James Comey Wants An Apology? This is Myth Becoming Madness

Below is my column on the recent Inspector General report on the conduct of James Comey in removing and disclosing FBI material after he was fired.

Here is the column:

Two years ago, former FBI Director James Comey came out with a book that celebrated himself as a paragon of “ethical leadership,” a subject that he later taught at the College of William and Mary. Comey declared, “Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth.” If that is the case, the new Justice Department inspector general report released on Thursday establishes that Comey is the very antithesis of the ethical leader he described. Comey was found to have violated both federal law and regulations for his own gain, and he made critical decisions that put personal over institutional interests.

Nevertheless, Comey released a statement portraying the scathing report as a type of victory and encouraged his critics to send their apologies to him. It was a “Captain Queeg” moment when myth borders on madness. Rather than rave about who stole his strawberries, as Queeg did in “The Caine Mutiny,” Comey claims someone stole a reputation that he tossed away two years ago. The report states that Comey not only knowingly violated rules governing all FBI employees, but his decisions “set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees.”

It details how Comey removed FBI memoranda and then used his friend, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, to leak the contents of one memo to The New York Times. Several of the memos were later found to contain privileged, sensitive or classified information. The FBI seized the memos and had to “scrub” the computer of Richman to remove the unauthorized material provided by Comey. The report also says Comey later acknowledged that some of the classifications were “reasonable.”

Of course, facts are largely immaterial in matters of mythology. When Comey removed FBI material and arranged for a leak to the media, the coverage stayed positive despite some of us noting that the “memos” removed by Comey were FBI material and potentially classified. At a minimum, he violated clear rules against leaking such information to the media, a curious decision for the person tasked previously with finding leakers. I noted that such leaks were entirely unnecessary, given other options for getting this information to investigators and to Congress.

Those points were met with furious objections from analysts who insisted that the memos were personal writings akin to diary entries. Legal expert and former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa said they constituted “personal recollections,” and Brookings Institution fellow and CNN legal analyst Susan Hennessey wrote that it is “hard to even understand the argument” for how his “memory about his conversation with the president qualifies as a record, even if he jotted it down while in his office.” When I wrote that the memos were covered by the Federal Records Act and by Justice Department rules barring their removal or disclosures, the arguments were dismissed by the experts on various cable networks.

When former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders described the conduct of Comey as “improper and likely could have been illegal,” she was given two “pinocchios” as having falsely accused him. Comey then turned to social media, much like President Trump, to further pump up his record. He started with tweets under pseudonyms but later put his own name on tweets showing him walking through forests or standing alone while quoting sources like the Bible, “But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.”

Comey was building a personal brand, just like Trump, that culminated in his publishing his sensational book “A Higher Loyalty.” Once again, the media was as unrelenting as it was uncritical. Few outlets mentioned the concerns over a former FBI director rushing out a book soon after leaving office in a sharp departure from his predecessors. Comey became an instant millionaire with a book tour where he was essentially met with palm fronds and cries of “hosanna.” He knew that any final reckoning on his conduct would not come before months, if not years, of investigation.

The inspector general has confirmed what was clear and obvious. The memos were FBI material, and Comey did violate provisions of the Federal Records Act and FBI rules clearly barring their removal and disclosure. Moreover, the inspector general agreed that it was not necessary to guarantee an investigation into Trump. Investigations were ongoing and the report cites other “options” that Comey refused to use. The report concludes, “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”

Despite Comey’s spin, the Report did confirm that “Memos 2 and 7 contained small amounts of information classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level.” In other words, they were classified at the lowest level but still nonpublic, classified material. They were not declassified under 2018. Of course, Comey did not know what classification would apply because he removed them before they were reviewed. Either way, as I said at the time, it was unlikely that he would be prosecuted on such a case and he knew it.

The reason Comey violated these rules was as obvious then as it is now. Leaking the memos was designed to improve his stature in the media, and it worked. Comey transformed himself into a badly needed hero to use against the villain Trump. He knew the memos would change the focus of media coverage to his new role as a federal government whistleblower.

