↓
 
Home » VDH dissects Comey

VDH dissects Comey

The New Neo Posted on by

Victor Davis Hanson has written a new essay that fairly drips with well-deserved contempt for James Comey. One of my reactions to reading it was to wonder anew how it could be that Comey had been so well-respected prior to the Hillary email investigation and the Trump administration. Did something happen to him along the way? Or had he always been like this, and had everyone failed to notice it until Comey was given a larger and more public canvas on which to display his combination of incompetence and megalomania?

Recall—as Hanson points out—that Comey’s problem isn’t mere Trump Drerangement Syndrome (although there’s that). He showed his troubling characteristics even before Trump even became president, during the Hillary Clinton email investigation:

…Comey’s unprofessionalism was home-grown and certainly did not need any help from President Trump. His schizophrenic behavior both as a prosecutor and investigator in the Hillary Clinton email matter was marked by exempting Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin from indictment, despite their lying to his own federal officials about their knowledge of a private Clinton email server. Comey wrote his summation of the Clinton email investigation before he had even interviewed the former secretary of state. He was hardly independent from a recused Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the Clinton email investigation. As her rubbery courier he bent to her directives on all key decisions that led to de facto exoneration of likely next president Hillary Clinton.

Contradictions are Comey’s specialty:

…Comey seems to be prepping his own defense by a transparent preemptive attack on the very official who may soon calibrate Comey’s own legal exposure [Bill Barr]. Comey should at least offer a disclaimer that the federal prosecutor he is now attacking may soon be adjudicating his own future—if for no other reason than to prevent a naïf from assuming that Comey’s gambit of attacking Barr is deliberately designed to suggest later on that prosecutor Barr harbored a prejudicial dislike of likely defendant Comey.

How ironic that Comey who used to lecture the nation on “obstruction” and the impropriety of Trump’s editorializing about the Mueller prosecutorial team, is now attacking—or perhaps “obstructing”—the Attorney General before he has even issued a single indictment.

There’s much much more at the link.

And this:

One way of looking at John Brennan’s and James Clapper’s nonstop cable news announcements of Trump’s “treason,” the Comey-McCabe whirlwind book tours and television confessionals, the Adam Schiff furrowed-brow predictions of huge bombshells soon to go off, and the general progressive media hysteria over the last two years or so is to appreciate a transparent effort at preemptive defense.

That is, Russian “collusion” and its bastard child “obstruction,” sought to divert attention from massive Obama Administration efforts at the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, and National Security Council to use the powers of government to first ensure that Trump was not elected and then, failing that, to distort and ruin his transition and presidency.

In 2020 we may find out how successful this effort was.

I can tell you one thing: I am almost certain that most Democrats don’t read Victor Davis Hanson. But I also am almost certain that, were most Democrats to do so, they would look at the facts detailed in that article with very different eyes than those of us on the right do. Would they be shocked, because they’re reading them for the first time and realizing how deep the rot goes? Or would they just say that Hanson is making stuff up, and deeply mistaken and/or lying?

I think the latter. A mind is a difficult thing to change.

Comments

VDH dissects Comey — 28 Comments

  1. Again, Rosenstein, Comey, and Mueller are Justice Department lifers. Comey and Mueller have spent time in the private sector. In Comey’s case, he landed a lucrative position in the financial sector sans any history with or demonstrated knowledge of the field; I can never figure those sorts of hires except as lobbying jobs or pre-paid bribes. However, the Department of Justice is their domicile and the smart money says this whole fandango has been to prevent injury to as many insiders as possible and prevent policy changes the permanent government does not want. Comey in 2016 was currying favor with the Clintons because he favored them and because he expected them to win the election.

  2. The rot is indeed very deep, and I am happy that we now have a real Attorney General to root it out. Old Nads is not in the same league as Barr, and Trump is done with foregoing executive privilege.

    The corruptokrats thought they had it made with a Hildabeast win. They cannot accept that all their sinecures and slopping at the public trough were impeded by the “undesirables”.

    I want them all to be beggered by the “judicial process” like the good people (i.e., Flynn and others) were, and then sentenced to long terms of three squares and a cot.

  3. Andrew McCarthy has, in the past, expressed respect, and even friendship, for both Comey and Mueller.

    But that was then, and this is now.

    Over the past several months (longer actually), he’s admitted how utterly disturbed he is by the lack of professionalism—and questionable ethics—of them both (and the company they appear to have been keeping and the schemes they appear to have been hatching).

    He certainly knows of which he speaks. And so the gloves are off as far as he’s concerned (and it’s about time).

