TITLE: REVEALED: Comey’s Original Hillary Clinton Email Memo Suggested Possible Felony Violations
SENTENCE 1: Johnson explained, “The edits to Director Comey’s public statement, made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI’s public evaluation of the implications of her actions.”  “This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an ‘insurance policy’ against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election,” Sen.
SENTENCE 2: Comey wrote, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statute proscribing gross negligence in the handling of classified information and of the statute proscribing misdemeanor mishandling, my judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”  The FBI explained to Congress that the edits were made by staffers to Comey and then accepted by the former FBI director before he announced later in July 2016 that he would not pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.
SENTENCE 3: FBI subordinates changed that characterization to the weaker it was “possible.”  The document also details that on five separate occasions the memo was altered from terms such as “grossly negligent,” which would imply evidence supporting felony and misdemeanor crimes, to the more innocuous “extremely careless.”  The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a new investigation into the Clinton Foundation, as reported by The Hill on Thursday night.

Bias label: slightly
Annotator rationales:
If the text claims that edits to Comey’s statement significantly altered the FBI’s public evaluation, then it risks implying bias or manipulation without providing concrete evidence of such intent.
If the text suggests personal animus among senior agents without substantiating evidence, then it risks promoting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that undermine trust in law enforcement institutions.
If the text implies that senior agents sought to interfere in the 2016 election through an ‘insurance policy,’ then it risks perpetuating speculative narratives that lack verifiable proof.
If the text highlights Comey’s judgment while omitting context about the legal standards for prosecution, then it risks oversimplifying the rationale behind his decision and undermining its credibility.
If the text attributes the edits solely to staffers and Comey’s acceptance without exploring their reasoning or process, then it risks framing the changes as arbitrary or biased without sufficient evidence.
If the text contrasts ‘grossly negligent’ with ‘extremely careless’ as though the latter absolves responsibility, then it risks oversimplifying the legal distinctions between these terms.
If the text describes the change in wording as deliberately weakening the characterization, then it risks implying intent to downplay wrongdoing without providing evidence of such motive.