The latest pearl-clutching news cycle comes from the NYT: Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation. The Gray Lady asserts on the third paragraph,

The documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.

Clearest evidence, they say? On paragraph six, the NYT declares they have not seen the memo at all,

The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.

Say again?

The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo,

They claim that this is “clearest evidence” that the President has tried to directly influence an investigation, but they haven’t even looked at it?

which is unclassified,

It’s unclassified because Comey wrote the memo to himself.

Comey is a lawyer. Lawyers routinely write memos to themselves on all sorts of subjects, including on ways to cover their butts. That does not make this memo (or its parts) as of itself a factual statement that would present “clearest evidence” of anything.

Not only that,

one of Mr. Comey’s associates

not Comey himself, who has been perfectly able to come forward anytime during the past three months (Michael Flynn was fired on February 13th) and present this “clearest evidence,” if it exists.

Why wait until after he was fired? Why not just quit in protest when it allegedly happened?

One thing Comey could have done short of quitting is inform the Senate Intelligence Committee of Trump’s alleged statement.

Comey didn’t make the call but instead had an unnamed associate, who

read parts of it

I’ve read whole articles over the phone when people asked me to. Just how long is this memo?

to a Times reporter.

Not to Michael Schmidt, who actually wrote the article, but to some unnamed person in the newsroom or somewhere.

So you get this,

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Not to pick on poor Rubin, but the pattern is a NYT-WaPo-CNN pearl-clutching circle over leaks provided by anonymous people over an investigation which has dragged on for several  months and has produced no evidence regarding Trump’s links to Russia.

In plain English: An unnamed person read parts of a note Comey wrote to himself (and kept in a drawer for three months), to an unnamed NYT employee.

The NYT calls it “clearest evidence;” the WaPo says it’s obstruction of justice.

Some are talking of impeachment over this – over some newspaper playing Mad Libs with stuff they haven’t actually seen.

Instead, I join with Charlie Martin in demanding, Show Me the Memos!

Here are some Tips For Reading Washington Post Stories About Trump Based On Anonymous Leaks. Pay special attention to #5, “Compare sources willing to put their name and reputation on the line.” Comey certainly hasn’t.

Likewise, John Podhoretz has valuable advice to Pres. Trump: STOP TALKING.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes in U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.

There is a breathless headline from an NBC Poll just out:

NBC/WSJ Poll: Just 29 Percent Approve of Trump’s Firing of James Comey

Now reading that headline you would think that 71 percent disapprove, and I’m sure that’s what NBC wants you to think, however if you actually read the story you find out…

Just 29 percent of Americans say they approve of President Donald Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, while 38 percent disapprove, according to results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Another 32 percent of respondents don’t have enough to say on the matter.

Don’t know enough to say?  Actually the poll says “No opinion” in the graphic but it’s another attempt to make the Comey firing a problem when it isn’t, particularly when you discover that the 38 percent that is angry is driven by Democrats (2 of 3 polled) who are likely outraged about Trump getting that 2nd scoop of Ice cream.

So in the interest of showing what media spin is I’ve taken the liberty of rephrasing the headline to reflect the actual reality which is this:

The US public doesn’t give a damn that Trump fired Comey, but the media wants them to.

Exit question, if after a week of pushing this story the united and concerted MSM media efforts can’t even get 40% of the public riled up about Comey what does that say about their power to actually influence the public these days?

That’s the real story here.

Update:  powerline discovers another headline to rephrase


All of this is paid for by you. If you think this site and our writers are worthwhile goal consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

By John Ruberry

Liberals and members of the mainstream media–okay, other than how they earn their paychecks there isn’t much difference between the two–have many intellectual flaws. But I’m going to zero in on just one here–their predilection to view all events through the sphere of the ’60s. For this discussion I’m going to bend time a bit–and call the ’60s as the years of 1964-1974, the period that covers Vietnam and the anti-war protests, the Civil Rights movement, and the Watergate Scandal. Richard M. Nixon, by the way, was elected to the presidency in 1968.

Older journalists looked back at the first and second Gulf Wars with nostalgia, especially when the anti-war protests broke out and during the pre-surge quagmire of 2005-2007. Younger journalists felt cheated by their absence from that first quagmire, Vietnam, and they didn’t want to miss out on what they saw as a second one.

