FACT CHECK: FBI is Not “Reopening” the Clinton Email Case

by Josh Guckert

On Friday afternoon, social media platforms were abuzz with the news that the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton‘s emails would be “reopened.” However, as it turns out, that description is not fully accurate. The text of the announcement suggests only that James Comey had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”

He goes on to say that the FBI “should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” Comey goes on to state that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work. I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.”

The word “reopen” or any derivation thereof does not appear anywhere in Comey’s memo. The most prominent appearance of this phrase is in a tweet by Jason Chaffetz.

A distinction: Comey did not say ‘reopening investigation.’ That language came from House Oversight Chair @jasoninthehouse.

— Katie Bo Williams (@KatieBoWill) October 28, 2016

Numerous conservative (and some mainstream) outlets have used Chaffetz’s words to indicate the seriousness of the story. If a “reopening” were indeed occurring, that would be an interesting matter indeed. However, by blurring the lines of reality, the story is being propagated as something which it is not.

UPDATE: As pointed out by various publications, the original investigation was never formally closed. Therefore, while this new information may be used in continuance of the ongoing investigation, the significance of such an occurrence is far less than if a once-closed investigation were required to be “reopened.” As asserted by Comey, there is no indication whatsoever that the new information will lead to anything of substance. Therefore, the above unaltered report remains pertinent.