When you listen to James Comey speak about his misadventures as FBI Director, a legitimate question comes to mind. Given the clarity we gain as he speaks – that he was really for neither side – he was for himself – if, to advantage himself, a man can decide something that is clearly a crime is not how much of a stretch is it to think he would create a crime from something that is not to do the same?
The answer is that it isn’t a stretch at all.
The most interesting aspect of all this sancticomey is that his co-conspirators from both sides are now accusing him of rank fabrications as he positions himself as the Last Honorable Man in Washington. Too bad being honorable is seeking truth, not trying to hang on to a job giving access to the halls of power. What else explains the former FBI Director’s actions in the Clinton investigation when Hillary was crushing Trump in the polls? Could political positioning have anything to do with his decision to short circuit that investigation by announcing there would be no indictment even though Hillary committed crimes but didn’t really mean to do it, then 11 days from the election, saying – “Hey, you know what? Trump might win this thing, so she may be guilty after all.”
Comey’s interview with ABC’s Democrat Operative disguised as a “journalist”, George Snuffleupagus, pretty much confirmed that he was being influenced, if not directly guided, by the polling data.
Perhaps the most influential analysis of who would win came from Nate Silver’s 538 operation – an organization that was uncannily accurate in 2012 and 2014. Silver had Hillary’s chances at almost 90 to 10 over Trump on August 14, dropping to a low of 55 to 45 after the first debate on September 26, Hillary’s chances climbed back up to nearly 90% on October 17, just before the last debate – but began to fall even before Comey’s “Wait. Maybe she is guilty” letter to Congress on October 28. On Election Day, she was at 71.4% likelihood to Trump’s 28.6%.
Even given her pre-Comey swoon, you aren’t supposed to lose an election with stats like that.
But she did…and Comey saw the possibility she might lose and had to hedge his bet. The trend put him in the position of being able to either say “Look at how honorable I am, President Hillary is not above the law – even though Miss Loretta and I will drop this like a hot rock before the inauguration” or “Look at how honorable I am President Trump, I didn’t let Hillary’s candidacy stand in the way of my relentless pursuit of the truth.”
Comey is trying to extricate himself from a political cesspit – but all his book does is indicate that he was up to his neck in it – and not only was he in it, he was swimming laps.
How can anyone trust the judgement (or motives) of someone who assigns validity to information based on whether it advances his personal agenda? Clearly, James Comey had an agenda flexible enough to fit whomever was in the Oval Office and that makes the tile of his work of apparent fiction, A Higher Loyalty, laughable – unless that “higher loyalty” means being “loyal” to himself no matter what it took.
Someone wrote that Comey is neither good or bad, he is just a fraud. I agree – but unfortunately for the American people, he isn’t the only one.