Very few reporters who were on the job during Watergate are still working in journalism, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward. who is 74, is a notable exception, so those in the biz now are hoping that President Donald Trump’s firing of embattled (yes, embattled) FBI Director James Comey is their Watergate, which of course crescendoed with Nixon’s resignation before his almost certain removal from office by the Senate.

Watergate was of course much more than the break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, it was the cover up as well as the side scandals, such as the White House Plumbers, the dirty tricks, and the slush funds that made it America’s gravest political scandal.

Trump’s firing of Comey was ham-handed. If he had canned Comey shortly after being sworn-in, there would have been muted criticism from the left, as many Hillary Clinton supporters blamed Comey for her defeat last fall. Comey of course, in 2016’s October Surprise, reopened the investigation of Clinton’s reckless and illegal use of a home-brewed email server while she was Barack Obama’s secretary of state. Many prominent Democrats called for Comey’s resignation. When Trump did fire Comey last week, the White House didn’t know where to find him–Comey was in Los Angeles. And he learned of his dismissal from a television news report. And Trump, in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, contradicted the explanation from his deputy press secretary as to why he fired Comey. Finally, Trump’s hint that he may have taped one of his conversations with Comey doesn’t help the president’s case the public.

The media of course is drawing parallels to Comey’s firing to that of Richard Nixon forcing the dismissal of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Yes, Trump cited “this Russia thing” as one of the reasons for getting rid of Comey, but what is this “Russian thing?” Collusion? Meanwhile James Clapper, Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence said only a few hours ago that there is no evidence of any Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

And who seriously believes that Russia hacked the presidential election?

Rather it appears “this Russia thing” was invented by sore losers within the Hillary Clinton campaign.

So repeat after me. “Russian collusion” is not Watergate. James Comey is not Archibald Cox. Donald Trump is not Richard Nixon. While we’re at it, Black Lives Matter is not the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and the regular anti-conservative riots at Berkeley are not the Free Speech Movement.

So what does Woodward, who along with Carl Bernstein broke the Watergate scandal for the Washington Post, think about the Comey controversy? While conceding on Fox News Sunday this morning that there are some questions on Russia that he wants answered, he also told host Chris Wallace, “This is not yet Watergate. Not a clear crime.”

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators.

William F. Buckley Jr Up From Liberalism (1959)

A few days ago talking about Prager U’s excellent video on Nazi’s vs communists I wrote about the 180 the left did on the US entering WW 2 as soon as Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, we saw a perfect example of this on CBS yesterday.

As I and other noted the firing of FBI director James Comey forced a sudden 180 on the part of the left. For the last six months had been portraying him as public enemy number one on every TV show and social media platform that exists, and suddenly that same left decided getting rid of the said villain was prima facia evidence of our living in a police state.

Unfortunately nobody told Stephen Colbert’s audience that the meme had changed as Rush explains:

So anyway, Colbert goes out there. He says, “A huge story broke just moments ago, less than 10 minutes ago, FBI Director James Comey has just been fired by Donald Trump,” and his audience cheered!

His audience practically gave it a standing O, and Colbert didn’t know what to do. The audience, which is indicative of liberals and leftists all over the country, thought it was the greatest thing they could have heard because that’s what they’ve been conditioned to do: Hate Comey. They have been told that Comey stole the election from them by dumping all over Hillary. They’ve been told that Comey showed all kinds of favoritism to Trump, so they have been conditioned to literally hate Comey.

The Hillary camp has played a role in that; the Drive-By Media has led that charge; the Democrat Party got their digs in. So Colbert goes out there, and he’s fully expecting for his audience to boo and hiss, and what did they do? They cheered it! They gave it a standing ovation because that’s what they’ve been programmed to do. They’ve been told to hate Comey. Colbert was totally taken aback, and he said something like, “Wow, wow. Huge, huge Donald Trump fans here.”

As Jim Treacher put it:

 

It’s akin to Pavlov kicking his dog for coming when he rings the bell, or for those without a classical education the Good Wife episode: What’s in the Box where two sides in a courtroom are fighting over a ballot box one claiming it should be thrown out due to evidence of fraud and other other saying the votes should count, then suddenly word comes that the box has been opened and once the contents are known the two sides do an instant 180

Diane: Your Honor, we ask that these ballots be immediately counted to determine whether a fraud…
Patti: The sanctity of the voting booth must not be breached, Your Honor.

