Political what-ifs are about as useful as a three-dollar bill, but they’re interesting to think about nonetheless. If Hinckley’s bullet had gone an inch or two to the left, would communism still have fallen just a few years later? If RFK had survived his assassination attempt, would that have meant no Watergate? If Florida counted its votes correctly, would we have avoided the Iraq War? If LBJ doesn’t get away with stealing his 1948 Senate election, does the Voting Rights Act pass? Now we can add another what if to the annals of political history: If Loretta Lynch hadn’t interfered in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email servers, would Donald Trump have still been elected?
At first glance, the question doesn’t make sense. Lynch, then the U.S. Attorney General, was only trying to help Hillary by minimizing the investigation into her email servers. Clinton lost to Trump even without being charged with a crime. If Lynch had allowed the investigation to proceed unimpeded, Trump only would have won by more, right? Not necessarily. (This all assumes that Lynch did anything wrong in the first place; Comey’s recent testimony doesn’t make her look particularly good—but that doesn’t mean Lynch actually suppressed an investigation.) (Read)