Posted on 06/10/2017 6:00:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
Trying to be objective -- and that's sometimes difficult for me when it comes to politics -- I don't agree that former FBI Director James Comey's congressional testimony was equally good news and bad news for President Trump. Trump came away a decisive winner.
Most agree that Trump benefited from Comey's admission that Trump was not in fact under FBI investigation for colluding with the Russians or for anything else. But many Trump critics, left and right, see Comey's negative portrait of Trump as so damaging as to cancel out the positive news, which, on reflection, is incorrect.
It's true that Comey painted Trump as dishonest, petty and vindictive and as one who operates in office as a business executive rather than someone who respects the parameters of his authority. Even if true, is this caricature news to anyone? Trump's critics already believe it, and most of his supporters believe it is overstated.
This is not to say that Trump's defenders would approve of any abuses of authority, but they aren't predisposed to assume that every unorthodox action on Trump's part is malicious or indicative of a tyrannical or criminal mindset.
So the only "news" that emerged from Comey's testimony -- the only facts that might change the status quo ante -- was that Trump has not been under investigation this whole time. Not only that but he did not pressure or even attempt to persuade Comey to go softly on any of his associates on the Russia investigation if it were discovered they had some illicit interaction with the Russians.
For some, Comey landed a blow against Trump in alleging he told Comey he "hoped" the investigation against Flynn would end and in requesting from Comey "honest loyalty." Here again, Trump's attackers are predisposed to assume Trump was using code to direct Comey to stop investigating Flynn and to pledge his loyalty to Trump above his professional duties. Trump's defenders reject that, so on this issue, the needle didn't move a centimeter in either direction.
Some might say: "Hold on. This isn't just a matter of Trump supporters believing one way and his defenders another. Comey was the only one in the room, and he took Trump's words as directives."
Well, even if you assume that's what Trump meant, which I don't, legal experts agree that no one has been charged with obstruction of justice on such vague language as "hope." The thought of it is preposterous. Moreover, some experts argue that as chief executive, he has the power to end investigations conducted by the executive branch. Let's remember that the Flynn investigation and Russia investigation are two different matters and that Trump is not the target of either one of them. If it occurred, it would have been inappropriate behavior but hardly criminal or impeachable conduct.
But I don't believe that Comey's inferences are accurate. Trump is an advocate by nature and is loyal to his friends. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that he was just expressing his vote of confidence in Flynn's character and was by no means suggesting that Comey ignore hard evidence against him, much less directing him to.
I have a hard time believing that Comey really thought at the time that Trump was giving him orders. If he really believed so, then it is indisputable that he acted improperly at the time and thereafter. If he really believed Trump was trying to obstruct justice, he had a duty to do something about it, but instead, he decided to hold it close to the vest and only use it if he needed it later. Is that the way a man in his position should have behaved?
As to Trump's firing of Comey, if you were Trump, wouldn't you be outraged if Comey refused to disclose that you were not under investigation when everything else was leaked -- as Sen. Marco Rubio noted? Didn't Trump have a right to be indignant over the lies being disseminated every day on this and a right to want to quell these lies that were impeding his agenda? Was it unreasonable for Trump to think Comey was biased against him, seeing as Comey refused to set the record straight on this matter when he'd certainly tried to set the record straight publicly on other issues before?
What about Comey's revelations concerning his own bizarre behavior? I was originally willing to believe that Comey was scrupulously aboveboard and would strive for objectivity -- that he would try not to allow his personal biases to color his objectivity or influence the course of the investigation or his assessment of the evidence. Based on his own testimony, I am now quite skeptical.
Comey bent over backward to conclude that Hillary Clinton had no criminal intent in the handling of her private emails -- yet his conclusion was in direct conflict with the evidence he meticulously detailed against her. It is hard to believe he would have given any other target such an enormous benefit of the doubt.
Yet despite his professed reluctance to infer criminal intent there, he leaped to such conclusions against Trump with the eagerness of a never-Trumper. "Hope" equals "You are hereby ordered"? Give me a break. "Loyalty" equals "I order you not to follow the evidence wherever it may lead you"? Come on now. These inferences wouldn't be reasonable for any investigator, but for Comey, who expressed reluctance to making inferences on intent, they are outrageous.
Comey damningly admitted he leaked information to a Columbia law professor in the hope that it would lead to the appointment of a special investigator. Some say Comey was within his rights as a private citizen. But as certain legal experts have noted, he acquired that information when he was working for the government, and it wasn't his private property. Comey holds himself out as the pinnacle of decorum but became a perpetrator of the very type of conduct he was self-righteously investigating.
Some applauded Comey's willingness to speak truth to power, but he admitted that he didn't object to Trump's allegedly improper overtures to him. In this hearing, Comey showed himself to be far too concerned with the public's perception about him and allowed his personal feelings and biases to interfere with his objectivity. In the end, he didn't lay a glove on Trump but significantly damaged himself -- and, as a bonus, exposed Barack Obama's second attorney general, Loretta Lynch, as a perpetrator of the very behavior others have improperly attributed to Trump.
