government. Trump’s political opponents desperately hoped Comey would show that Trump’s behavior provided grounds for impeachment. While Comey’s words showed he did not trust the president and believed the president wanted to dismiss the investigation of Michael Flynn, a former national security advisor, I believe it yielded nothing incriminating. In fact, I think it did more to clear Trump’s name.
Comey assured the president three times that he was not the subject of any FBI investigation, although Comey refused to announce this publicly out of an irrational fear of having another former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton investigation fiasco on his hands. He also added that there was no evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia. Trump was so pleased with this testimony he called it a “complete vindication.”
While testifying, much to the pleasure of Republicans, Comey shifted the spotlight from Trump to the Department of Justice under former President Barack Obama. His testimony raised more questions about possible political influence by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the investigation of Clinton’s emails. According to Comey, Lynch directed him to call the Clinton investigation a “matter” (the word the Clinton campaign used to downplay the investigation) rather than an “investigation.” This directive reportedly made Comey feel “queasy” but did not stop him from obeying.
The DOJ is supposed to be an impartial, apolitical body that can independently assess possible criminal behavior regardless of its employees’ political beliefs. Asking the director of the FBI to soften the rhetoric regarding an active criminal investigation of a presidential candidate seems anything but apolitical. If there was reason to suspect Trump had obstructed justice by “hoping” the investigation turned out the way he wanted, there is more reason to suspect the same from Lynch, who actually took action to alter the Clinton investigation.
While on the surface this is not incriminating behavior and does not qualify as obstruction of justice, not all of the facts are known. Recall that Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix in June 2016 days before Comey announced publicly that the FBI did not recommend a further investigation of Hillary Clinton. This shady meeting, which Lynch forbade any government witnesses to speak of, was highly inappropriate because of the obvious conflict of interest and suggests that Bill Clinton could have influenced the investigation. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has already declared that he wants to “hear from Loretta Lynch” in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even Democrats acknowledge the clear problem with Lynch’s behavior, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein called for Congress to investigate Lynch as well.
Instead of finding evidence incriminating Trump as Democrats expected, Comey’s testimony uncovered reasons to investigate Lynch. Unfortunately, there are still people who will oppose this purely for political reasons despite the seriousness of its ramifications. If the DOJ has been influenced by politics, the legitimacy of every one of its decisions will be undermined and called into question. Both sides of the aisle should agree that a politicized DOJ is a threat to our political system, not on the Trump and Russia collusion charges, which have proven completely baseless.
Jack Story is a UF graduate. His column appears on Tuesdays.
