FBI move is an attack on democracy - Finger pointed at Clinton aide

NEXT week Americans vote in an election with by far the greatest global impact. In 2012, when Obama defeated Romney, 129.1m people voted — 53.6% of those entitled to. If that turnout is repeated, then, and if pre-election polls are of any value, more than 50m Americans will vote for Donald Trump. How many more choose to do so will decide the election and who becomes the world’s most powerful person.

The latest episode in the relentless roll-out of Clinton scandals — or pseudo-scandals — will help Trump, because the usual rules in this shabby game apply. Innuendo becomes fact; an accusation, a conviction without due process and the man with the dagger, the Brutus, is seen as a plain dealer. Sadly, this post-factual gameplan epitomises a campaign where truth is sidelined, especially if it gets in the way of a stirring soundbite.

We’re at the down-and-dirty stage of this race and the decision by FBI chief James Comey — a 6ft 8in Republican appointed by Obama — to investigate emails from or to former Clinton aide Huma Abedin as part of its investigation into Clinton’s unwise use of a private email server while Secretary of State, has stirred a Democratic hornets’ nest — and with considerable justification. It has also breached US Justice Department guidelines on political neutrality.

Senate minority leader Harry Reid has attacked Comey and though his opinion carries more political than legal weight his response seems appropriate. He was direct: “Your actions... appear to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another... these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election.” Reid, a Clinton supporter, may well be right but will his intervention be enough to nullify the advantage offered to Trump? We’ll know in little over a week but Comey’s timing does look like “vote rigging” but not the kind predicted by Trump.

Reminiscent of the infamous Zinoviev letter, which on the eve of Britain’s 1924 election, purported to be a directive from Moscow to British communists, the intervention will damage Clinton because she and her husband routinely sail far too close to the ethical rocks. They have also shamelessly used their positions to enrich themselves. One writer — Linda Tirado — points out that, on average, Hilary Clinton is paid the equivalent of 37 years of America’s median wage every time she speaks to bankers. Imagine how much more she’d be paid if economics or banking were her areas of expertise? This process, this gilded pathway to riches, is not plausible and its exploitation does untold damage to world democracy.

Comey should not have introduced an embryonic investigation, one yet to establish even one fact, one that usurps the rule of law, due process and the bedrock process that sustains democracy at this stage of the campaign. But in a country where some Republicans are already working on ways to impeach Clinton should she be elected, it is not surprising. And all the while the quality of life enjoyed, or even imagined, by most Americans slides backwards. The connection is obvious and the warnings devastatingly clear. Even for us.