In the first round of questions at Thursday’s House Oversight hearing with FBI Director James Comey, committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz laid the groundwork for yet another probe of Hillary Clinton. With obvious disbelief, Chaffetz asked Comey if the FBI had followed up on Clinton’s remark — during the Benghazi hearing — that there was “nothing marked classified on my e-mails either sent or received.” In his Tuesday press conference, announcing what seemed to be the end of the email server story, Comey had contradicted Clinton’s answer.

“Did the FBI investigate her statements under oath on this topic?” asked Chaffetz.

“Not to my knowledge,” said Comey. “I don’t think there’s been a referral from Congress.”

“Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?” asked Chaffetz.

“Sure do,” said Comey.

“You’ll have one,” said Chaffetz. “You’ll have one in the next few hours.”

By the end of the day, Chaffetz had indeed asked the FBI to probe Clinton again, and find out whether she misled Congress. While the just-concluded FBI investigation was requested by the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, a new probe of Clinton would be a product of Congress — a distinction that carries obvious partisan implications.

That is a risk Republicans are ready to take. The speed with which the Comey hearings were announced suggested an attempt to seize the narrative of Comey’s decision. As far as the Clinton campaign was concerned, the lack of an indictment — something Republicans speculated openly about for months — was the finale, yet another stick of dynamite that burned out at the wick.

“Comey said a lot of things,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., this week. “The only thing he said that matters is that she has been legally exonerated.”

Republicans have rejected that reading, in two ways. First, they have portrayed Comey’s decision not to pursue charges as proof that the political system protects powerful people and punishes the obscure.

“Eighty percent of the people believe this town is rigged against them,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, at a panel sponsored by the Heritage Foundation on Thursday, citing polling by Pat Caddell. “I would argue that they believe that because it’s true. It sure looks like there are two standards: One for We the People, and one for the politically connected.”

Second, Republicans have searched Comey’s Tuesday statement, and his answers to the Oversight Committee, for evidence that Clinton misled Congress and can therefore be probed again.

“From what Comey said the other day, I think she’s done for,” said Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., who is retiring this year, but is trying to create a new independent counsel to investigate Clinton’s use of a private server. “She said time and time again, while she was being investigated: ‘I never sent any classified information on that server.’ Well, that’s been found to be a lie. He said in committee today that she wasn’t sophisticated enough to recognize the markings. So being stupid is better than being a liar?’

Just as the existence of Clinton’s “homebrew” server became known as a result of the long-running Benghazi investigation, the evidence Republicans now point to for their perjury claim consists of quotes Clinton gave to the Select Committee on Benghazi. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., also asked Comey to consider whether Clinton had misled about the server during a Democratic debate.

At Thursday’s Oversight hearing, Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., made what Republicans saw as the strongest case for going after Clinton again. After repeatedly asking Comey to confirm that Clinton had made false statements, Gowdy argued that those statements could have been weaved together in a strong case.

“In your old job, you would prove intent … by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and I just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve,” said Gowdy. “You would argue all of that under the heading of intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme, when it started, when it ended and the number of e-mails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.”

Republicans are divided on what to do with that information, and that argument. Chaffetz’s referral was one idea; the independent counsel was another. And on Thursday’s episode of Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., argued that Clinton may have violated Section 1001 of the U.S. Code, a potential crime that carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

“We can all go read Section 1001 for ourselves, but we watched Section 1924, other statutes, be criminally violated, and so far, our Justice Department has declined to prosecute a person who was our nation’s most senior diplomat,” said Pompeo.

“I would love to see Chairman Gowdy put out a list of statements that she made to the committee which have been contradicted by what you now know based upon Director Comey,” said Hewitt. “So that the Benghazi Committee make a formal referral that the FBI investigate the following statements, and then go through her sworn testimony.”

Pompeo agreed. “I think such a task, such an undertaking would be important, and I think it is absolutely the case that the Justice Department ought to review whether or not Section 1001 was violated,” he said.

(c) 2016, The Washington Post · David Weigel