Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is adamant that former FBI Director James Comey must come back and give additional testimony on Capitol Hill, although Graham didn't specify whether that testimony needed to be public or in private.
"He is coming one way or the other if I have anything to do about it," Graham said on Fox News, meaning the hoped-for discussion from Comey could be voluntary or by subpoena.
Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a statement with fellow Republican and committee chairman Chuck Grassley in late August saying they had determined from interviews that Comey had begun drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary Clinton well before all of the elements of the Clinton investigation were complete, including the interview of Clinton.
"He told the committee that the main reason he got involved in July [of 2016] is because Lynch met Bill Clinton on the tarmac and he thought that compromised Loretta Lynch's impartiality so he sort of took over the case," Graham said. "He also told some people that the real reason he jumped into the middle of the case in July is he thought the Russians had an email between the DNC and the Department of Justice trying to rig the Clinton investigation. The real reason was not the tarmac meeting. I can't make sense of this. I'm very suspicious of the timing. I'm very suspicious of the reason."
Comey was fired by President Trump in May, something newly departed White House strategist Steve Bannon said could possibly be the biggest mistake in "modern political history."
Not long after, Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee about his interactions with President Trump in what was one of the most anticipated events in Washington. In that testimony, Comey said Lynch had asked him to describe the Clinton probe as a "matter" and not an "investigation."
"That language tracked the way that the campaign was talking about the FBI's work, and that's concerning," Comey said under questioning on June 8.
"I don't know whether it was intentional or not, but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate. We had a criminal investigation open, and so that gave me a queasy feeling."