Forgotten were prior calls for Comey to be fired by Democrats and Republicans alike for his poor judgment during the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her use of unsecured servers for communications. There was little need to discuss how the review by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein found “serious mistakes” by Comey. It was no longer breaking news that Rosenstein also cited a long list of former attorneys general, federal judges and leading prosecutors from both parties who believed Comey violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Justice Department and the FBI.

Rosenstein also noted that Comey “refused to admit his errors,” including his obvious violation of “long standing Justice Department policies and traditions.” That was even before Comey decided to remove FBI material and leak information to the press, yet he is still refusing to admit his errors. Shortly after the inspector general report was released, Comey returned to spinning his conduct as somehow vindicated by the findings. He tweeted, “I don’t need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a ‘sorry we lied about you’ would be nice.”

Comey is referring to the Justice Department decision not to charge him with releasing classified information and no finding by the inspector general of an intentional release of classified, as opposed to sensitive, information. However, many of us who have been critics of Comey have long said that his prosecution was unlikely. Comey is relying on the fact that his memos were not found to have contained classified or sensitive information until after he gave the information to The New York Times.

The inspector general report says that, following the publication of the New York Times article, a classification review was conducted. The reason is that Comey never asked for such a review, any more than he asked for permission as a fired FBI employee to remove the material or leak it to the media. According to the report, senior officials stated they were “stunned” and “shocked” by Comey removing and disclosing the information.

Comey knows that, ultimately for him, none of this matters. He has magnanimously accepted the apologies that no one has offered and claimed vindication that appears nowhere in the inspector general report. That is simply the benefit of being the author of your own mythology.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

148 thoughts on “James Comey Wants An Apology? This is Myth Becoming Madness”

  1. The worst is still to come for Jim Comey
    Kevin R. Brock, thehill.com

    Next up will be the IG’s findings regarding Comey’s truthfulness before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court and whether he attested to false or misleading statements in order to electronically monitor a presidential campaign.

    That determination may not be as cut-and-dried as many think it is, but it hopefully, at a minimum, will explain why Comey believed he could sign off multiple times on a FISA application based largely on information that he, himself, described as “salacious and unverified.” His exposure here is potentially much more devastating than breaking FBI record retention and handling rules.

    Close behind the IG’s second report will be findings by U.S. Attorney John Durham whether Comey and his rogue team of investigators violated FBI and departmental guidelines to initiate a counterintelligence investigation into a presidential campaign. They will determine if Comey had adequate justification for launching such an unprecedented investigation.

    But beyond that, Mr. Durham and his team likely will follow up on emerging indicators that Comey may have colluded with other intelligence community leaders to actually “manufacture” the justification needed for an investigation by targeting covert informants against campaign representatives in violation of established policies and procedures.

    In short, James Comey is not out of the woods after the first IG report, which has exposed him as someone who casually and carelessly disregarded established rules and regulations. It is not a stretch to imagine that this disregard carried over into other more serious areas of potential abuse of authority.

    Comey is owed no apology by anyone. By his own publicity-seeking behaviors since crashing onto the scene in July 2016 he has verified his animus and political biases. Without any further findings he already has disgraced that noble office. He owes an apology to every FBI employee, past and present, who toiled to win the trust of the American people that he has so severely damaged.

    Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

    1. James Comey, one arrogant pricqq

      “A Mueller Court Filing Reveals James Comey’s Arrogance”

      Three unilateral decisions show Comey thinks FBI directors can do whatever they want.

      William Saletan
      Jan 08, 2019

      “….he’s so confident in his judgment and so wary of his bosses that he cuts them out of decisions. He formulates his own ideas, not just about what’s right or wrong, but about how various legal or administrative decisions might play out politically. Based on these guesses, as FBI director, Comey sometimes circumvented the chain of command and concealed what he was doing. He claims to have done this only when his bosses behaved or appeared to behave in a partisan way. But Mueller’s disclosure shows that’s not true. Comey thinks an FBI director is entitled—and, in fact, is morally required—to end-run the political appointees who supervise him.

      In 2016, Comey evaded his bosses—Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Yates, who was then the deputy attorney general—on two key decisions. The first was in July, when he called a press conference to announce that Hillary Clinton and her aides had been “extremely careless” with classified information but that the FBI hadn’t found enough evidence to prosecute her. Comey cut Lynch and Yates out of this decision. According to a June 2018 report by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General, Comey later told the IG’s interviewers that he “concealed his intentions from the Department until the morning of his press conference.” He also “instructed his staff to do the same, to make it impracticable for Department leadership to prevent him from delivering his statement.”

