Yesterday’s rehash of the FBI’s investigation into the Hillary Clinton server supplied some interesting revelations, but most importantly it provided an incredible contrast to the counterintelligence probe against Trump. Reviewing the details of these two near simultaneous investigations into presidential candidates shows a vast discrepancy in tactics, behavior, and treatment.

The investigation into Hillary Clinton began in July of 2015 when an inspector general informed the FBI that Clinton had stored classified information on her private server. This prompted the FBI to launch a criminal investigation into her mishandling of classified information. As reported by the New York Times, when word of the investigation leaked, the DOJ ran active interference, implying that it was not criminal. However, ‘despite what officials said in public, agents had been alerted to mishandled classified information and in response, records show, had opened a full criminal investigation.’ Further, Lynch interfered directly herself, demanding the Comey refer to the investigation as a ‘matter.’ According to the report, he, ‘was concerned that a Democratic attorney general was asking him to be misleading and line up his talking points with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.’ Though it should be noted he toed the party line. Yesterday, Comey testified to Congress and claimed that ‘what I struggled with in the spring of last year was how do we credibly complete the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.’ The tarmac meeting between Lynch and Clinton was declared that ‘capstone’ that drove his decision to host a press conference, but why was he worried about credibility all the way back in spring? His concern about interference by the DOJ or the perception thereof was ensconced by a document ‘written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far.’ When questioned about it, Comey declared the discussion was classified.

Of course perceptions don’t equate to reality, but when looking at how the case was actually handled, it was clearly political from the beginning. In order to avoid a grand jury, the FBI voluntarily gave immunity to Clinton’s aides rather than simply subpoenaing the documents or testimony. They avoided any grand jury request until the very end of the investigation when they were required to request it in order demand records from telecommunications companies. This all was designed to minimize the political damage to Hillary Clinton, but had the effect of undermining the case by limiting leverage over potential parties to the crime. The controversy surrounding reopening the case provides the ‘capstone’ to case that the investigation was politicized from the start. Despite signing an affidavit that all devices used were turned over, Huma Abedin omitted including that she sent thousands of emails to her husband’s laptop, many with classified information. Even accepting Comey’s rewrite of the statute to require evidence of criminal intent, it’s incredible that they considered it plausible that she would forget sending thousands of emails to her husband. While the outcome may seem wrong to people, it is when the DOJ’s investigation is compared to how it acted against Trump that the behavior looks truly galling.

The most common defense of the Obama administration’s massive investigation into the Trump campaign is that it was driven by career officials. Time has shown this to be less true than thought. From the get go, the investigation was not the work of career FBI investigators, but was due to the efforts of Obama’s political appointee John Brennan. There were no efforts to work with the subjects of the investigation, as in the Clinton case. No offers of immunity in return for testimony. Instead, the DOJ went through the extraordinary length of ordering a top secret wiretap on a member of Trump’s campaign. Further, reports indicate that they were so aggressive in their requests that they were denied multiple times. Additionally, the basis of these concerns, we have come to find, was a fake document created by an opposition research firm with ties to Russian intelligence. To this day zero evidence of collusion has ever been found. However, the lack of evidence did not stop the Obama administration from spreading raw intelligence found in the investigation throughout the government. This dispersion has lead to classified leaks intended to damage Trump politically. The collusion conspiracy is only still alive in the fever swamps of the left, but the bigger issue is that it was invented and perpetuated by the Obama administration. Using national security tools in an aggressive manner against its political opponent, his administration closely monitored Trump’s campaign and its actions. Political exceptions were constantly extended in the criminal case against Clinton, while overly aggressive tactics were used in the wide probe of Trump. The lack of equivalence shows these were not honest and fair investigations, but partisan abuses of power.