    Rosenstein, on the other hand, has been making some reasonable noises of late. One might wonder if this is because he’s running scared and trying to protect his backside (since he’s up to his eyeballs in these shenanigans). And it would certainly be commendable if he’s has in fact decided to atone for the role he has played; if so, he is in a position to assist greatly “the good guys” in this Grand Battle that is shaping up—a battle for the soul of the country, nothing less.

    On the other hand, it may be a bit too little, too late.

    One must hope and pray that Barr will be able to withstand the inquisition that he is about to be put through by the rabid, desperate “legislators” seeking his utter and thorough destruction.

  4. There’s a whiff of Vicar of Bray about Rosenstein. I think it has finally been resolved that he’s leaving and I imagine has an agreeable position lined up elsewhere. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that uncongenial dealings with
    Trump are a + in a job interview just about everywhere but the energy sector. The default position of the professional-managerial element in this country seems to be that the President is insupportable.

  5. I wouldn’t invest too much in the idea that Barr will fix everything (or anything). McCarthy’s problem is our problem: you just don’t know who anyone is anymore.

  6. “Or would they just say that Hanson is making stuff up, and deeply mistaken and/or lying?”.

    Why speculate? Manju will show up soon to tell us what the truth really is and the correct way to interpret all the information.

  8. VDH is today, and has been for a long time, one of the few political writers worth paying attention to.

    That list could fit on an index card with plenty of room left over.

  9. Art Deco touches on what I think is a big and pervasive problem. It’s a vast sea of money and influence peddling and laundering out there in D.C. The classic example was getting Gov. Rod Blagojevich on tape demanding 3 years employment in a sinecure job paying at least $0.33M/year in exchange for a senate seat.

    Recently, the WSJ ran an exposé on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The long time CEO of the group, Tom Donohue, makes a salary of $6.5M/yr. plus a perquisite package more valuable than the salary. That’s a net in excess of $13M.

    Near the end of the article they stated that when Paul Ryan left the House, Donohue offered Ryan his job at the Chamber. Ever wonder if and why Ryan seemed to be carrying water for the Chamber? There ya go. Ryan did turn the job offer down. Maybe Ryan is waiting for appearance’s sake. Or maybe appearances are deceiving.

  11. Here’s an interesting article highlighting parallels between SpyGate and the Valerie Plame matter. Back then, John Ashcroft recused himself from the case, and newly-appointed Deputy AG James Comey became Acting AG. Comey appointed his close friend Patrick Fitzgerald, who was held in high esteem as a straight shooter. The similarities go on and on.

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-report-on-mueller

  12. Richard Epstein also has said that he’s known James Comey since the time when Comey was a law student of his, and that up until the Comey shenanigans he had respect for Comey and thought him a friend.

  13. The facts indicate that Comey should be dead meat.
    Except for the HUGE fact there is no indictment yet. Not even of McCabe.

    I hope for indictments so much, I fear I’m biased like those with Dem Derangement Syndrome (also against Kavanaugh, the Covington Kids; soon also against Barr — Dem DS, not Trump DS), but hoping too much.

    They’re guilty, er, likely guilty; but it doesn’t matter if they’re not indicted. Probably most in Wash DC are guilty – I don’t believe any are innocent (except Trump?).

  14. Ah, the old ‘straight shooter’ medal of honor. Life inside the beltway is full of them, and 99% are not.

  15. I am not so sure that the Left reads very much. Most of my family is Progressive, and they get their information from TV, and NPR.

    Coney is a dirty cop. The lowest form of life on Earth. He should be locked in a room, with a Luger, with one round in it, and do the right thing.

  16. Brian Cates: Senator Harris Misses Huge Revelation From Barr During Senate Testimony

    https://m.theepochtimes.com/senator-harris-misses-huge-revelation-from-barr-during-senate-testimony_2908814.html

    “Here’s your key reminder: when was Rod Rosenstein appointed to head the Mueller Special Counsel? When he was confirmed to the DAG job back on April 25, 2017. As Barr correctly notes, it was actually discussed on the Senate floor at the time his nomination to the DAG post was being discussed that he would the person leading the Russia investigation if he was confirmed to this post, which he was, by a vote of 94-6.

    The DOJ Ethics Department looked into the issue of Rosenstein both leading the Russia investigation and appearing as a key witness in cases that sprang from what ended up being the Mueller Special Counsel at the time he was appointed to the job way back in April 2o17.

    Ponder the implications of that, because it’s clear that Senator Harris did not.”

    rtwt

  18. As a Democrat that recently became an Independent, I can tell you that I believe Mr. Hansen. He is a sharp guy and he is correct. I am so disappointed by the Democrats and this ridiculous charade they call governing. The candidates for president (with one strong exception-Tulsi Gabbard-who their party refuses to talk about) are clowns. Even individuals who I used to respect sound incredibly silly. The Dems have become so unauthentic and pathological liars they have lost my vote.

  19. “As a Democrat that recently became an Independent . . . .”

    Well, JHC, you’re on your way to what actually is the Light Side of the Force.

  20. Art Deco on May 6, 2019 at 7:34 pm at 7:34 pm said:
    https://www.hoover.org/research/cagey-mr-comey

    Bad men rule us.
    * * *
    Excellent article; it has not staled after 2 years, but has mostly been vindicated.
    Interesting comment at the end:
    joeyWo Guest • 2 years ago
    Mickey Kaus tweeted this point best…
    “We’ve appointed Mueller to decide whether to believe his friend, or the guy who humiliatingly fired his friend.”

  21. J E Dyer dissects Mueller’s case (most of the information she analyzes we have already read about, but she puts the fine points on the discussion).

    https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/05/03/barr-vs-mueller-on-obstruction-anatomy-of-an-epic-chess-move/

    With Mueller basing his activities on the open-ended interpretation of 1512, there was no way to force an end to his “investigation” – and therefore, someone with higher authority had to make the decision that the Mueller interpretation would not govern the course of events.

    As for how Barr was brought into it, Chamberlain’s proposition appears plausible. The important take-away from his treatment is not that we have a set of validated answers, tied up in a bow. It’s that this is a superb illustration of how the confrontation of the “Deep State” with the Trump administration is taking place.

    That Trump himself has the capacity to maneuver in this manner – a manner that involves wielding levers, inducing outcomes rather than forcing them frontally, recognizing the pressure points that other people’s expertise identifies for him – has been apparent to me for a while. If Chamberlain is mostly right, it’s also apparent that Trump’s legal team felt empowered as well as motivated to pursue an audacious strategy.

    It’s a perfectly legal strategy, and fully justified given that Trump is the duly elected president, and there is no justification whatsoever for a special counsel holding him at open-ended risk for the rest of his term (or, indeed, for the rest of time). The rule-of-law principle militates against open-ended risk, just for starters. But on the narrower point, Chamberlain’s (and “Huber’s”) argument is compelling that 1512 was not designed as a basis for holding subjects at open-ended risk of obstruction charges.

    I have no doubt that lawyers can and will argue this in dozens of narrowly-scoped ways, and more power to them. My view here is one of operational maneuver and strategy.

    https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/05/06/papadopoulos-joseph-mifsud-said-to-have-attended-dinner-with-hillary-clinton-during-2016-campaign/

    The significance of the NYT article this past week is this. We are no longer disputing whether Halper’s outreach to Papadopoulos was related to Russiagate/Spygate. The anti-Trump camp is done with pooh-poohing that idea. The NYT article concedes that Halper’s contact with Papadopoulos was about gaining information on the Trump campaign.

    It’s a major and game-changing concession. Reader’s choice as to whether the objective of that contact was a defensive one (as framed in the NYT article), or represented aggressive, unjustified spying on Trump.
    Either way, the September 2016 gambit with Papadopoulos was a designed plan, meaning its features weren’t dictated by circumstance. They were chosen at the discretion of the planners. Putting it another way, the plan wasn’t just about following leads. It was about devising scenarios and narratives – including sending people with fake names and credentials to make contact with targeted individuals – in order to gain access to Trump campaign information. The nature of what the NYT wrote up tells us that.

    So it was, indeed, an operation to provoke events and outcomes, and not just an investigation looking by forensic methods for existing, passively-available clues.
    …
    The important point for the purpose of this one is that the door has been opened to viewing the U.S. agency probe of the Trump campaign as an operation, in which the agents sought to gain intelligence by inducing behavior in campaign staffers, and not just an investigation.

    With that in mind, we are justified in asking whether it is really true that no such operational approach was envisioned prior to late July 2016, when Operation Crossfire Hurricane was reportedly initiated.
    …
    A dinner of that kind wouldn’t be a place for doing back-closet business. But if Simona Mangiante is right, and Mifsud was there with Pittella, it’s a reminder that the circles Mifsud ran in were weighted heavily toward those of European, progressive internationalism – plugged in with the high-profile Western elite, and organizations like the Soros-backed European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), of which so many of the Russiagate/Spygate players are or have been members. The scent on Mifsud is not a Russian one.

    As we sort through the avalanche in the coming days, these factors will assume increasing relevance. It has been evident for some time that the “why?” of Spygate doesn’t start with the FBI. A few more data points about Mifsud and Pittella help to shape things up for us.
    …
    Another is the interesting point that Joseph Mifsud was listed as a member of Soros’s ECFR in 2017, apparently still cycling through the typical activities of that world for at least part of the year.

    And a third is Mifsud’s appearance with Pittella in June 2017 at an event sponsored by the Democratic (Socialist) Youth organization in Italy. Mifsud had already been interviewed by the FBI at that point, and if there were alarms in Western intelligence agencies about his loyalties and links to Russia, it’s curious – as Devin Nunes says – that he continued to run tame among the same politicians and government officials as before.

  22. Roger Simon dissects the Dossier. Via PowerLine
    https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/should-journalists-go-to-jail-for-spreading-russia-lies/

    “Interesting in all the discussion of this dossier that went on to infect the Mueller investigation for years is that many of its details almost certainly could have been disproven by the NSA and the CIA in a matter of hours, considering the vast technological reach of those intelligence agencies. Maybe it was. If so, that would make “the entire investigation some kind of twisted American version of Kafka’s The Trial, with the president as a most unlikely Joseph K. “Witch hunt” would be an understatement.”

  23. Seth Tillman dissects anonymous professor.

    https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/another-day-on-conlawprof.html

    Professor AAA: To say, therefore, that no one was misled by Barr[’s] [letter] is simply wrong, even if one over generously conceded that there was no intention to do so.

    Tillman: Barr’s letter was a summary of principal conclusions. All knew that the full report (less redactions) would come out in a few weeks’ time. The idea that people were too stupid to suspend judgment until the later of the two events or that people who had not suspended their judgment were constitutionally incapable of changing their minds in light of the full report demeans the common sense of everyman. No one was misled. My guess is that no one on this list will admit to being so misled—it is just other people they think were misled. And if a listserv member tells us they were misled but changed their mind in light of the redacted report, why do they think others have not done the same?

    The idea that Americans were misled by an Executive Branch letter from a presidential appointee ….

  24. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/06/fbi-scheduled-to-make-court-filing-on-release-of-comey-journal-tomorrow/#more-163454

    It is worth remembering a recent court filing by the FBI where we discover James Comey documented each “Crossfire Hurricane” intelligence decision. Within the CYA memos Comey included the ID of code-named spies in a journal of sorts, that remains hidden for now. I have a hunch the full Comey journal will soon be released.

    A court filing originally scheduled for April 15th, to determine the outcome of the multiple memos, and FBI closed-court discussion therein, was delayed until May 7th, tomorrow:
    …
    The number of Comey memos is why I now describe them collectively as the Comey “journal”. {Go Deep} The reason I suspect the “journal” will soon be released is connected to the recent New York Times release admitting to the use of FBI intelligence assets (Stefan Halper and Azra Turk)) in the Trump operation.

    Last week’s NYT “spy” admission followed a report a month earlier (everyone forgot) that DOJ Inspector General was investigating the FBI use of Stefan Halper.

    CTH notes a conspicuous similarity where all FBI leaks are positioned to present justifications ahead of document/investigative releases adverse to the group’s interests. These leaks appear to be planned releases from corrupt officials still employed within the FBI, and political allies outside government (Lawfare and MSM).

    All of the leaks are justifications. The Comey’s memos, as described by Weissmann and Mueller’s lead FBI Agent, David Archey, are also based around “justification”.

    FBI Director James Comey transparently wrote those justification memos in his journal in 2016 and 2017 exactly for a moment when/if questions were raised about what the FBI investigators were doing.

    Considering there were already FBI investigators taking notes and documenting the operation, there is no other intellectually honest motive for James Comey writing an independent journal other than justifying the specific activity.

    It would make sense for the currently employed corrupt FBI officials to head-off any inquiry, and lead their defense, with documents/leaks that justify their activity.

  26. Hamilton wrote the Constitution in three days. How long has it taken the IG?

  27. “A Mind is a difficult thing to change.”
    -Neo

    I won’t get into my entire Change Story but my change took the better part of ten years. It started with a couple of inconvenient facts. But facts weren’t enough. And it took a lot of time, a lot of cognitive dissonance, a lot of honest soul searching, ‘What do I actually believe?’ type of stuff.

    The Progressivism I was raised around was a cult. And breaking that hold is a hefty task on the singular level. On the societal? I shudder.

  28. Comey isn’t even dead, VDH. Why ya gotta dissect him while he is alive. That is harsh, even from my Y view.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