      The second decision came in late October 2016, when Comey sent a letter to Congress to report that the FBI had found additional Clinton emails and was reopening the investigation. According to the IG report, Comey didn’t speak directly to Lynch or Yates before sending the letter. Instead, he asked an aide to inform the department through a bureaucratic channel. When Lynch and Yates used the same channel to tell Comey that they strongly opposed the letter, he sent it to Congress anyway. Comey later explained to the IG’s interviewers that he had interpreted the response from Lynch and Yates as, “It’s up to you.”

      The IG report reprimanded Comey for these decisions. “Open and candid communication among leaders in the Department and its components is essential for the effective functioning of the Department,” said the report. It concluded that Comey’s unilateral moves were “insubordinate,” “usurped the authority of the Attorney General,” and violated “well-established Department policies in a way intentionally designed to avoid supervision.”

  2. Talk about hype, spin and a wildly broad view of confidentiality! Turley conveniently overlooks the big picture here to arrive at the predetermined conclusion that James Comey engaged in wrongdoing by documenting Trump’s effort to get the FBI to drop its prosecution of Flynn. Comey kept a copy of his notes because he knew what kind of thugs he was dealing with, that Trump would lie, that Sessions would do whatever Trump demanded, and that when push came to shove, he’d probably get fired for refusing to give in. So, he documented the meeting, kept a copy because he knew if he didn’t his notes and memo would disappear, then he leaked the information to prevent Trump from getting away with clear obstruction of justice. Comey IS a hero.

    Turley: where in the regs does it cover how to handle the situation where an FBI Chief is requested to stop a criminal investigation of someone who assisted a presidential candidate cheat to win an election by colluding with a hostile foreign country, and then tries to obstruct justice by pressuring the FBI head to drop the prosecution, using the power of the office he cheated to get? Probably not there because Trump is uniquely crooked. I notice that you Trumpsters don’t howl about the “deep state” when an investigation yields Faux News talking points.

    Bottom line : there was nothing illegal in what Comey did, so despite the likely pressure Trump probably put on the IG, he could not be prosecuted for violating “policy”, which isn’t a crime. Despit the menopausal ranting of “Judge Jeanne”, Comey didn’t lie, either.

    Since Trump was denied the benefit of criminal charges as a result of “investigating the investigators” (a Faux News favorite pivot), the best they can come up with is whining about the sanctity of FBI documents, calling Comey “selfish” for deciding to be a patriot instead of a Trump minion, and accusing him of a profit motive. Just consider the sheer amount of Trump wrongdoing you have to ignore to arrive at this skewed view of the entire picture. History will view Comey as a patriot who sacrificed his career to call out a lying cheat.

  3. It is actually I’m material what any individula believes or “can handle”.
    The point under discussion was that elections are sometimes decided by relatively few votes in one or two or three states.
    77,000 votes in 3 states is not some miraculous, unprecendented narrow margin.
    You will find much smaller margins determining outcomes if presidential election in the not too distant past.

      1. Reply was to the anonymous who posted at 2:40 PM and 2:43PM, but was not posted below those comments.
        I guess in his or her own brain-addled way that some point was being made in those comments, although it had little or nothing to do with what was under discussion.

    1. You will not find that result with a drubbing of the EC sweepstakes in the popular vote. There have been only 4 losers elected that way in our entire history. In this one, losing by almost 3 million votes, 77,000 in just the right place flipped the result.

      1. anon1, You need to review presidential elections over the past couple of generations…..say a 50 year period….no need to check all c.60 of them.
        If you bothered to do a bit of research, you will find other elections decided by relatively few votes; certainly fewer than the “77,000 votes in three states”.
        Assuming that you’ve voted in maybe the most recent 10-12 presidential elections, or have at least some awareness of those elections, look at how many were decided by relatively few votes in a few states, or even one or two states.

