Now we know why the FBI made the absurd claim that it would not release its files on the Hillary Clinton email investigation for alleged lack of public interest. The FBI was covering up its obstruction of justice in the, er, “matter” knowing full well that former Director James Comey had already exonerated Hillary Clinton before the alleged investigation was complete and all witnesses had been interviewed and months before Comey falsely claimed in his announcement that no competent prosecutor would take Hillary’s case.

In withholding the files sought under Freedom of Information Act requests, the FBI forgot that it and former Secretary of State Clinton are and were employees of the American taxpayer, taxpayers who have a right to know whether justice is being served or denied. Claims that Hillary had privacy rights that trumped the public interest were absurd:

The FBI is declining to turn over files related to its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails by arguing a lack of public interest in the matter.

Ty Clevenger, an attorney in New York City, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in March of 2016 asking for a variety of documents from the FBI and the Justice Department, including correspondence exchanged with Congress about the Clinton email investigation…

In July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey famously called Clinton’s email arrangement “extremely careless” though he decided against recommending criminal charges…

On Aug. 8, the FBI asked Clevenger to detail why the public would be interested.

“If you seek disclosure of any existing records on this basis, you must demonstrate that the public interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests,” the letter stated. “In this regard, you must show that the public interest sought is a significant one, and that the requested information is likely to advance that interest.”

Say what? Did it serve the public interest or James Comey’s interest when he publicly detailed all the reasons Hillary Clinton should be criminally charged before claiming lack of intent, a criterion which appears nowhere in the law, was the reason Comey was giving Hillary a get out of jail free card, a judgment he did not have the authority to make? Didn’t his exoneration announcement violate Hillary’s alleged privacy rights by detailing the criminal violations of a subject that was not going to be charged?

If James Comey was seriously looking for evidence of intent he couldn’t have possibly taken a single step without tripping over it. Wasn’t having a private server that contained classified information, multiple devices that were later physically smashed, and using Bleach Bit to destroy 33,000 emails that were under subpoena sufficient evidence of intent?

Only a corrupt and complicit FBI director, acting as Hillary Clinton’s surrogate campaign manager, who months earlier had decided he would exonerate her, could ignore the damning evidence:

As FBI director last year, James Comey began writing drafts of a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton, even before all witnesses in the investigation -- including Clinton herself -- had been interviewed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee obtained the Comey memos as part of its investigation into his firing by President Trump, which occurred on May 9. The revelation that Comey had begun drafting memos of his exoneration statement comes from transcripts of interviews given last fall by two FBI officials.

James Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff, and Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel of national security and cyberlaw at the FBI, gave the interviews as part of an investigation conducted by the Office of Special Counsel into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.

In a July 5, 2016, press conference, Comey said that he would not be recommending charges against Clinton for mishandling classified information despite her use of a private email server as secretary of state.

While the transcripts of those interviews are heavily redacted, they indicate that Comey started working on an announcement clearing Clinton in April or May of last year, before the FBI interviewed 17 witnesses in the case, including Clinton and some of her top aides.

Having already decided he would exonerate her regardless of the evidence explains why he did not attend the July 2, 2016 interview of Hillary Clinton, did not put her under oath, or ever impanel a grand jury in, there’s that word again, the "matter." The fix was in.

Comey’s invocation of the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch as a reason for his exoneration announcement was just another part of the obstruction of justice. Comey had already decided to exonerate Hillary and Lynch was merely passing on the info to the husband of a subject under criminal investigation.

President Trump was rightly outraged at this proof that the justice system was rigged in Hillary Clinton’s favor:

President Trump on Friday slammed what he called a “rigged system” following reports that former FBI Director James Comey began drafting an “exoneration statement” for Hillary Clinton before interviewing her in connection with her private email use as secretary of state. 

“Wow, looks like James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton long before the investigation was over… and so much more. A rigged system!” Trump tweeted early Friday.

The president was referring to allegations made this week by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

In a news release Thursday, the senators said Comey began drafting the exoneration statement in April or May 2016, which was before the FBI interviewed 17 key witnesses, including Clinton herself and other top aides.

“According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton,” the senators said.

This is yet more justification for the firing of James Comey who, instead of finding and prosecuting leakers, himself leaked a memo written on government time and a government laptop regarding a private conversation with President Trump in the Oval Office.

In a conversation with Fox News’s Martha MacCallum, Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano suggested Comey’s firing was bad news for Hillary Clinton, clearing the way for her indictment for violations of the Espionage Act:

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Let me suggest another scenario, that Rod Rosenstein reviewed the Hillary Clinton file, which he had never seen before and decided that Comey's judgment was utterly irregular and inappropriate and that maybe she should have been, and still can be indicted for espionage, the failure to safeguard state secrets while she was Secretary of State.

In an interesting historical footnote, Comey, who falsely claimed no serious prosecutor would take the case of Hillary Clinton, was among those who found sufficient evidence to prosecute and convict Scooter Libby. Comey, it appears, has even more explaining to do. As the Daily Caller reports:

Washington D.C.-based former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova believes the Libby decision is a “terrible blow” to FBI Director James Comey, who announced Sunday that the agency had no new conclusions on Hillary Clinton and her private server from the 650,000 new emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

“Scooter Libby was restored to the practice of law by the DC court of appeals because they believed that Scooter Libby presented evidence that his original trial had been corrupted by false testimony. And that false testimony was coerced by Jim Comey’s friend Patrick Fitzgerald and Comey was part of the team to destroy the vice president of the United States and it didn’t happen,” DiGenova said.

He added,” It’s such a smack in the face to Jim Comey.  Comey and Fitzgerald tried to frame Scooter Libby, and they did….”

The evidence against Hillary is damning, and the line of prosecutors willing to take the case would encircle the FBI building in Washington, D.C.  Judge Michael Mukasey, former attorney general under President George W. Bush, listed the charges that Hillary Clinton could face on Fox Radio’s “Kilmeade and Friends:”

We are looking at a range of things, everything from the misdemeanor that was charged against General Petraeus, which is putting classified information in an unprotected, classified setting, that’s a misdemeanor. Then there is destroying government records. Then there is taking information related to the national defense and treating it with gross negligence such as it becomes disclosed. And finally, there is obstruction of justice.”

There is the destruction of evidence under Congressional subpoena. As even Comey admitted, Hillary lied about sending and receiving classified material, about having only one device, and about turning over all her emails. If intent is needed, what is accidental about smashing devices with hammers or using Bleach Bit to render emails unrecoverable?  If you need a motive for having a private server, which speaks to intent, the obvious purpose is to cover up the “pay to play” trail that leads from the State Department to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for her crimes. And if anyone is guilty of obstruction of justice, it is not President Trump, but the finger-pointing leaker and liar, James Comey.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.