We now know that if James Comey had recommended prosecution of Hillary Clinton for her email abuses, he would have been cooking his own goose, for he was guilty of similar abuses. So by exonerating her on the basis of lack of intent, he was also letting himself off the hook.

Fired FBI chief James Comey used his private Gmail account hundreds of times to conduct government business — and at least seven of those messages were deemed so sensitive by the Justice Department that they declined to release them. The former top G-man repeatedly claimed he only used his private account for “incidental” purposes and never for anything that was classified — and that appears to be true. But Justice acknowledged in response to a Freedom of Information request that Comey and his chief of staff discussed government business on about 1,200 pages of messages, 156 of which were obtained by The Post.

Caricature by Donkey Hotey

None of the messages were officially “classified” but rather sensitive, which also should be protected from hackers. So, Comey was not in violation of the national security laws Hillary clearly violated. But he was in violation of laws that give the public access to information that belongs to us, under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. By short0circuiting the requiremets of that law, Comey frustrated the need for transparency and accountability as mandate by law. Comey’s Gmail account would not be subject to searches under provisions of the FOIA laws.

We know about the volume of official business, an astounding 1200 pages, conducted on Gmail, and of the sensitivity of it, because:

The Cause of Action Institute, a conservative watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit for Comey’s Gmail correspondence involving his work for the bureau. (snip) Justice released 156 of them but refused to hand over seven emails because they would “disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.” And another 363 pages of emails were withheld because they discussed privileged agency communications or out of personal privacy concerns.

I am no lawyer, but is this a conflict of interest?