[then word comes out the votes in the box have been counted and it turns out the box contains exactly the opposite of what both sides expected it to be]
Diane: We… Your Honor, um…
Judge: Would you like to change your motion?
Diane: Yes, we– actually, we are going to withdraw the motion out of respect for the voting process.
Patti: We’d like to make a motion, Your Honor.
Judge: Of course you would.
Patti: These ballots are fraudulent and should be thrown out.

Alas unlike the cast of CBS’ The Good Wife the Audience wasn’t given the script.

Even better Jon Stewart who was the guest that night (it was a comedy central reunion show) ended up illustrating the absurdity of the situation: (commentary via newsbusters)

 

COLBERT: I got a question for the audience. When I said (previously) that Comey was fired by Trump, you all cheered — w-why? (more laughter) Is it because of what he did to Hillary? (cheers and applause from audience)

STEWART (pointing finger at audience): No!

COLBERT (reminding audience of proper response to Comey firing): But you know he’s investigating Trump’s campaign’s ties to Russia …

STEWART: Yes!

COLBERT: … which will now evaporate like cotton candy in the ocean.

STEWART (aware that Colbert is losing audience): No, you know what you got? You got, they were riding a wave. That was like a beginner’s surfers class where they were like (mimicking a struggling surfer), I’m standing up! Oh no, wait! (audience laughs after being insulted) Oh no, now I’m on my knees! Hold on! Which it was — I hate that guy, I love that guy, but Trump did, and they didn’t

 

In other words, how dare you ignorant masses not realize that the meme has changed.

Cue Gene Wilder:

This is what the left is reduced to, the cool kids being told what they have to think, when they have to laugh and when they are supposed to cheer.

And the really fun part of it? They think they are free thinkers.

Yesterday I was having a late lunch with my oldest and wondering what I would write about today, then I got home and saw this:

President Trump has fired the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, over his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, the White House said Tuesday.

HotAir expands on this:

Comey has had a strange ride in Washington. When he was investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails, conservatives hoped he would be the person to finally hold a Clinton responsible for misbehavior. When he announced there would be no charges, progressives praised him and conservatives were furious he had balked. Then when he sent the letter last October and Hillary subsequently lost the election, he became every progressive’s most-hated-man-in-Washington again. In the end, this gaffe proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. It was apparently too much for the Trump administration to take.

The gaffe they are referring to are reports that his testimony before congress concerning Hillary’s emails was less that accurate:

But were the original claims about the extent of Huma’s document dispersion accurate? I ran across an interesting piece at Propublica which claims that their investigations, including reports from unnamed sources “close to the investigation” revealed that Comey’s comments were “inaccurate” and the real numbers would be shown to be far lower. Can that be real? It may all come down to semantics.

The problem: Much of what Comey said about this was inaccurate. Now the FBI is trying to figure out what to do about it.

FBI officials have privately acknowledged that Comey misstated what Abedin did and what the FBI investigators found. On Monday, the FBI was said to be preparing to correct the record by sending a letter to Congress later this week. But that plan now appears on hold, with the bureau undecided about what to do.

Wow! If this is true then it’s a real bombshell they’ve got on their hands.

Well given the animus of the left toward Mr. Comey you would think this would be the cause of unmitigated joy

Or not

And it’s reached the point where members of congress are calling for a special prosecutor:

For myself I’m indifferent, I never cared for Comey and I won’t be crying any tears for him but it just seems like just two days ago when the left was attacking James Comey and Hillary was blaming him for her defeat and now the left has decided that removing the man they considered public enemy number one is practically grounds for impeachment. Perhaps this is similar to their argument against Trump Executive Order in court where they claim the same text if offered by a President Clinton would be legal. This suggests that when it comes down to it, the only standard the Democrat have is: “Can we uses this for our political advantage at this moment?” That’s quite a double standard but of course if the left didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.

I’ll give the last words to Ed Morrissey and Jim Treacher:


All of this is paid for by you. If you think this site and our writers are worthwhile goal consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

Today, the DoJ entered the fray to put an asterisk next to Donald Trump’s Presidency. They announced that they’re investigating the FBI for their pre-election actions. As you may recall, FBI Director James Comey was the first scapegoat offered up by the Democrats about why they lost so badly.

