Even five weeks after the election, Democrats are still straining for excuses to explain why their beloved Hillary lost to the guy from “The Apprentice.” This week’s fixation is another phase of Russia mania; now it’s taken as incontrovertible fact that Russian state actors “hacked the election” (whatever that means) to install their preferred candidate, Trump. But notwithstanding the recent upsurge of Kremlin subterfuge lunacy, Clinton loyalists seem to have settled on one explanation in particular as the principal reason for their historic defeat: James Comey robbed them. Brian Fallon, the Clinton spokesperson, reiterated this view just today in a POLITICO article on the campaign’s laughably catastrophic strategic decisions:

Asked to identify the central reason for Hillary’s loss in a POLITICO podcast this week, the loathsome David Brock said the following:

BROCK: “Comey stole the election from Hillary.”

So that’s the working premise for much of the liberal establishment: Hillary’s campaign strategy was otherwise on-the-money, and but for the malicious intervention of Comey it would’ve worked. They strongly, stridently believe this, as (apparently) does Hillary herself.

It’s taken as a given in these circles that Comey’s motivations were fundamentally foul, and that he “interfered” improperly with the conscious intent of undermining Hillary. But there is almost no evidence to back up this belief. Indeed, many of the same people now apoplectic at Comey were praising him after he rendered his initial decision on July 5 to not recommend charges against Hillary:

First, it’s not as if Comey sat on explosive information until the most electorally-critical juncture so he could deal Hillary a fatal blow. He received information in late October because the information coincidentally came about in late October, due to external events.

What was the “external event” in question? The commencement of an FBI criminal investigation into Anthony Weiner’s alleged licit communications with a minor. Who oversaw the investigation into Anthony Weiner’s alleged sex crimes? Not James Comey, but Preet Bharara, the Obama-appointed US Attorney who has taken down powerful politicians in both parties. The seizure of Weiner’s computer equipment occurred within his New York jurisdiction; Bharara is the one who authorized the investigation, which was first reported on September 22. So the idea that this all came about solely as a result of some internal right-wing coup doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Are there certain factions within the FBI that are right-wing? Of course, but that’s always been so, and anyway in this case they wouldn’t have been the ones calling the shots.

Now, it’s true that some of the steps taken in the Hillary criminal case were unusual: rather than simply announcing that no charges would be brought, Comey made a televised statement on July 5 in which he laid out all the reasons Hillary acted in an “extremely careless” fashion and potentially even “violate[d] statutes.” In virtually every other criminal case, we would not want someone who is being absolved from prosecution to nonetheless be publicly condemned by law enforcement officials. But in the case of a leading presidential candidate, the standards simply must be different; voters are entitled to the maximum amount of information, and if the FBI director possesses information that could inform their decision-making, he has an affirmative obligation to provide it. Hillary was not a mere private citizen; she was seeking to become the occupant of the most powerful office on the planet. It’s also unusual for a major political party to nominate a candidate with such severe, unresolved legal problems, so we would have expected some unusual circumstances to spring from that.

Comey didn’t force Anthony Weiner to possess materials relevant to a high-level criminal investigation on his personal computer, and he certainly didn’t force Weiner to allegedly “sext” with minors. He also didn’t force Hillary and her staff to destroy government records. When Comey made his initial announcement on July 5, he explicitly noted that the FBI had not been able to recover the entirety of relevant materials — FBI investigative notes explicitly mention that there were other devices out in circulation containing materials that the FBI had not been able to review. So there was always a possibility that new evidence could come to light, and the investigation would once again become active. Comey was always exceedingly clear about this.

This is crucial: Comey repeatedly pledged to Congress that he would apprise them of any changes in the status of the investigation. He made these pledges in official sworn testimony. The unrelated Anthony Weiner investigation produced new materials pertinent to the Hillary email server investigation, which had been inactive as of July 5. As of October 28, the status of the investigation changed from “inactive” to “active,” and at that point Comey had an affirmative obligation to notify Congress. Or as Newsweek put it on the day the letter was issued, “he didn’t have a choice.”

Democrats and Democrat-allied media personalities condemning Comey generally insist that he ought to have concealed this information from the public, in direct contravention of his sworn Congressional testimony, rather than fulfill his pledges and provide it. Hence, their view is essentially against transparency: that Comey was wrong to disclose to the public significant information about a presidential candidate’s criminal liabilities, and instead should have withheld it because of the potential detrimental impact it could have had on the candidate’s electoral prospects. Of course they never would have invoked such logic had Trump been in the same position; they would have demanded that the FBI release all relevant information at once. So their objection is grounded in pure partisan gamesmanship.

What else could Comey have done? Refused to testify before Congress in the first place? If that’s your position, you are again arguing for a reduction in transparency and government oversight. It’s certainly odd for Democrats to proclaim that the FBI should not have been subject to Congressional scrutiny, or that they should’ve been permitted to operate in greater secrecy.

I have no special affinity for Comey. In truth, I think the FBI (along with the CIA) should simply be abolished. But that doesn’t mean that Comey acted “improperly” given the circumstances. Scapegoating him for Hillary’s loss makes no sense, but it’s all her aggrieved supporters have left.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Support this Medium publication by going here! I will love you forever.