        1. You will not find that result with a drubbing of the EC sweepstakes in the popular vote. There have been only 4 losers elected that way in our entire history. In this one, losing by almost 3 million votes, 77,000 in just the right place flipped the result.

          1. Anon1,
            No, you probably won’t find an exact matchup of the 2016 election in recent history, with “77,000 votes in 3 states” determining the outcome.
            In some cases, it’s fewer than 77,000 votes, and involves one or two states making the difference.
            Trump put on a remarkable push in the final few weeks of that campaign, and made what was probably a record-setting blitz of campaign stops in the half dozen or so states that were up for grabs.
            But if your convinced that Comey handed the election to Trump, or Natacha wants to hang on to her notion that “the Russians” got Trump elected, I won’t try to tear either one of you away from those beliefs.

            1. Doofus:

              1. The fact I brought up, is that Comey, by virtue of his October surprise, cut Clinton’s lead from almost 6% to 2%, which was the margin she won the vote by. Those 77,000 votes across 3 states were much less than those lost 4%. Surely, even you should be able to grasp this fact.

              2. It is irrelevant to the fact that Comey handed the election to Trump whether that 3 state razor thin margin was historically unique or not. Combined with the 3 million she had to spare elsewhere it certainly was.

              I’m not doing this for you again.

        2. But..how many previous elections involved a presidential campaign feeding key polling information to a hostile foreign government that was used in a social media campaign to smear their opponent by spreading lies?

          Trumpsters love to crow about polls being wrong, but polls couldn’t take into consideration the sneaky deceitful social media campaign carried out by the Russians.

          History will not look kindly on Trump, Barr or McConnell, but it will vindicate HRC , Pelosi and Schumer.

          1. Sure it will. You just keep telling yourself that.
            And if “history” does not “vindicate HRC, Pelosi, and Schumer”, we can count on you to tell us why “history” is wrong.
            ( Probably because “the Russians” rewrote the history books).

  4. Dear Jim, I’m sorry you weren’t fired earlier. I’m sorry you aren’t in jail. I’m sorry that your agency refused to investigate pedophile rings. I’m sorry your agency sets up mentally ill and/or brain damaged people with weapons to stage terrorist attacks which your agency then claims to stop (or sometimes lets it go through if that works out better). I’m sorry you’re a part of putting Assange in jail for an action that he didn’t do but you actually did.

  5. Mr. Deep Deep State, Attorney General William Barr, refuses to prosecute manifest felons and traitors. AG Barr is making a public declaration that he will support and fill the “Swamp” and exonerate the Deep Deep State participants in the failed coup d’etat, including Hillary Clinton whom Comey corruptly and illegally tried, convicted and absolved in one news conference. Treason is the only plausible explanation for Barr’s actions. If Congress were not controlled by the Deep Deep State, the traitor Barr would have already been impeached and convicted.

    America is in a state of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and insurrection. The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional. Abraham “Crazy Abe” Lincoln seized power, ignored the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.” It is doubtful that any human being could ever be as sociopathic, savage and bloodthirsty as “Crazy Abe” (no other country in history ended slavery by war) but President Trump must now seize power, ignore the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

    Ben Franklin, 1787, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    Ben Franklin, 2019, we gave you ” …a republic, if you can take it back.”

    In deed, the Founders gave America a restricted-vote republic, never a one man, one vote democrazy-cum-communist-dictatorhsip.

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe,

    Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan,

    Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer,

    Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel,

    Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy),

    Obama et al.

  6. The documents pertaining to J. Edgar Hoover’s activity in killing JFK, RFK and MLK were mostly all destroyed. Some things got out. I suppose if Comey were to expose the role of the former Director of the FBI in those three assassinations then Comey would get prosecuted.

    1. “I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the wind.”

      – JFK

      Allan Dulles, CIA Director fired by JFK.

      John Foster Dulles, Sec. State, diplomat, staunch anti-communist.

      JFK lost Cuba to communists, lost Cuba for the Mob, abandon CIA forces on the beach at the Bay of Pigs, prosecuted Hoffa and the Mob, unceremoniously deported Marcelo, began to put the Federal Reserve Bank out of business and was going to pull troops from Vietnam.

      JFK was hit by Dulles, Hoover, Johnson, Marcelo, Texas oilmen and just about everybody else who wasn’t a communist.

