Comey Feels “Mildly Nauseous” About Possibly Affecting the Presidential Election

But the FBI director says he would make the same decision again.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom via ZUMA

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday that he had no good options when it came to deciding whether to notify Congress 11 days before the presidential election that the bureau was reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices.

Comey famously chose to send a letter to lawmakers on October 28, 2016, disclosing the new investigation. That letter was promptly made public by Republicans and, according to experts, it likely had a significant effect on the outcome of the race—despite the fact that the renewed probe turned up nothing incriminating. In his testimony Wednesday, Comey said that even though he felt sick at the thought that his actions might have affected the election, he would make the same choice again.

“This was terrible,” he told Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election. But honestly, it wouldn’t change the decision.”

Comey said he had to make a choice between speaking or concealing the fact that he was reopening the investigation. “Even in hindsight—and this has been one of the world’s most painful experiences—I would make the same decision,” he said. “I would not conceal that.”

Comey also emphasized that he “didn’t make a public announcement” about the renewed investigation but rather sent a “private letter” to the leaders of the congressional oversight committees. That statement drew laughter from Feinstein.

“On the letter, it was just a matter of minutes before the world knew about it,” Feinstein said.

Owned by no one—except you.

We just keep seeing it happen: Newsrooms owned by billionaires and corporations are spinning their own narratives, overwriting the truth, following only stories that keep them in the pocket of those with even more power.

Not here. We’re not owned by anyone. We’re not part of any cult that demands our allegiance to a bottom line. We’ve spoken up and spoken out while other newsrooms changed their stories—or cut them altogether—to keep the C suite happy.

Our mission is to find the truth and amplify it. That’s why we’re independent, nonprofit, and, crucially, funded by readers. The investigations on our website will always be free to read, watch, and listen to, but our newsroom is powered by readers who pitch in what they can so we can keep asking the hard questions.

Can you chip in today?

Owned by no one—except you.

We just keep seeing it happen: Newsrooms owned by billionaires and corporations are spinning their own narratives, overwriting the truth, following only stories that keep them in the pocket of those with even more power.

Not here. We’re not owned by anyone. We’re not part of any cult that demands our allegiance to a bottom line. We’ve spoken up and spoken out while other newsrooms changed their stories—or cut them altogether—to keep the C suite happy.

Our mission is to find the truth and amplify it. That’s why we’re independent, nonprofit, and, crucially, funded by readers. The investigations on our website will always be free to read, watch, and listen to, but our newsroom is powered by readers who pitch in what they can so we can keep asking the hard questions.

Can you chip in today?

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate