Comey Testimony Is Not About Accusing the President of a Crime

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 June 7, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It is hard to understand why this news is news at all, but ABC News reported Tuesday evening that former FBI director James Comey will not accuse President Donald Trump of obstructing an FBI investigation. Comey is scheduled to testify before the Senate intelligence committee on Thursday.

Comey is a decorated former prosecutor who served at the highest echelons of the Bush Justice Department before becoming the nation’s top federal cop under President Obama. That is why the news that he will not accuse the president of obstruction should be no news. Though better informed than virtually anyone in the country about what constitutes an obstruction crime, Comey took no action consistent with a belief that he had witnessed one during his February 14 meeting with Trump. He did not resign, and having known him for 30 years, I am quite confident he’d have done just that; he would neither countenance such a thing, nor permit himself to become enmeshed in it. Nor did the then-director report either the commission of a crime or being solicited to participate in a criminal scheme—not to his superiors at the Justice Department, and not down his chain of command at the FBI, as internal regulations and protocols would have required.

Moreover, when later asked, in May 3 congressional testimony, whether he’d ever been directed to stop an investigation for political reasons, rather than law-enforcement-related ones, he said he had not. To be sure, the line of questioning at the Senate hearing specifically related to orders from his Justice Department superiors, not from a president. But Jim Comey would not have sliced it so finely. If he had received such a directive from the White House, which any seasoned law-enforcement official would find more disturbing than an order from Main Justice, he would have said so.

The reality, under our law, is that the president—not the FBI director, not the attorney general—is the chief executive law-enforcement official in the country. When FBI supervisors and United States attorneys exercise executive discretion to shut down investigations and prosecutions—something that happens every day, throughout the country—they are exercising the president’s power, not their own.

Understand: None of this means Comey believed it was appropriate for President Trump to lobby him on behalf of Michael Flynn, the national security adviser Trump had just fired. Undoubtedly, he found it highly inappropriate. All of us who have had an occasionally overbearing boss have experienced discomfort, even anxiety, when that trait is turned on us.

No one appreciates feeling manipulated.

The president has the constitutional authority to order that an investigation be closed. Under the Constitution, all of the power in the executive branch is vested in a single official—the president of the United States. Every other executive branch officer is a subordinate, an inferior officer who is delegated to exercise the president’s power at the president’s pleasure. The FBI is not a separate branch of government, granted immunity from direction by political superiors. Nor, as important as it has become, is the FBI a necessary agency of government—i.e., there is no provision for it in the Constitution, and the nation managed to survive quite nicely in the nearly century-and-a-half of constitutional governance before the Bureau was created in 1935.

The reality, under our law, is that the president—not the FBI director, not the attorney general—is the chief executive law-enforcement official in the country. When FBI supervisors and United States attorneys exercise executive discretion to shut down investigations and prosecutions—something that happens every day, throughout the country—they are exercising the president’s power, not their own. Obviously, the president can have no less discretion in this realm than his subordinates do.

Thus, as a matter of constitutional law, the president has as much unilateral power to shut down an investigation as he does to issue a pardon to someone who has been convicted after an investigation, or to commute the sentence of a convicted federal prisoner. The exercise of these powers is unreviewable by the courts. If they are heinously abused, the remedy is for Congress to impeach the president, not for the president’s judgment to be disputed in a judicial proceeding.

Comey knows all this. But he also knows that Trump did not want to be seen as the decision maker. The president did not want to use his own indisputable power to shut down any investigation of Flynn. He wanted Comey to decide to shut the investigation down. He wanted the public to perceive that the FBI, the professional investigators, had determined there was no merit in any potential prosecution of Flynn. No doubt, he hoped Comey would arrive at that determination on his own, but the president was not above a nudge in the desired direction.

Sound familiar? It should, because it is what happened in the Hillary Clinton emails probe.

Comey had to know this. He also had to know that the Obama Justice Department, headed by Loretta Lynch (who had been elevated to public importance when Mrs. Clinton’s husband, President Clinton, appointed her to a coveted U.S. attorney’s position in New York), was never going to authorize an indictment of Hillary Clinton.

President Obama did not direct the FBI and the Justice Department to shut the investigation down. But he did make it known that he did not want his former secretary-of-state to be prosecuted. The then-president, a Harvard-educated lawyer, asserted for all the world, including his subordinates, to hear: He did not believe Clinton should be indicted for mishandling classified information in the absence of evidence that she intended to harm the United States – notwithstanding that there is no such intent requirement in the relevant criminal statute.

Obama could have ordered the investigation to be closed. But he did not want it to appear that he had put his political thumb on the scales of justice. He wanted it to appear that the FBI had done a thorough investigation at the end of which Mrs. Clinton was cleared. Comey had to know this. He also had to know that the Obama Justice Department, headed by Loretta Lynch (who had been elevated to public importance when Mrs. Clinton’s husband, President Clinton, appointed her to a coveted U.S. attorney’s position in New York), was never going to authorize an indictment of Hillary Clinton.

These forces—Obama and Lynch—had guaranteed the outcome. Yet it was the FBI that was being manipulated into the position of excusing Clinton’s inexcusable conduct. The Bureau’s prestige was being put into the service of her political campaign.

We all know how Comey reacted to that scenario.

The then-director’s recommendation against indicting Mrs. Clinton is overrated—it was not his call to make, and if he had made a different recommendation it would have been rejected by Lynch and Obama. And regardless of the criticism of his legal analysis voiced by me and other commentators, let’s stipulate that Comey truly believes that there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent to charge Clinton. The salient point is that he was not going to allow himself or his Bureau to be portrayed as endorsing Clinton’s cavalier mishandling of top-secret information, her destruction of government documents, and the culture of disregard for national security exhibited by the State Department during her stewardship.

I have not understood why commentators were suggesting that the former director would accuse the man who fired him of committing a crime. He knows President Trump did not commit a crime. He knows, as any experienced prosecutor knows, that putting not-so-subtle pressure on a subordinate does not arise to felony obstruction.

Yes, Mrs. Clinton was not indicted. But Comey made damn sure the country understood that the FBI had done its job, and that it did not approve of the behavior its thorough investigation turned up. He did it by simply describing her inappropriate conduct in just-the-facts-ma’am fashion. Short of having to shut down her campaign, it is hard to see how Clinton could have been more damaged politically if Comey had publicly accused her of committing a crime.

So see, this is not Comey’s first rodeo.

I have not understood why commentators were suggesting that the former director would accuse the man who fired him of committing a crime. He knows President Trump did not commit a crime. He knows, as any experienced prosecutor knows, that putting not-so-subtle pressure on a subordinate does not arise to felony obstruction. But I’m betting that Comey’s objection has never been that the president violated the law. What he objects to is his sense that the FBI was being put in the service of a president’s political desires – i.e., his sense that he and the Bureau were being prodded to do the heavy-lifting for a president who was unwilling to take the political heat for shutting down an investigation of a political ally.

The then-FBI director made life plenty unpleasant for President Obama and Mrs. Clinton when they put him in that position. I expect he will do the same for President Trump . . . without ever accusing him of committing a crime.

Content created by The Center for American Greatness, Inc is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected]

About the Author:

Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy is a former chief assistant U.S. attorney best known for successfully prosecuting the “Blind Sheikh” (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven other jihadists for waging a terrorist war against the United States – a war that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a subsequent plot to bomb New York City landmarks. He is a recipient of the Justice Department’s highest honors, helped supervise the command-post near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan following the 9/11 attacks, and later served as an adviser to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. His several popular books include the New York Times bestsellers Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. He is a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor at National Review. He is a frequent guest commentator on national security, law, politics, and culture in national media, and his columns and essays also appear regularly in The New Criterion, PJ Media, and other major publications.
  • jack dobson

    ” let’s stipulate that Comey truly believes that there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent to charge Clinton”

    No, let’s not stipulate any such thing. Comey lied to the general public, 98 percent of whom were ignorant about matters as arcane (although important) as mens rea. Comey should have resigned that day rather than mislead the nation, and whatever he did before or afterwards always will be tainted by his acquiescence in Clinton’s numerous felonies.

    If I wanted to read the musings of Administrative State fan bois, I would have caught McCarthy’s act over at the National Review. The reason this site has such success is it normally doesn’t traffic in such piffle. I hope this doesn’t mark a permanent deviation from that mission.

    As an aside, I suspect the average American Greatness reader doesn’t have any doubt whatsoever that Comey would have lied and claimed President Trump committed obstruction or some other felony if he could have gotten away with it. As it happened, Comey couldn’t make such a claim and come out unscathed so he did something that doesn’t come natural to him: he told the truth.