  7. I read the column and didn’t comment because there wasn’t much to say – Prof. Turkey covered Coney’s character and venality in detail.

    But after reading the postings by the reliably Pinko commentators, I see that once again, they are substituting insults for analysis.

    This is why I look at these lefties and dismiss their postings with contempt.

    They reinforce the perception that they aren’t very smart.

  8. Apparently, there are no consequences anymore to breaking the rules, or laws governing the mishandling of classified information.

    Those with access, carry on…

    1. I don’t believe that the IG is finished with Comey. I will wait for the full report to see. Also the Durham report might also have uncovered information for which a slam dunk conviction can be obtained. But why go to trial on what is likely to receive a dismissal by either a judge or jury on such petty charges. Let’s wait for more layers of the onion to be pealed away.

    2. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered on June 13 1994.

      OJ Simpson was charged with murder on June 17, 1994.

      Hillary used an illegal server in March, 2015,

      Comey leaked classified material in June, 2017.

      Today is September 1, 2019.


      What’s that tell you?

      John Durham is a “red herring,” shutting conservatives up and buying/wasting/passing more and more time which favors of the Deep Deep State.

  9. I believe that in the intelligence community, any official document that is generated mentioning a foreign nation is (by default) presumed to be classified until reviewed to determine whether or not it actually does contain classified material, irrespective of any markings on it.

    Back in the day, as an Army Spec-4, I was responsible for managing lots of classified material (up to and including S-RD) and I’d have been drawn and quartered if I’d done what Comey did.

    Are we to believe Comey didn’t know this?

        1. Is that how the law reads – you may mishandle classified material as long as Anon1 says it doesn’t “involve national security” whatever the —- that means and to whom?

          1. George will note that no one of standing has recommended prosecuting Comey for breaking department rules.

            Well, maybe he won’t.

        2. He took photos for personal use only.

          “US ​​Navy sailor jailed for taking photos of classified areas of nuclear submarine”

          Kristian Saucier pleaded guilty in May to ‘foolish mistake’ of unauthorized detention of defense information

          “A US Navy sailor was sentenced on Friday to a year in prison for taking photos of classified areas inside a nuclear attack submarine while it was in port in Connecticut.”

          – The Guardian

        3. Anon1: IMO, John Solomon makes a pretty persuasive case here https://tinyurl.com/yx9bpv8h. I believe the paragraph beginning with “But from the time . . .” below is dispositive, but I’m open to the possibility that I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong.


          “Memos 2 and 7 contained small amounts of information classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level,” the IG reported. Confidential is the lowest classification for secrets “that could be expected to cause damage to the national security,” according to the ODNI manual.

          “When Comey’s Memo 2 was finally declassified in 2018, it was shown to contain 11 classified passages or words related to foreign leader conversations that President Trump referenced during his meeting with Comey. The FBI identified six classified words and the National Security Council identified five more, according to the IG.

          “The IG also concluded that Comey wrongly removed documents from the FBI and failed to put classification markings on them. That’s a violation of FBI and intelligence community rules, the report said.

          “But from the time Comey wrote it until it was declassified, the entirety of the memo was deemed to be classified under the intelligence community’s rules, even if it did not have the proper markings. “Information assigned a level of classification under this or predecessor orders shall be considered as classified … despite the omission of other required markings,” the executive order governing classification states.

          “Should Comey have known Memo 2 was classified even if he didn’t mark it so?

          “Yes, according to the executive order that President Obama signed in 2010, which governed Comey’s actions in 2017. It states that, by default, any document referencing foreign-government information or foreign affairs is automatically assumed to be classified. “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security,” it states.

            1. Aside from your attempt to kill the messenger for the message he delivers, do you have evidence to dispute the accuracy of the message? If so, I’m open to hearing it.

              Before you answer, you might be interested in reading: Wrong By Two Noses: Will the Washington Post Now Perform Journalistic Rhinoplasty on Sara Huckabee Sanders? https://tinyurl.com/y5h6c4cd

              If you disagree with the author’s summary of Comey’s misdeeds, please tell me where the author went well. (Please do not try to substitute an assault on the author’s character or credibility for a reasoned response to the substance of his argument.)

