Was There Probable Cause for Comeygate?

The Criminal Investigation Without a Subject

Emailgate, Comey, Baquet, and the Anatomy of a Manufactured Scandal

From the moment Emailgate began, it mirrored the way it ended—with James Comey substituting personal moral judgments for DOJ protocol. As the Inspector General would later put it: insubordination. That, and the weasel-worded framing of Dean Baquet’s New York Times, helped set the stage for one of the most overblown political scandals in modern memory.

Let’s Start from the Beginning: Was There Ever Probable Cause?

Was there even probable cause for the email probe in the first place? From the outset, confusion reigned: was this a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton herself, or just a procedural review of State Department email security and recordkeeping practices?

It appears the original report that Clinton was under investigation was a mistake. And despite Comey’s much-quoted “queasy” reaction to Loretta Lynch calling it a “matter” rather than an “investigation,” the facts remain clear: Clinton was never formally the subject of the Midyear Exam investigation. This was, in essence, a criminal investigation without a subject.

📝 Footnote:
During the first Democratic primary debate in late 2015, Bernie Sanders famously told Clinton: “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” It was true then—and it only became more true as the phony scandal was weaponized by Comey, GOP-aligned FBI figures, and a credulous pundit class, particularly at the New York Times.

Rewriting the Narrative: The White House Speaks Out

Still, Comey and his team became apoplectic when Obama’s Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, offered an accurate response to whether Clinton would be indicted (January 2016):

“That will be a decision made by the Department of Justice and prosecutors over there… Based on what we know from the DOJ, it does not seem to be headed in that direction.”

This statement was factually accurate and appropriately cautious. Yet, in the twisted logic of Emailgate, even accurate statements by the Obama White House or the Clinton campaign were seen as interference—or worse, obstruction.

“Matter Not Investigation”: Truth as Heresy

Comey’s queasiness over calling it a “matter” rather than an “investigation” was endlessly quoted. But as the DOJ Inspector General later confirmed, that language—awkward though it may have been—was technically correct. Clinton wasn’t a target. She wasn’t even a subject.

📝 Footnote:
See the DOJ OIG report released on June 14, 2018.

Among the explosive revelations from IG Michael Horowitz’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was this:

“Nobody was listed as a subject of this investigation at any point in time.”

So when Clinton said she wasn’t a subject? She was telling the truth. No matter how queasy it made Comey

—or how many times Chris Cillizza mocked her for it.

Double Standards and Queasiness on Cue

Interestingly, while Comey felt “queasy” about downplaying Clinton’s investigation, he had no such qualms about assuring Donald Trump in 2017 that he was not under investigation. Apparently, that didn’t trigger any moral discomfort.