The Post does so in an editorial titled The damage Comey’s bad timing could do.
It places the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s emails server in a full context, and acknowledges that the FBI had something of an obligation to inform the public of the rationale for its decision.
But then comes three paragraphs starting with the actions associated with the original decision, as well as what happened on Friday.
Mr. Comey went too far, however, in providing raw FBI material to Congress, notwithstanding its important oversight role; that attempt to appease Republicans set a precedent that future partisans who are unhappy with the results of FBI investigations may exploit.
Mr. Comey found himself in a bind when his investigators turned up additional, previously unexamined Clinton emails, apparently on devices belonging to top aide Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner, seized during an FBI probe of the latter’s alleged sexual misconduct with a minor. (As if this could not get any more bizarre.) If Mr. Comey failed to tell Congress before Nov. 8 about his decision to review them, he would be accused — again — of a politically motivated coverup. By revealing it, he inevitably creates a cloud of suspicion over Ms. Clinton that, if the case’s history is any guide, is unwarranted. Hence Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s not unreasonable demand that Mr. Comey “immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining.”
Mr. Podesta said he is “confident” full disclosure “will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.” If so, the question will be how badly damaged was Ms. Clinton’s candidacy by the 11th-hour re-eruption of a controversy that never should have generated so much suspicion or accusation in the first place.
The New York Times has also editorialized on this, in a piece titled Emails Again, This Time With Anthony Weiner, of which the final paragraph reads
But Mr. Comey’s failure to provide any specifics about a new, potentially important development, less than two weeks before Election Day, is confounding. As Mr. Comey put it in July, “The American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.” They deserve details even more urgently today.
Now the question is what if anything else will be forthcoming from Director Comey.
Further questions involve whether the press will properly explain, after totally making a mess of it in their reporting this past afternoon and into the evening, and what if any effect it will have upon the election.
To which I would add this — there needs to be major calling out of Republicans who tried to flog this as something that “proved” Mrs. Clinton should be denied intelligence briefings (Paul Ryan) or that what occurred warranted either locking her up (Donald Trump) or further investigations (many, many, Republicans, starting with Jason Chaffetz).