                1. Whether or not Comey was charged is irrelevant to what I asked.

                  I would merely like to know why you reject the ODNI standard wrt national security. (“Memos 2 and 7 contained small amounts of information classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level,” the IG reported. Confidential is the lowest classification for secrets “that could be expected to cause damage to the national security,” according to the ODNI manual.”)

                  You owe me no explanation, and I’m not attempting to change your mind. I’d just like to know your reasoning.

                  1. Claw, I think it is relevant whether Comey was charged or not, but beyond that, without reading the memos in question, none of us are in a position to 2nd guess the decision to not prosecute.

                    You do know that none of this supposedly classified material was ever released to the public, right?

                    Do you also know that there is a tendency within the government to over-classify materials, so much so that Congress has addressed legislation aimed at discouraging this practice.

                    Why would I be upset about a whistleblower carefully protecting this material but at the same time using it to reveal sleazy practices by the most powerful man in the in the world for his own benefit?

                    1. Anon1: “…none of this supposedly classified material was ever released to the public …”

                      Comey testified before congress that he released several of his memos to a “friend” – a member of the public – who was a professor at Columbia University. Comey asked him to leak the information in the memos to the media – so the public would become aware of what they contained.

                      At the time, ALL the memos were presumed classified and would remain so until they were formally evaluated and declassified. (The default is “classified” until proven not to contain classified information.)

                      In the end a couple of those Comey released – to the public – was found by the formal review to contain classified information.

                      Anyone who receives classified material must meet two criteria: they must have a security clearance high enough to view the material AND they must have a “need-to-know.” The general public has neither.

                      Your other assertions (that not charging Comey is relevant, that the government may tend to over-classify and that Comey was justified in releasing what he did) are your opinions only.

                      Still, I greatly value your right to hold whatever opinions you wish and would defend your right to believe whatever you wish.

                      Just as a reminder:

                      “But from the time Comey wrote it until it was declassified, the entirety of the memo was deemed to be classified under the intelligence community’s rules, even if it did not have the proper markings. “Information assigned a level of classification under this or predecessor orders shall be considered as classified … despite the omission of other required markings,” the executive order governing classification states.”

                    2. Anon1 – one of the facets of charging is will there be a likelihood of a guilty verdict. Comey in Virginia with a Democratic jury? Probably not. However, you get him to Arizona and he is doing hard time.

  10. I’m glad we’re focusing on real problems. Comey was such a stooge for the left. That’s why he helped torpedo Clinton weeks before the election.

    And his forgettable memos far outweigh President Barf giving classified info to the Russians and releasing Iranian imagery to the public and siphoning millions in taxpayer money into his own properties and installing swamp-things into top positions and nominating activist judges set on implementing Christian Dominionist garbage into the workings of government.

  11. “Comey knows that, ultimately for him, none of this matters.”

    Comey is right. He was doing the bidding of the left so who knows, he might be become governor of Virginia.. All we have to do is think of the scandals and what happened to Governor Ralph Northam, Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, and Attorney General Mark Herring, all Democrats.

    1. I think he’s living in DC as we speak. IIRC, he’s from New York or New Jersey, and to the extent he’s from any place else, he’s from Washingtoon. So, let’s say he relocates back to NoVa. He wouldn’t face insuperable barriers, but he starts out with at least a mild headwind. Also, electoral politics is harder than it looks, and James Comey may find he looks clownish in venues he cannot control. Then again, Virginia’s statewide electorate put Terry McAuliffe, Syracuse-born denizen of the green slime wing of the Democratic Party in office, so just about anyone should be salable these days. Some of the partisan Democrats on our Facebook list were promoting the idea of contributing to Andrew McCabe’s gofundme after he was shown the door, so you have to figure they’ll eat any sh!t sandwich put in front of them. Sad times in which we live.

      1. DSS, I wasn’t serious. I was being sarcastic since all three of the main political players in Virginia ended up staying in office despite their peccadillos but if they were Republicans there would still be major protests if they hadn’t been forced out immediately.

        1. Amazing how scandals just go away when they’re inconvenient to the people the media favor.

          What needs to happen is for the people at the apex and center of the Republican Party to quit putting blood in the water. Cocaine Mitch and Kevin McCarthy are not the men for the job.

