The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Monday, April 16, 2018


As predicted, former, fired FBI director James Comey is all the rage among the trained hamsters of the main stream media. In a largely fawning interview conducted by former Democratic operative and Clinton confidant, George Stephanopoulos (no anti-Trump bias there, right?), Comey played his appointed role—part victim, part intrepid law enforcement officer, part hero for speaking "truth" to power, ... and unquestionably, part truth-teller.

In a classic evidence-free dissertation, Comey made weak allegations of "obstruction" (the new Democratic meme since "Russian collusion" has now become a running joke), told us that in his opinion, Trump should not be president and otherwise avoided any hard or probing questions because Stephanopoulos didn't ask any.

But at the same time, there's a small problem. Comey claims that he was unable or unwilling or something to bring his concerns about the Clinton email investigation to the Attorney General or Barack Obama. What Comey claims to be truth is NOT what other's in the Obama administration claim to be true. For example, ex-AG Loretta Lynch (you remember, the same Lorretta Lynch who secretly met with Bill Clinton at a small airport to discuss grandkids and golf during the Clinton "investigation") tweets this
“I have known James Comey almost 30 years. Throughout his time as Director we spoke regularly about some of the most sensitive issue in law enforcement and national security. If he had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did.”
Gosh, either Comey is lying or Lynch is lying. Likely, both are lying. The truth would indicate, I suspect, that the Clinton email investigation was to be spiked from day one. After all, Hillary was a slam dunk for the presidency—until she wasn't.

But the trained hamsters in the media have no interest whatsoever in that part of Comey's story. They're far more interested in emphasizing his weak opinions and evidence-free allegations against Donald Trump. No surprise, of course, and easily predictable, but yet another indication of the blatant bias that pervades the coverage of Trump and every aspect of his administration.


Donald Trump in his characteristically blunt and coarse way, calls James Comey a "scum bag" and a "liar." Trump's style is questionable, but as in many other situations, the president is not far off the mark in describing Comey. Law professor Jonathan Turley states this assessment in a more measured manner when he writes:
One could easily ask what any of this [Comey's book] has to do with justice as an ideal, let alone the Justice Department as an institution. Comey’s book makes the answer plain: Nothing. Comey is selling himself with the vigor of a Kardashian and the viciousness of a Trump. While professing to write the book to protect the FBI as an institution, Comey is doing that institution untold harm by joining an ignoble list of tell-all authors.

Until this week, the very notion of a tell-all book by a former FBI director would have been a contradiction in terms. Past directors have been remarkably circumspect. That ended with Comey’s $100 a ticket book tour to get the nitty-gritty on Trump. Both the book and Comey’s sit-down with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News feature a carefully constructed image of Comey as the virtuous man thrown into the pit of perdition that is the Trump White House.
Comey was largely unchallenged in the interview as he claimed to be the “guardian” of the FBI. If true, it is a curious way to go about that. Comey was the most senior person investigating the president, and that investigation is ongoing. Prosecutors and former prosecutors are not supposed to discuss active investigations in public. It cannot benefit this investigation to have Comey hold forth on the underlying facts or reference disclosed and undisclosed evidence, nor is it helpful to his role as a cooperating witness. Witnesses are generally asked to avoid public comments, let alone tell-all books.
In actuality, the Comey interview was a lot more like an informercial, hosted by a partisan Democratic hack who asked softball questions and rarely challenged his guest. The Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd reveled in Comey's characterization of trump as "unfit," as if that statement somehow ends all debate on the matter. There are many, myself included, who might opine that Hillary Rodham Clinton was far more "unfit" for the presidency. The difference in the two opinions is that there is clear and irrefutable evidence of Clinton's dishonesty and corruption and only evidence-free hysteria where Trump is concerned.

Comey is an embarrassment to the FBI and to himself. He is a self-serving member of the elites who, like many inside the beltway, bet on Clinton as president and lost -- badly. At the very least, he should be ignored. If there was justice (and there isn't), he should be given a short, but painful jail sentence.