According to The Blaze:

The inspector general’s office at the Department of Justice announced Thursday that it will investigate the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state, as well as FBI Director James Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress stating that the bureau was reopening its case involving the Democratic nominee for president just days before the Nov. 8 election.The inspector general’s office at the Department of Justice announced Thursday that it will investigate the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state, as well as FBI Director James Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress stating that the bureau was reopening its case involving the Democratic nominee for president just days before the Nov. 8 election.

It’s been over two months since their devastating losses and we’re still seeing liberal publications scratching their collective heads. They simply cannot comprehend that Americans could say no to their agenda that they believe has worked out so wonderfully the last eight years. As a result, they’re doing everything in their power to make it appear as if they were robbed rather than accepting that their message simply isn’t resonating.

They’re looking for as many bogeymen as they can find to attach to Trump’s Presidency. They want this to be an unmitigated disaster from day one, so they’re employing jamming and propaganda techniques to force that perspective onto the American public. This, more than anything else, is why BuzzFeed did what they did.  They intend to beat all of Trump’s horses, living or dead, until a majority of Americans believe that they’ve made a terrible mistake.

DC politicians are working behind the scenes to do the same thing. There are questions that the DoJ rightly needs answered by the FBI, but those questions can be done privately and without a full blown investigation. The reason they’re taking it as far as they are is simply a well-timed statement to the public. In essence, they’re saying, “In the midst of this Russian problem, don’t forget that Trump had help on the inside as well.”

Their plan would actually be quite entertaining if it were put into a fictional realm. Imagine the story line (read in a deep movie-trailer-guy voice): “They thought they had the perfect plan to rule the most powerful nation on the planet, but they got trumped. Now, the Democrats have a plan to wreak havoc on the political system and teach the people once and for all that the left is right. No one is safe. No action is too disgraceful. In 2017, they’re out for blood and they’ve got nothing left to lose.”

The Democrats aren’t trying to gain more power or affect public policy. They want one thing: retribution. Their actions are designed to make as many Americans as possible regret their choices in 2016. This year is going to be about making us feel bad so they can feel better about themselves.

On Oct 28th at Hot Air Allahpundit reported this reaction by Rush concerning the Comey Letter #1

His idea of how this is going to go is that Comey will come back a week from now and announce that the new investigation is over, no wrongdoing was found, and Hillary Clinton is free and clear again. That’s possible, I guess, but if the feds were that close to resolving this, Comey could have simply waited until they’d reached a conclusion and then announced the whole thing in one shot

One week later the Drudge Headline

CONFUSED COMEY CLEARS HER AGAIN!

This dropped Sunday afternoon just in time so that every single newspaper can lead with it on Monday and the entire MSM can cruse with it on Tuesday

I guess I was right both about the last minute Hillary dump and Comey still being in the tank but wrong about his worry about the FBI ‘s reputation. Or it could be a case of pulling a Chief Justice Roberts in the face of liberal anger.

But either way Rush saw it and called it.  The question is did Comey wait to long for the pivot to re-save the day??

Update 3 thoughts:

  1. It’s amazing how fast a Federal government agency can go through a half million emails when the full force of the MSM and the left is attacking you isn’t it?
  2. And not just the MSM and the left, a lot of very rich and connected people gave millions to the Clinton foundation, you didn’t expect them to let their investments go to waste without a fight did you?
  3. This is all about depressing and Demoralizing trump voters and reassuring scared Hillary voters, while it might help with the first, I can’t think of anything that will get them more furious or more convinced the fix is in.

Update 2: Rush wasn’t the only one to see this coming

A solid argument can be made that FBI Director Comey is yet again helping the Clinton team by providing something that will soon evidence as a big nothing-burger. This helps to hide the real controversies within WikiLeaks and other scandals.

Republican politicians, and lesser skilled Machiavellian types are very easily baited into mountain building by strategic placement of molehills. Historically, no-one is more skilled at the shiny molehill placement than the Clinton family.

That was written last week before today’s bombshell

Update 3: This is what Rush Said if you don’t want to listen to the video


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Sometimes, something seems so obvious that I don’t even write about it. I assume that it will be covered by others, discussed on talk radio, or outright announced by the subjects. In the strange case of James Comey and the FBI’s renewed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, there are only two scenarios that make sense. For whatever reason, neither scenario is getting the national attention they deserve.

