Probably the most compelling case for the negative power of Comey’s letter over Clinton’s candidacy is the table displayed in a Vox study.5 Policy/elections experts Sean McElwee, Matt McDermott, and Will Jordan averaged all the RealClearPolitics polls in the battleground states on three dates:
• October 21, the week before the Comey letter
• October 28, the day of the letter
• November 7, the day before Election Day
LATE SHIFT IN THE BATTLEGROUND STATES (Trump lead in RealClearPolitics)
10/21
10/28
11/7
Result
Polls post-10/28*
Virginia
–8
–8
–5
–5.3
6
Colorado
–7.2
–5
–2.9
–4.9
7
Maine
–5.2
–5.2
–4.5
–2.7
1
Nevada
–4.2
–1.6
0.8
–2.4
4
New Hampshire
–8
–5.2
–0.6
–0.4
7
Michigan
–11.6
–6.2
–3.4
0.2
5
Wisconsin
–7
–6.5
–6.5
0.7
2
Pennsylvania
–6.2
–5
–1.9
0.7
6
Florida
–4
–0.7
0.2
1.2
6
Arizona
–1.3
–1.5
4
3.5
1
North Carolina
–2.5
–2.4
1
3.7
4
Georgia
4
2.8
4.8
5.2
5
Ohio
0.6
1.5
3.5
8.1
3
Iowa
3.7
1.4
3
9.4
3
AVERAGE
–4.1
–3.0
–0.5
1.2
*individual pollsters counted only once
Source: McElwee, McDermott, and Jordan
The result of these comparisons is breathtaking proof of the devastating, game-changing impact of Comey’s letter on Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.
The table shows that as of October 28, Clinton would have won the battleground states of Virginia, Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina, which, combined with the states she won on November 8, gives her 333 electoral votes to Donald Trump’s 205, a tally almost identical to the FiveThirtyEight Big Comey Effect scenario depicted on page 149, which showed Clinton with 336 electoral votes.
And since her trend lines would likely have gone up without all the saturated negative media driven by the Comey letter after October 28, she was close enough possibly to pick up Georgia, where she was behind by fewer than 3 points; Ohio, behind by 1.5 percent; and Iowa, with a deficit of 1.4 percent.
Also in the Vox article, the policy/election experts compared the results of absentee ballots cast prior to the October 28 letter with actual Election Day results. This was a rough way to measure the impact of the letter, like the late deciders who were polled by exit day pollsters. If there was a substantial disparity between the results of absentee ballots, which were presumably close to a cross section of all voters in the state (assuming both campaigns had relatively equivalent absentee ballot efforts, which they did), and actual results, then that disparity would be strong evidence of the Comey Effect.
Rhode Island
The Vox article shows this disparity in this deep blue state, strongly Democratic and for Hillary Clinton. A serious gap/falloff here from the absentee ballot split to the final results would provide strong evidence of the adverse Comey Effect. In 2012, President Barack Obama received 61 percent of the absentee ballots in Rhode Island, and in 2016 Clinton received 60 percent. On Election Day, Obama did about the same (slightly better, by 5 percent).
But in the eleven days between the pre–Comey letter total and Election Day, Clinton’s support in the state dropped 13 points. That is huge—and inexplicable except for the impact of Comey’s letter.
Florida
The same substantial Clinton drop-off occurred in Florida. This critical state was in a virtual dead heat, according to the last RealClearPolitics average, prior to October 28. Clinton won the absentee ballots 52 percent to 48 percent (excluding the Libertarian and Green Party votes), but the comparable two-party spread on Election Day was +12 percent—56 percent Trump and 44 percent Clinton. That type of swing cannot be explained entirely by increased turnout in the rural and working-class Trump areas.
Steve Schale/Central Florida/the Critical I-4 Corridor
The Vox writers reported on the results of Steve Schale, the well-known Florida political consultant and strategist who had managed Obama’s successful 2008 campaign and who had predicted, based on early voting before Comey’s letter, that Clinton would carry Florida.
Schale examined the crucial swing-vote area around the I-4 corridor, in the central portion of the state, including Orlando and Tampa Bay and Daytona Beach. He found that Clinton won the early vote with 56.3 percent of the two-party vote compared to only 47.3 percent on Election Day. Vox reports that this was a “highly unusual gap suggesting a pretty significant surge.”