      2. TIAX – “Sad times in which we live.”

        America is in a state of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and insurrection. The entire American welfare state is fraudulent, illegitimate and unconstitutional and must be dismantled. The “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be re-implemented. Abraham “Crazy Abe” Lincoln seized power, ignored the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.” It is doubtful that any human being could ever be as sociopathic, savage and bloodthirsty as “Crazy Abe” (no other country in history ended slavery by total war) but President Trump must now seize power, ignore the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

    2. For the entire campaign Comey worked against Trump. I don’t know for sure why he made that one statement concerning Hillary but he may have been frightened based on all his other dealings and others at the FBI had been critical of how the Hillary matter was handled and that included the FBI’s attorney. He might have felt a bit of jeopardy that he could have gone to jail based on his wrongful activities.

      The Russia hoax against Trump every day with headlines in the news daily, all wrong vs one comment that was softened for one day against Hillary where the complaint was real. What Anon thinks is fair is he and 4 other men playing basketball against 3 girls none of which have finished high school. I think Trump got the worse of the deal. Everyone else can make their own decisions as to Anon’s dishonest intellect.

        1. It’s been expertly hashed out at 538:

          “…Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College…..

          The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

          Clinton’s standing in the polls fell sharply. She’d led Trump by 5.9 percentage points in FiveThirtyEight’s popular vote projection at 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 28. A week later — after polls had time to fully reflect the letter — her lead had declined to 2.9 percentage points.

          ….It was the dominant story of the last 10 days of the campaign. According to the news aggregation site Memeorandum, which algorithmically tracks which stories are gaining the most traction in the mainstream media, the Comey letter was the lead story on six out of seven mornings from Oct. 29 to Nov. 4,…..”


          The Deep State knee capped Clinton less than 2 weeks before the election.

          1. A lot of “experts” have hashed this out since the 2016 election.
            Including your expert Buddy Natacha.
            In reality, there were a number of factors involved in the bounces of the polls in the final weeks if the election. Hillary was starting to slide in the polls even before Comey reopened the investigation into her email scandal.
            Still waiting for the anon1- Natacha debate on whether Putin or Comey elected Trump.

            1. When something is decided by a small margin, and they don’t get much smaller than 3 deciding states on 77,000 votes, any number of factors – all having a sufficient effect – can be accurately said to have been determinative. I haven’t seen numbers on Putin’s effect, which would of course include the headline dominating Wikileaks emails. .

              538’s analysis is fair, clear, and the conclusion obvious. Unless you just can’t handle the truth.

              1. Yes, they do get much smaller, and they have been much smaller.
                You need to study past elections decided by much smaller numbers before making such a stupid statement.

              2. They can and do get decided by smaller margins, anon1. As someone who allegedly marched for the civil Rights movement in the early 1960s, you should be old enough to remember subsequent elections decided by fewer than “77,000 votes in 3 states”.

              3. What do you think? Can Tom Nash handle the truth?

                Having said this, Wikileaks isn’t to blame for Clinton’s loss. The blame lies squarely with DWS, HRC, and the DNC.

                HRC was the wrong candidate to run against Trump, even though she won the popular vote.

                And if Biden runs against Trump in the next election, we very well could see the same result.

                1. Hillary won by a greater vote margin – on a percentage basis – than 11 previous US presidents. The 77,000 vote margin – out of her total margin of 3,000,000 – was an unprecedented fluke caused by Comey primarily, though many other factors could have caused that swing.

                  1. There were a number of presidential election winners who won with well over 50% if the vote . You really should review some of those past c. dozen or so election results……you claim is wildly inaccurate. Hillary’s 48% popular vote share is far from a record…..you’ll find some elections that came in at 55-60% for the presidential winner.

                  2. 48%-46% margin in the 2016 popular vote is fairly close, historically.
                    Reagan gir nearly 60% of the vote in 1984, and led Mondale by 17 million popular votes.
                    The 1964 election saw a similar landslide.

                  3. Anon seems so certain of himself even where all the experts aren’t sure and where his facts are very questionable. That is a sure sign of an ignorant person.

Leave a Reply