The first scenario we’ll discuss has been partially covered here, but for the sake of accuracy we’ll throw it out there again. It’s the scenario where Comey and the FBI come out a day or two before election day and announce that after further review, they once again see negligence without a recommendation to prosecute. This scenario would fit with multiple reasons behind it; saving the integrity of the FBI so they don’t get hit with claims that they intentionally withheld information for Hillary’s sake is the most likely.

The second scenario was the first one that came to mind when the news broke Friday. Perhaps it’s my history of reading and watching too many police procedurals, but I waited for this to pop up in mainstream media. I was foolish to expect it. Instead, they’ve spent their time trying to point fingers and diffuse the situation with pro-Hillary propaganda. Then, I waited for conservative media to reveal it, but most of us spent the last couple of days lamenting over the wickedness of mainstream media and discussing how Hillary is so corrupt.

What didn’t get discussed was what they found when they discovered the email trove a few weeks ago. It has to be something new; bringing up old news would not have prompted Comey to do what he did. Before we reveal what I believe they found, let’s talk about what new things they didn’t find.

They didn’t find even more revelations of stupidity with the email server itself. They’ve already acknowledged that the team and Hillary were idiotic for having it in the first place.

They didn’t find classified information beyond what is already known because their focus would have been on Huma Abedin rather than Hillary if that were the case. By “focus,” I mean they likely wouldn’t even have sent the letter to Congress if Abedin was their target.

Lastly, they didn’t find damaging communications about Benghazi or any other scandal associated with Hillary. Such things would not be pertinent to the case at hand and would have been given over as fodder for Congress, and then only after the election.

What the FBI most likely found is communication between campaign staffers with direct ties to Hillary expressing her wishes to have damaging emails deleted. If prior to the investigation they made a conscious decision to delete damaging emails in an effort to cover their tracks, that would be enough for Comey to reopen the case. You might think that they’ve already seen evidence of that based upon the deleted emails they’ve already discovered, but there’s a distinction that must be understood. Discovering missing emails shows that they were deleted. However, the real smoking gun would be emails that instructed people to deliberately delete them. That’s the scenario where the law was clearly broken. That’s the scenario that would prompt Comey to do what he did.

If we see scenario one happen, then this was an effort to cover up for the FBI and protect its reputation. I’m not ready to believe the FBI is intentionally helping the Clinton campaign by distracting from the Wikileaks releases until election day as some have insinuated, so the first scenario means self-protection and a likely Clinton win after they announce their findings. With scenario two, it won’t just mean that Clinton will lose. It means that she’ll finally be charged with a crime. The question is whether or not she’ll plead guilty quickly enough for President Obama to pardon her.

By John Ruberry

The day after one of the biggest October surprises in presidential politics ever, Hillary Clinton called on FBI director James Comey to release, to use the phrase in his statement to his underlings, his discovery of emails that “appear to be pertinent to our investigation.”

That investigation is centered around Clinton’s selfish and reckless decision to used a home-brewed email server while she was Barack Obama’s Secretary of State, rather than a secure government server.

Over 33,000 emails, which Clinton ludicrously claimed to have been about personal matters such as yoga and her daughter’s wedding, were wiped clean from her server last year–the firm that did the work even bragged about it–after Congress subpoenaed them.

Despite the destruction of evidence, many of those emails were recovered and we learned that some of them were marked classified. In July, Comey said that Clinton and her staffers were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Clinton lied.

Of course Clinton could have released those emails to Congress when it asked for them. Possibly within that cache could have been those emails found on the laptop shared by her longtime aide, Huma Abedin, and her estranged husband, sexting fiend Anthony Weiner. That laptop was seized by the FBI in an unrelated investigation of Carlos Danger for inappropriate online contact with an underage teen. Abedin swore under oath that she surrendered all documents with State Department emails to the FBI.

Abedin lied too.

John "Lee" Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

So Hillary wants the FBI to immediately release, or at least before Election Day, those “pertinent emails.”

Clinton had her chance, but she chose, to use the term utilized by her protectors in the mainstream media, to yield to her “penchant for secrecy.”

Because what Hillary really has is a penchant for corruption.

The sad part of this story is that about half of American voters will still vote for Hillary Clinton–no matter what.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Yesterday I talked about how Hillary Clinton and Democrats were caught flat footed by the FBI re-opening their email investigation. but what’s been really interesting is how the line of James Comey have changed with the same GOP member praising this decision who called him corrupt a few weeks ago and Democrats who praised his integrity a few weeks ago crying “foul!

