In light of the recent controversy surrounding the decision of Director of the FBI James B. Comey to write to Congress revealing that the FBI has reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s personal email scandal, I think it is crucial to remember that, not long ago, Comey was revered by Democrats and criticized by Republicans – exactly the opposite of the current climate.
Although Comey recently announced that the FBI has not changed its July recommendation that Clinton not be prosecuted for any criminal charges, examining the response to Comey’s announcement reveals a concerning underlying hypocrisy. After the FBI’s July announcement that the investigation into the Clinton email scandal did not provide grounds to recommend prosecution, Comey was well within Democratic favor. Four months later, members of the same party have called on him to resign. Tennessee Congressmen Steve Cohen, for instance, tweeted a two page explanation for why he believes Comey ought to resign.
Cohen’s statement is in line with the majority of hypocritical criticisms of Comey. In his own statement, Cohen demonstrates unmistakable political bias in his condemnation of Comey’s actions. He writes that, “In the past, even quite recently, I have expressed my appreciation for Director Comey…,”going on to cite two examples in which Comey made decisions that were aligned with Cohen’s own political ends (one of which was the July announcement about the email investigation). But as soon as Comey’s actions no longer supported Cohen’s politics, Cohen’s opinion changed. His criticism of Comey comes from a place of political bias, not an objective consideration of the responsibilities of the FBI.
Yet Cohen is not the only one politicizing Comey – whose letter to Congress is notably an objective notification of information possession. The media itself is aiding and abetting the politicization of what is a non-partisan entity. In July, immediately after Comey’s recommendation against charging Clinton, The Washington Post published an article entitled “Republicans attack Mr. Comey for doing his job.” Now, more common titles are those echoing the message of a more recent Washington Post article titled “James Comey is damaging our democracy.”
Accusations that Comey made a political decision by informing Congress of an ongoing FBI investigation are flatly wrong. Informing Congress was the only non-partisan decision to be made. Withholding this information would be to deliberately mislead Congress and the American people regarding the status of the Clinton email investigation. Withholding this information, therefore, would be a political decision. Hillary Clinton herself stated that “The American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately.” This hardly sounds like a plea for Comey to withhold information.
Despite the relativism the Democratic party has displayed in their portrayal of Comey, there are certain questions remaining. Some have expressed concern about the fact that Comey made such headlines only 11 days before the election. Yet it is important to reference his letter in which he states that his team had briefed him only the day prior. He was relaying information in real time as he received it and cannot be blamed for the disruptive timing. Others take issue with the idea of the FBI releasing information about ongoing investigations. In response to this, I remind the reader that the public was already well aware of the initial investigation into Clinton’s emails.
Lastly, some, including Clinton, refer to Comey’s announcement as a “jaw-dropping double standard” since he refused comment on the Trump-Russia investigation. However, by praising Comey one month and condemning him the next based on our politically shaped perceptions of his decisions, are we not similarly engaging in a double standard? We are politicizing Comey and the FBI – they are not politicizing themselves.
Ultimately, it is the duty of the public to demand more information, more transparency, and more non-partisanship, and we should vehemently object to manipulation of the public view of the FBI to push a political agenda.
Jacquelyn Thorbjornson is a sophomore from South Thomaston, Maine. She can be reached at jot@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton students to start ‘Gaza Solidarity Encampment,’ leaked documents say
Miriam WaldvogelAccording to documents leaked by the National Review, students at Princeton are planning an encampment similar to those that have been constructed in the past week at other universities, including Columbia and Yale. An email from administration pointed to suspension or expulsion for students who participate.
According to documents leaked by the National Review, students at Princeton are planning an encampment similar to those that have been constructed in the past week at other universities, including Columbia and Yale. An email from administration pointed to suspension or expulsion for students who participate.
I’m the Guy Who Takes Photos of Nassau Hall : Documenting Activism at Princeton
Calvin GroverClasses come and go, but Nassau Hall lasts forever. The gateway to Princeton's campus serves as a reminder of the movements that shaped its past and its hopes for the future.
Classes come and go, but Nassau Hall lasts forever. The gateway to Princeton's campus serves as a reminder of the movements that shaped its past and its hopes for the future.
Princeton Pro-Life revived post-Dobbs
Olivia Sanchez and Nandini KrishnanThe Princeton Pro-Life Club has experienced a resurgence in the 2023–24 academic year. The ‘Prince’ spoke with the president of the club and attended a reception to learn more about the club’s rebirth.
The Princeton Pro-Life Club has experienced a resurgence in the 2023–24 academic year. The ‘Prince’ spoke with the president of the club and attended a reception to learn more about the club’s rebirth.
