The world is anxiously awaiting the Congressional testimony of former FBI Director James Comey on June 8. We are all interested in what he has to say about President Donald Trump’s actions.
Comey has already changed world history by his interference in the presidential election last summer and fall. He announced in a letter 11 days before the election that he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as Secretary State, this time on whether any of the emails had made their way to a laptop computer used by one of Clinton’s top aides and that aide’s husband. The data say this unwarranted October surprise by Comey cost Clinton the election.
Three scholars, Sean McElwee, Matt McDermott, and Will Jordan, examined the data and produced four “pieces of evidence” showing FBI Director James Comey cost Clinton the election. I will summarize that evidence below. Their summary article can be seen here.
Exhibit 1–the state polls: The polling averages of several polls (e.g., RealClearPolitics) predicted a Clinton victory; however, the pollsters did not get things wrong so much as fail, in some states, to interview voters after the Comey letter on October 28. In the seven battleground states where five or more polls were conducted between October 28 and Election Day, Trump trailed Clinton by less than one percent, almost a dead heat. On the other hand, in seven other battleground states, where fewer than five polls were conducted, and the averages included polls conducted before October 28, Trump trailed Clinton by nearly 3 points. Yet, Trump won five of these states. Voters changed their minds, but few polls measured it.
Exhibit 2–the national polls: In the national polls Clinton’s margin over Trump fell dramatically directly after the Comey letter, and it never recovered. At the time noted polling statistician Nate Silver reported that support for Clinton in the polls fell 3 percentage points, a significant swing in a tight election. Comey had also caused Clinton to lose ground back in July when he testified before Congress about Clinton’s email server. Although he announced he would not charge her with any wrongdoing, he lectured her on being extremely careless, causing her to lose 2 percentage points of support.
Exhibit 3—The early voting numbers compared with the late deciders: In 2012, Obama actually performed about 5 points better on Election Day than in absentee ballots. In 2016, absentee voting for Clinton was similar to Obama–60 percent compared to 61 percent. But a lot of her support collapsed on Election Day, dropping by a net 13 points. In Florida, Clinton won the early vote 52 to 48, but Trump won the Election Day vote 56 to 44 percent. Voters who chose their candidate in the last week went strongly towards Trump. No other damaging media event happened during that last week, suggesting that the most plausible explanation for the strong change in late-deciding voters was that letter.
Exhibit 4–media coverage of email, email, and more email: During the last days before the election, major newspapers published nearly 50 front page stories about Clinton and the email issue. The tone of the coverage shifted markedly against Clinton. The Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard showed that “scandal” coverage toward Clinton peaked in the last week of the campaign, consuming more than a third of her coverage.”
Nate Silver, who had maintained that the election would be close, sums the situation. On 22 April 2017, he said, “When FBI Director James Comey told Congress on Oct. 28 that he was reviewing additional emails pertinent to the case of Hillary Clinton, [she] experienced a sharp, 3-point drop in her polls after the letter came out. Then on November 8, she lost Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan by less than 1 point.
Significantly, Comey violated established Department of Justice policy by releasing the letter on October 28. Tweeted Congressman Adam Schiff: “Real choice was not conceal or speak. Comey spoke about Clinton & concealed Trump invest. Real choice was to abide by DOJ policy or violate.” Comey violated the policy against Clinton and did not reveal in 2016 that he was investigating the connection of the Trump campaign to Russia.
James Comey is regarded as an earnest and dedicated public servant. If so, he is also a person who has done a great disservice to the country by using his own guidance and not his department in speaking about an investigation. Let’s hope that his performance of June 8 is not similarly flawed.