In the last 36 hours FBI Director James Comey has been slammed by the full force of the progressive left media. I noted yesterday that, within hours of the letter being released, NY Times columnist Paul Krugman was accusing Comey of trying to swing the election for Republicans or, at a minimum, of trying to preserve their control of congress. A Democratic PAC filed a complaint with the DOJ that Comey had violated the Hatch Act by publishing the letter. A CNN legal analyst wrote today that it was time for Comey to resign…

…With all the accusations flying, I thought it was a good moment to recall a Washington Post editorial from back in July. That was when Comey announced he would not bring charges against Clinton. In an editorial titled “Republicans attack Mr. Comey for doing his job” the Post rebuked the right for for questioning Comey’s decision making:…

…A few months ago, criticizing Comey was risking damage to the rule of law. Now that it might be Hillary’s ox getting gored, bashing Comey is just fair game.

It brings to mind the Climatic Scene from Shakespeare’s the Merchant of Venice where you have Shylock saying lines such as: A Daniel come to judgment, yea, a Daniel!—O wise young judge, how I do honor thee!, O noble judge! O excellent young man! Oh wise upright judge, when granted the pound of flesh from his bond, and then, when the same judge said that you aren’t allowed any blood and if you shed any you lose your goods suddenly it was Gratiano saying: O learnèd judge!—Mark, Jew, a learnèd judge! An upright judge, a learnèd judge! A second Daniel!

So what is actually going on here? Is Comey a Clinton dupe or not? Here is what I think

I still think James Comey was as a Clinton dupe, didn’t mind playing the game and seemingly didn’t care about the blowback as long as it was about him. I think because of this when the compromised Loretta Lynch advised him against the release of this letter to congress:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch advised FBI Director James Comey against sending a letter to Congress to inform them about the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

She and team Clinton had every expectation that her advice would be followed. That’s why Clinton allies were blindsided and reacted thus:

“I’m livid, actually,” one Clinton surrogate told The Hill. “This has turned into malpractice. It’s an unforced error at this point. I have no idea what Comey is up to but the idea this email issue is popping back up again is outrageous. It never should have occurred in the first place. Someone somewhere should have told her no. And they didn’t and now we’re all paying the price.”

So why the change of heart, well the clue is here:

In an internal memo obtained by Fox News, the beleaguered director noted that the FBI typically would not communicate with the public when reopening a case, according to a Department of Justice source. But Comey said he had to in this case because Clinton is seeking the White House in an election on Nov. 8.

“Of course we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed,” Comey wrote. “I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.

You see, when he thought the storm would only affect him and his reputation that didn’t matter, but then it produced stories like this:

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Richard Nixon could only wish he got Hillary’s FBI treatment.

and this

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, IT’S OLD NEWS, TIME TO MOVE ON: Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife.

and this

JAMES COMEY COULD NOT BE REACHED TO IGNORE THIS ACCUSATION. Newt Gingrich on Veritas Videos: ‘Where’s the FBI?’

and this

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: New FBI files contain allegations of ‘quid pro quo’ in Clinton’s emails.

and this

THE FBI REVOLT BEGINS: A retired FBI agent says “The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible.”

and a hundred more like it, that’s when he realized that not only was the reputation of the entire FBI compromised ,but story after story of the rank and file of the FBI bitterly resenting the tarnishing of the entire agency image over his attempt to cover for Hillary Clinton meant trouble in the ranks.

I suspect Comey didn’t anticipate this, but now he’s discovered that the FBI is not the MSM.

The ability of the chief national law enforcement arm to protect the country from things like Islamic Terror, properly enforce the laws, or even hunt fugitives is difficult if not impossible without the cooperation of law-abiding citizens.  I suspect James Comey didn’t anticipate his acts would convince a good chunk of the country that the FBI was no longer a law enforcement agency but just another arm of the Democrat party and would enforce the law accordingly.

The MSM can successfully function even if half the citizenry dismiss them as corrupt tools of one political party and treat them as such. The FBI can not.

I think Comey decided that it’s one thing to cover for the Clintons it’s another when running that interference takes down your entire agency.

Update:  Fixed poor sentence structure in a paragraph.


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level