It was a legitimately tricky scenario. Without justifying it, here is why I consider that a borderline call (one I disagree with, but a borderline call I think

It was a legitimately tricky scenario. Without justifying it, here is why I consider that a borderline call (one I disagree with, but a borderline call I think he's qualified to make): Imagine Congress calls you in to testify under oath about something, over and over. This is not a big priority for you, but it is something the oversight committees care about a lot and cooperation can make your life easier when it comes to e.g. getting funding for solving serial killings. They make you testify under oath over and over about e.g. the number of emails. They ask you on Monday under penalty of perjury, and by Wednesday you have a new answer. Your choices are to tell them, have it leak, and be criticized for influencing an election. Or don't tell them, make your life harder, and have them say you were concealing relevant information before the election (because we all found out it was nothing in advance of the election, so the concealing would have broken as a news story too). Honestly, he was going to get tagged with this either way. It was just which flavor of scandal he wanted.