Objection - Interviewer is leading the Interviewee!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/14/politics/comey-clinton-emails/index.html
ABS reported, in part, the following:
"Former FBI director James Comey says his belief that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential election played a role in the way he handled the investigation into her use of a private email sever as secretary of state."

"Wasn't the decision to reveal influenced by your assumption that Hillary Clinton was going to win, and your concern that, she wins, this comes out several weeks later and then that's taken by her opponents as a sign that she's an illegitimate president?," Stephanopoulos asks.
In a court of law, an objection would have been raised, no doubt, for asking a leading question.  Good journalism does not put words into the mouth of the interviewee because doing so is the root of fake news.

"It must have been," Comey responds, adding, "I don't remember consciously thinking about that, but it must have been. I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump. I'm sure that it was a factor. I don't remember spelling it out, but it had to have been. That she's going to be elected president, and if I hide this from the American people, she'll be illegitimate the moment she's elected, the moment this comes out."

In his book, "A Higher Loyalty," Comey expresses a similar sentiment, writing, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls."

From the foregoing, it appears, Comey is speculating about what prompted his actions.  To me that sounds like Comey is fabricating stories, on the fly.  An important decision, such as he made must have made an indelible impression in his mind, and should rule out any statements, like " It is entirely possible that...", or "I don't remember consciously thinking about that, but it must have been."

Comey, apparently, is in the habit of making notes, at least he claims that he memorialized his meeting with Trump, with written notes, so why would he be so uncertain about his assertions?  The truth can be repeated over and over, fiction on the other hand is another matter.  Moreover, why would the FBI Director overseeing an investigation into possible  wrongdoing by a public servant, worry about a political issue,  and base his actions on the possible outcome of an election?  This is, in my opinion, very troubling; the FBI must focus on their duty, and not be influenced by anticipated election results.

You may ask, why is the foregoing a social concern?  My reply would be, if anyone can publicly tell stories, in writing or during media interviews, based on, "... it must have been, or I don't remember spelling it out, but it had to have been.", then we have a social problem.  Yes, it concerns me because we teach our younger generation that success is achieved with B. S. and the truth no longer matters.  More importantly, Comey admitted his political concerns, which may be a violation, of existing FBI policy, and rules of law.  This makes this story a social concern, when we can no longer trust in the integrity of the FBI.