* * *
The data on late-deciding voters may be some of the strongest evidence demonstrating the impact of the Comey letter. Since nothing significant happened in the last week other than the letter, the huge disparity in the results of these late deciders compared to the total state results must have been caused or heavily influenced by Comey’s letter. There is some counterpoint to this argument, that voters who wait till the last week to make up their minds often lean against the incumbent or, in the case of Hillary Clinton, the “establishment” candidate. On the other hand, given Donald Trump’s enormous personal negatives on character, temperament, behavior, qualifications, and fitness for office in all the polls, it may be more likely that these late deciders who didn’t like Hillary Clinton were still ready to vote for her, even “holding their nose,” given how fearful they were of Trump.
The most reliable way to assess these late deciders is through exit polls. Pollsters are stationed outside polling places throughout a state, gathering a random sample of thousands of voters (and thus low margins of errors), asking them not only whom they voted for but also why.
Here is the revealing, and maybe the most compelling, data about voters in the key battleground states who waited until the last week before deciding whom to vote for—again, compiled in the Vox article.
VOTERS WHO DECIDED THEIR VOTES THE WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION (EXIT POLL DATA) (PERCENT)
Clinton
Trump
Margin of difference
Trump margin
Wisconsin
30
59
Trump 29
+0.7
Pennsylvania
37
54
Trump 17
+0.7
Michigan
39
50
Trump 11
+0.3
North Carolina
41
59
Trump 18
+3.7
Florida
38
55
Trump 17
Source: FiveThirtyEight
Not withstanding the narrow margins in these five states, of course, there are pundits who prefer to focus on Clinton’s mistakes, which she has acknowledged, and get angry that she “blamed” Comey. Kevin Drum, a writer for Mother Jones, addressed those who wanted to focus on Clinton’s mistakes—and it is hard to rebut his thesis that the math on October 28, 2016, speaks for itself:
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Hillary Clinton was an epically bad, unpopular candidate who ran a terrible campaign. . . . If this is true, it was true for the entire year. Maybe longer. And yet, despite this epic horribleness, Clinton held a solid, steady lead over Trump the entire time. . . . The public still preferred her by a steady 3–7 percentage points over Trump the entire year. . . .
Basically, Hillary Clinton was doing fine until October 28. Then the Comey letter cost her 2–4 percent of the popular vote. Without Comey she would have won comfortably—possibly by a landslide—even though the fundamentals predicted a close race. . . .
If you disagree that Comey was decisive, you need to account for two things. First, if the problem was something intrinsic to Clinton or her campaign, why was she so far ahead of Trump for the entire race? Second, if Comey wasn’t at fault, what plausibly accounts for Clinton’s huge and sudden change in fortune starting precisely on October 28?
One way or another, it appears that all the things that were under Hillary Clinton’s control were handled fairly well. They produced a steady lead throughout the campaign [through October 27, 2016]. The Comey letter exists on an entirely different plane. It was an unprecedented breach of protocol from the FBI; it was completely out of Clinton’s control; and it had a tremendous impact. That’s why I blame James Comey for Donald Trump’s victory.6
* * *
*. Wang wrote that he made the adjustment regarding the issue that later gave the New York Times’ Nate Cohn concerns about the certainty of the Comey Effect, doubts he expressed in his May 8, 2017, New York Times piece. He pointed out Clinton’s decline in some polls prior to October 28 (which was actually no more than 1–2 points in the two weeks prior to October 28, as Republicans showed signs of “coming home”). He surmised that the failure to pick up this decline in a poll the Times had taken in Florida, showing Trump slightly gaining, was due to the time lag between the dates the polls were conducted and the published dates of the results a couple of days later. Wang said he adjusted the data by several days to avoid “time travel,” but it made no difference. The national lead by Clinton was still about 6 percent as of October 28.
†. The Obama panel had 6 percent less undecided (of course, Obama did not suffer the dramatic effects of a letter). A “panel” polling approach randomly selects a statistically significant number of people and then polls and repolls them on a regular basis. This avoids possible disparities with normal polling methodology—picking a different random sample for each poll. There are pluses and minuses with each approach. In this case, both produced approximately the same result during about the same time period. Hopkins explains the purpose of an ongoing panel rather than different samples each time: “Panel surveys differ from other polls in that they re-interview the same people repeatedly, allowing us to see how specific Americans’ attitudes shift over time. They thus help us sidestep the problem that some groups of people might be more likely to take polls when their candidate is thought to be doing well or receiving favorable press coverage.”
