Replies

What Adams does not anticipate in his analysis is the possibility that Comey is getting the squeeze from two or more directions, and is responding based on who has the upper-hand.

He also ignores the many connections that Comey has to the Clintons including his brother on the board for the Clinton slush fund, and many others. Having said that, Adams version is plausible.

He’s also discounted the power of EGO. Comey wants the new FBI building named the James Comey FBI Building. He is sucking up to Congress.

Comey is getting the squeeze . . .

. . . from several directions. I think it's not entirely a coincidence that this came out after reports that 'thousands' of FBI agents are resigning because of the damage to the integrity of the FBI done by Comey.

So, on the first round he does his (agency's) investigative job and assembles evidence. Then, because of illegal but strong pressure from his boss (Lynch) he makes the unprecedented and irrelevant (to his job) comment about what a prosecutor would do - and recommends no further action. That's not his call to make. Determining what prosecutors do is the Attorney General's decision. He was just reporting it per orders. Self-serving, but weak. (Not the noble patriot Scott Adams suggests.)

Then, his agents start sending in resignation papers, and he has an excuse to send a letter to Congress saying that there is new evidence (which is, in fact, his job). Now he has the best of all worlds. His agents will retract their resignations, and he wins no matter who wins the elections. The letter (announcement) is too close to the election to resolve, so the significance to him is all about what happens after the election. If Hillary wins, the 'new investigation' dies. If Trump wins, the new data becomes "proof" that Comey has been honorable all along. In either case, he 'serves' the interests of the new President. Actually self-serving, but smart.

Which 'movie' is most consistent with the fact conspicuously absent from Scott Adams' analysis? The fact Comey changed from investigating and assembling evidence to assessing what prosecutors would do and making a 'recommendation' on that basis? If all Comey had done the first time is present the evidence and walk away, leaving Lynch to determine if prosecutors would act on it, then I could accept Adams's analysis as at least plausible. But Comey didn't do that, so we need a different 'movie.'