On July 5, FBI Director James Comey took the unusual step of holding a press conference to discuss a case — the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server.
In this press conference, he savaged Clinton, describing her as “extremely careless.” This only fed into the popular perception that she is untrustworthy and provided fodder for pundits and comedians, many of whom stated unequivocally that Clinton lied. Her poll numbers took a dive.
A remarkably different picture, largely ignored by the media, emerged two days later when Comey testified before the House Oversight Committee. Having been very ambiguous in his press conference regarding the number of emails that were actually marked classified, under questioning he revealed that only three of more than 30,000 emails had been marked as classified.
Moreover, under questioning from Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Pa., he revealed that the markings were misplaced and not in the header as they should have been. Rep. Cartwright then asked “So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?” To which Comey replied: “That would be a reasonable inference.”
It comes down to misplaced markings on three emails, and Comey agrees that it would be reasonable for an expert to conclude that these emails were not classified. What a different picture from that painted two days earlier.
Joseph Kulik, Lemont