94 IG Report Transcript
First though the IG report on Comey making the investigation public:
Following the public referral to the FBI from the IC IG in July 2015, the
Department and the FBI received questions from the media and Congress asking
whether they had opened a criminal investigation of former Secretary Clinton.
According to emails exchanged in late August 2015, there was a significant
disagreement between ODAG and FBI officials regarding whether to acknowledge
that a criminal investigation had been opened. FBI officials, according to the
emails, wanted to acknowledge “open[ing] an investigation into the matter,” while
ODAG officials approved language “neither confirm[ing] nor deny[ing] the existence
of any ongoing investigation,” based on longstanding Department policy. FBI and
Department letters sent to Congress on August 27 and September 22, 2015, and a
letter sent by the FBI General Counsel to the State Department on September 22,
2015, used the “neither confirm nor deny” language.
Contemporaneous emails show that former Director Comey disagreed with
this approach. In an August 27, 2015 email to Deputy Director (DD) Giuliano, Chief
of Staff James Rybicki, and FBI Office of Public Affairs (OPA) Assistant Director (AD)
Mike Kortan, he stated, “I’m thinking it a bit silly to say we ‘can’t confirm or deny
an investigation’ when there are public statements by former [S]ecretary Clinton
and others about the production of materials to us. I would rather be in a place
where we say we ‘don’t comment on our investigations.’” Rybicki told the OIG that
Comey thought that the Department and FBI needed to say more about the
investigation because the IC IG referral was made publicly, and refusing to
acknowledge an investigation would “stretch…any credibility the Department has.”
Pg 59
In late September and early October 2015, Comey and Lynch each had
upcoming media and congressional appearances. Anticipating that they would be
asked whether the Department and FBI had opened an investigation into former
Secretary Clinton, Comey asked to meet with Lynch to coordinate what they would
say. Comey told the OIG that it was the first time the two of them would be asked
questions about the investigation publicly, and he wanted to discuss how they
should talk about it given that there had been news coverage of the referral and “a
lot of public discussion about that the FBI is already looking [into] this.”
The meeting was held on September 28, 2015, and lasted approximately 15
minutes. Participants in the meeting included Lynch, Axelrod, and Toscas from the
Department, and Comey, Rybicki, and then DD Giuliano from the FBI.”
Pg 59
Comey-Lynch meeting
In late September and early October 2015, Comey and Lynch each had
upcoming media and congressional appearances. Anticipating that they would be
asked whether the Department and FBI had opened an investigation into former
Secretary Clinton, Comey asked to meet with Lynch to coordinate what they would
say. Comey told the OIG that it was the first time the two of them would be asked
questions about the investigation publicly, and he wanted to discuss how they
should talk about it given that there had been news coverage of the referral and “a
lot of public discussion about that the FBI is already looking [into] this.”
The meeting was held on September 28, 2015, and lasted approximately 15
minutes. Participants in the meeting included Lynch, Axelrod, and Toscas from the
Department, and Comey, Rybicki, and then DD Giuliano from the FBI.”
Comey told the OIG that during this meeting AG Lynch agreed they needed
to confirm the existence of the investigation, but she said not to use the word
“investigation,” and instead to call it a “matter.” Comey said that Lynch seemed
slightly irritated at him when she said this, and that he took it as a direction.
Comey stated:
And I remember saying, “Well, what should I call it?” And she said,
“Call it a matter.” And I said, “Why would I do that?” And she said, “I
just want you to do that and so I would very much appreciate it if you
would not refer to it as an investigation.” And the reason that gave
me pause is, it was during a period of time which lasted, where I knew
from the open source that the Clinton campaign was keen not to use
the word investigation…. [A]nd so that one concerned me and I
remember getting a lump in my stomach and deciding at that moment
should I fight on this or not.
Comey told the OIG that he decided not to fight this instruction from the AG, but
that it “made [his] spider sense tingle” and caused him to “worry…that she’s
carrying water for the [Clinton] campaign[.]” As described in Chapter Six, Comey
told the OIG and testified before Congress that this instruction from Lynch was one
of the factors that influenced his unilateral decision to make a public statement on
July 5, 2016, without coordinating with the Department.56 However, Comey also
said to us that he had no other reason to question Lynch’s motives at that time,
stating, “[I]n fact my experience with her has always been very good and
independent, and she always struck me as an independent-minded person[.]”
CoPilot:
Even as DOJ officials adhered to longstanding policy—refusing to confirm or deny an investigation—Comey bristled. His emails from August 2015 dismissed this stance as “a bit silly,” and his meeting with Loretta Lynch in late September revealed deeper unease. When Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton probe as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation,” Comey took it as partisan signaling.
Yet, by his own admission, Lynch had always struck him as independent-minded. So why the presumption of bias? The “lump in [his] stomach,” the spider-sense tingling—all of it was based not on evidence, but on Comey’s interpretation of campaign optics and media coverage.
His selective transparency in 2016 would only sharpen this inconsistency. Clinton’s probe was publicly dramatized. Trump’s counterintelligence investigation, initiated in July 2016, remained entirely secret until months after the election. If disclosure was a moral imperative, why only for one subject?
In hindsight, the real breach wasn’t just procedural—it was philosophical. The investigation into Clinton’s email use wasn’t grounded in law. It was anchored in narrative momentum, media echo, and a leadership ethos that treated protocol as flexible when politics felt urgent.
This was no search for truth. It was, at bottom, an indictment in search of a crime
His selective transparency in 2016 would only sharpen this inconsistency. Clinton’s probe was publicly dramatized. Trump’s counterintelligence investigation, Operation Crossfire Hurricane, was quietly launched in late July—but Comey and the Bureau followed protocol, keeping its existence confidential until his public testimony before Congress in March 2017, well after the election.
If disclosure was a moral imperative, why only for one subject?
In hindsight, the real breach wasn’t just procedural—it was philosophical. The investigation into Clinton’s email use wasn’t grounded in law. It was anchored in narrative momentum, media echo, and a leadership ethos that treated protocol as flexible when politics felt urgent.
This was no search for truth. It was, at bottom, an indictment in search of a crime.