That “Shady Bunch” video is great! (Your cartoons are too.)
Outstanding commentary. Thank you. Beautifully written as well.
Congress critters are really on their toes there (as usual), aren’t they?
If you aren’t already, you need to be employed by a conservative news outlet, judging by your beautifully constructed post.
“Why doesn’t Congress subpoena Lynch?’
...and why hasn’t Hilary been taken to account for her email servers, and Bill for his tarmac conversations, and Comey for his playing the role of prosecutor in the Hilary “matter”, and the astronomical amount of money filtering into the Clinton Foundation, and the unmasking of American citizens for political purposes, and the re-writing of the health care bill in 2010 by the Supreme Court, and the fincancing of widespread, violent “resistance” riots by ANTIFA, the collusion between the press and the DNC in undermining a legitimately elected President....?
Welcome to the Banana Republic of America, now in the process of being completely subverted by Progressive revolutionaries.
IMHO
... the administration then chose to defame me and, more importantly, the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader.No, those are not lies, those are personal insults directed to Comey. They are at most opinion, none of those would be considered "defamation" as the law goes. But, Mr. Comey, if you really believe you have been defamed, you kow how to work the levers of civil law.Those were lies, plain and simple
Otherwise, you are just another partisan hack, prone to hyperboole.
And why haven’t the Clintons flown to a country where they’ll be safe from extradition? They must be looking over their shoulders every minute expecting to see Sessions on their heels.
I was telling my wife, this morning. Removing Comey and thoroughly discrediting him is a necessary prerequisite to going after Hillary, if that is ever in the cards.
The Rosenstein memo also goes to prosecution of Hillary for her private server.
It'll take time, and I don;t think getting Hillary is as important as slash and burn the snakes in State, other bureaucracies, etc. Yeah, she's a big fish, but dealing with her fixes NOTHING.
I enjoyed your post, especially "drain the swamp" vs "normalize the coup." Splendid framing on your part.
Superb analysis.
“Why doesn’t Congress subpoena Lynch? “
Why don’t they subpoena or indict anyone?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind....
Great title! Love it!
All of Comey’s glib remarks at the hearing become clearer......plus the endless headlines in the aftermath.
All fodder for Comey's 10 million book deal.
No wonder he looked so comfy and relaxed up there....sand very very talkative.
Comey dropped one bomb after another......practicing his chapter headings, I presume.
Oh, and one more thing.....Come had to exonerate Trump.
Bb/c Comey would not be able to get his grubby hands on the 10 mill if Trump were under investigation.
No snakes!
I think he's more concerned about staying alive...he dropped that bomb about Lynch, connecting Hillary, bad thing to do, we know he and his brother's connection to the Clintons, what we didn't know was the ‘matter’...ops on his part...
I think the book deal is to see if there are more ‘juicier’ things than what we know, how far is he willing to go to print them out??? That is the question...the Ten Million Dollar Question...
And given the Clintons' ability to commit every sort of crime through the "deny, deny, deny, deny" strategy, I can see his rationale.
You assume he's confident based on his suave and relaxed manner. You may be right, and he might also be deeply concerned inside. After all, we already know the guy is a master of deception and lies. He openly calls himself "cowardly" -- maybe he is.
Did Comey have any other choice to say the things he did say a couple days ago? Trump and Sessions have his "tapes" and whatever else he's hiding.
And given his disloyalty to Lynch and the NYT and Trump, he already seems willing to be the guy who takes all his fellow conspirators down -- in exchange for immunity.
But I don't understand: why can't he get his $10 million for the book if Trump is under investigation?
You've got to admit, stopping the DeepState has already turned out to be the case of the century -- maybe two centuries! Fascinating to speculate about it even though America's survival as a free republic is at stake.
/If Trump got investigated by something Comey said......Comey could not write about it b/c he’d be a potential witness.
You know Trump is going to be a big part of his book.
How else could Comey nail 10 million?
Loved to be a fly on the wall when they pitched that book to a pblisher....betcha 90% of the pitch was Comey’s testimony to Congress.
Wow, I get it now. He’s better off outside the government.
And you’re right, his testimony the other day is the publicity he needs to write his book.
I still say, there’s a good chance he writes the book wearing an orange jumpsuit.
LOL........I hope orange jumpsuist come in 6’8” sizes.
People forget what kind of power POTUS does have.
He wouldn’t even have to pardon Flynn in particular; if that is not prudent in the current context, he could publicly pardon someone else. Here is one obvious candidate:WHO BREAKS A BUTTERFLY UPON A WHEEL?
(The outrageous prosecution of Dinesh D’Souza)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.