Easily intimidated or readily enticed?
Reading Kimberley Strassel at the Wall Street Journal: Comey’s FBI Double Standard
“The entire spectacle—from the investigation to this week’s handover of files—demonstrates how much damage Mr. Comey has done to the FBI’s credibility. It’s good to see the bureau now taking national security seriously. Yet the director’s willingness to ignore those standards for Mrs. Clinton has sent the message that Americans can’t expect equal treatment under the law.”
Some may think we have been too hard on FBI Director James Comey in our criticisms of how his agency has handled certain “investigations” in recent months, most notably Hillary Clinton’s “careless” conduct regarding national security. Before that it was the FBI’s failure to find any wrong doing by the IRS despite the obvious efforts (successful) to destroy evidence and lie to Congress and the American people.
After all, Mr. Comey has for years lived off of a reputation for scrupulous honesty, integrity, transparency, and as a tough-minded champion of truth, justice and the American way. That is, a reputation based upon his defiance of the G W Bush 
administration and his selection of his good buddy Patrick Fitzgerald whose more than dubious pursuit of “justice’ in the Valerie Plame affair succeeded only in the grossly unjust persecution of “Scooter” Libby.
The Hillary Clinton “investigation”, however, has unmasked Mr. Comey’s well-crafted reputation and exposed him as either a political hack dedicated to protecting the Obama Justice Dept. and Hillary Clinton, or as an easily intimidated federal Barney Fife.
More from Strassel’s commentary:
Comey’s FBI Double Standard (excerpt)
Bear in mind what the FBI investigation revealed: We know that Mrs. Clinton for years emailed top secret information willy-nilly over a home-brew server that lacked security. We know that this classified information leached into the private email accounts of those with whom she communicated. We know that she cavalierly used her private email while in hostile countries, making it possible that those countries gained access. We know that Mr. Comey nonetheless chose not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for her “extremely careless” behavior.
Compare that standard with the one the FBI is now imposing on Congress, where the Clinton files are being guarded at a level that brings to mind the Vatican Secret Archives. Aides from an array of House committees described to me the extraordinary limits that have been placed on who can see the files and under what circumstances.
The FBI has provided just one set of Hillary files to be accessed by both the majority and minority members (and their staffs) of the House Oversight, Appropriations and Judiciary committees. That’s a single set of documents for hundreds upon hundreds of people. The files are being held in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) underneath the Capitol, a secure room reserved for viewing the highest-level secrets. That room is under lock, key and guard, and viewing is by appointment only.
Many of these lawmakers and aides hold some of the highest clearances available to Congress, yet they are nonetheless barred from examining vast portions of the record. The FBI in some cases redacted entire documents, presumably at the request of various intelligence agencies, and to protect national security. Initially, visiting congressmen and staffers were not allowed to take any notes. After intense negotiations, the FBI on Thursday relented, but only on the condition that all notes remain behind in the SCIF.
Some of this is as it should be. These are, after all, national secrets. Yet the process highlights not only the absurdity of Mrs. Clinton’s claim that her server was no big deal, but also the irresponsibility of the FBI’s decision not to prosecute.
DLH