EPILOGUE
* * *
It’s Time for an Impeachment and Twenty-Fifth Amendment Investigation
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
—Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 4
As stated in the introduction to this book, the importance of demonstrating that James Comey’s October 28, 2016, letter cost Hillary Clinton the presidency is not about defending her campaign or even compiling broader historical truth. As instructive as these points are, they are in the past, and now the future looms—with three more years of Donald Trump as president. And yet we know that Trump was elected illegitimately—that is, not as a reflection of the popular will expressed in an uncorrupted, fair, and free election. We know that with certainty. We know that from data that cannot be disputed. We know that but for the intervention of FBI director James Comey on October 28, sending a fact-free, entirely speculative letter to the U.S. Congress, triggering an avalanche of negative media about Clinton under a new (criminal) investigation, causing her poll numbers to drop precipitously both nationally and in the key battleground states, Clinton would have won the election with a majority of electoral votes. We know with certainty that she would have at least won the three states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin but for the Comey letter, since she lost those three states by less than 1 percent each, and by a total of 78,000 votes combined in all three.
Thus we know that Donald Trump’s election was a quirk, an anomaly, a fluke of James Comey’s poor judgment and preoccupation with self. Whatever other reasons there may be to oppose an impeachment process investigation regarding Donald Trump, one of them cannot be that to do so would be to flout the popular will by overturning the electoral vote count that he would not have earned without the fluke of James Comey’s last-minute improper intervention.
Add to that the irrefutable, unanimous conclusion that the Russian government and intelligence service meddled in the U.S. election in favor of Trump and harming Hillary Clinton. We may not know whether that meddling was decisive, but it doesn’t matter. We know that it happened—even while Trump lies and denies it. And that further delegitimizes his election as president.
It is therefore mandatory, in light of the actions and conduct of Donald Trump in his first year as president, that an impeachment investigation process be initiated and, one would hope, on a bipartisan basis.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is already at work investigating collusion between the Trump camp and Russia, a concept so inimical to all our country that to simply utter the notion is profoundly disturbing. Yet although indicting a president is theoretically possible, it has never happened and is not the best way to get to the truth of what the president knew and when he knew it. Moreover, Mueller is vulnerable to being fired by Trump.
There is a better way to find out what Trump has—or has not—done, which is for Congress to begin an impeachment investigation. The nation, its history, and the democratic traditions of our great republic demand no less. Our Constitution gives Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, the awesome power to get to the truth about a president’s abuse of power and betrayal of the trust placed in him. And the House and Senate impeachment process is the best way to determine whether—and, if so, how—alien and hostile forces of the Russian government at the highest levels succeeded in corrupting our democracy. If there is evidence of collusion by any American, much less the president himself, then we must know that. And if there is none, we must know that too.
So now let’s look at the facts that are not in dispute—and those that are unknown and need to be investigated and can best be obtained by involving the president himself through the power of the House of Representatives to conduct an impartial impeachment inquiry.
* * *
The framers sought to create a government by the people, in contrast to England’s government by the privileged monarchy. Critical to this concept of self-government, they believed, was the ability to remove certain officials from office if necessary. Hence, this was one of the first provisions brought up at the Constitutional Convention in May 1787.
Despite the importance of this provision, the record of the convention contains little guidance on what constitutes grounds for impeachment. The words “treason” and “bribery” are well understood, but what constitutes “high crimes” or “misdemeanors” rem
ains the subject of debate, particularly in the years during and after the impeachment inquiries involving Presidents Nixon and Clinton. It is important to note that the delegates’ understanding of “misdemeanor” had to do with conduct of public officials and not with crimes punishable by lower sentences, which is how the word is currently used in American law.
James Madison, frequently called the Father of the Constitution, stated during the convention that a removal provision was necessary for “defending the Community ag[ain]st the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service [is] not a sufficient surety. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. [His] loss of capacity or corruption . . . might be fatal to the Republic.”1
* * *
The ratification discussions that were published as the Federalist Papers focused more on the impeachment process itself. However, these arguments often included descriptions of conduct that could lead to impeachment. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 65, wrote of the process: “The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust . . . [and] relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” Repeated incontrovertible lies by a president could be considered the abuse of a public trust.
Scholars look to American history for guidance in what conduct constitutes an impeachable offense. To date, no president has been removed from office under the impeachment clause. While several federal judges, a senator, and a cabinet secretary have been so removed, constitutional scholars point out that because a president is uniquely situated, these cases provide little understanding as to grounds for impeachment of the chief executive. However, there is general agreement that the offenses include the abuse of power that is inherent in the office of president.
The Unmaking of the President 2016 Page 14