    • Whoa!
      Andrew McCarthy and Victor Davis Hanson are the only authentic conservative writers still on the NRO payroll.
      That’s amazing considering the spitting everybody else does when discussing PRESIDENT TRUMP, especially their juvenile editor, Rich Lowry.
      They must have an iron clad contract with NRO that precludes their early dismissal for frivolous motivations.
      Mr McCarthy is often cited by Rush Limbaugh for his prescient critique of the current psychosis running rampant throughout Our government and media.
      In fact, Dr. Hanson has just such an article on the rabid media and it’s malicious intent:
      https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/06/crude-news-network/
      National Review has lost a considerable number of it’s faithful readers and commenters, because it threw a hissy fit about it’s readers liking the presidential candidate Donald Trump, and went so far as to change the format and comment application, whereby it deleted all registered commenters, and required you to re-register if you still felt it necessary to comment on their vitriol.
      As for Andrew McCarthy:
      I’ll join him in any foxhole he wants to fight from, since he has a history of laboring to slay the Islamic extremists infesting Our American homeland.

      • jack dobson

        “Andrew McCarthy is “stipulating” ESTABLISHED FACT.”

        If you parse it out and agree intent had to be proved, it’s still not established fact. There was more evidence of intent in the case against Hillary Clinton than presented in the average criminal prosecution that requires that to be proved (negligence sufficed here). I’m trying to give his stipulation a generous reading, too.

        I am a huge fan of Dr. Hanson, as an aside, and would like to see more of him here.

        • William Fankboner

          To state the obvious, intent is implicit in the act.

    • Dan Schwartz

      @jackdobson:disqus: The problem was the same as what halted the Whitewater prosecution: There isn’t a jury in metro DC — which voted 93% for Hillary — that would convict her in 2016.
      For what it’s worth, Hillary was guilty of the felony of “anticipatory obstruction of justice” under SarbOx the minute her e-mail server went live in 2009… And she should have known, as she voted for the law in 2002!

      • jack dobson

        There very well may had been jury nullification. But…so?

      • E Deplorabus Unum

        Comey was also the one who investigated Bill Clinton’s pardon of arms dealer and tax delinquent Marc Rich and, after the Clintons received $1.5 million from Rich’s wife Denise, Comey found that Clinton did nothing illegal. Sound familiar?

        • Warrior1

          Corrupt comey has a long history of helping the clintons.

    • Daniel Ingrassia

      Did we read the same article? Andrew McCarthy’s articles have been spot on during these investigations, and invariably lead to two main conclusions 1) there is no criminal investigation, on counterintelligence, and 2) Trump didn’t obstruct justice and had every right, as chief executive, to exercise the executive power of stopping a federal criminal investigation.

      He was also harsh on Comey for “deciding” not to prosecute HRC. FBI doesn’t make prosecutorial decisions. DOJ does, with AG at the head of it.

      • jack dobson

        We read the very same article, and McCarthy generally has been correct about this dog and pony show–when he isn’t qualifying his criticism of Comey. He isn’t correct, though, when he writes, “let’s stipulate that Comey truly believes that there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent to charge Clinton.” I may be reading that too narrowly.

        • Daniel Ingrassia

          That’s fair, but I think he was using hypothetical to make point. He linked to his criticisms of Comey’s judgment. His larger point, I think, is that FBI Dir is subordinate to President and that we should stop deluding ourselves into thinking it operates independently of Executive Branch.

          In addition to allowing the mainstream media to push the ridiculous “obstruction” narrative, it gives President’s political cover they do not and should not have. If Obama didn’t want his DOJ prosecuting HRC; own it. If Trump didn’t want FBI investigating Flynn own it (which isn’t even true because Flynn investigation, to my knowledge, is ongoing).

          • jack dobson

            I just heard McCarthy suggest the very thing you wrote regarding the chief executive’s ultimate right to exercise prosecutorial discretion, so you are correct there. He may have been using hyperbole in his hypothetical, also to be fair.

    • FreeMarketMaven

      Agree 100%. Blaming Trump for the damage that Comey did to himself and the reputation of the FBI in the handling of the Clinton affair (immunity? Destroyed laptops? Gee, no coverup collusion there!) is pathetic.

  • Comey may be very competent in his career at the FBI, but he is a complete klutz when it comes to the politics in D.C.
    D.C. will eat him alive, and he needs to realize that or suffer a miserable, slow, death.

    • jack dobson

      I do agree with you that the purpose of the hearing is, in large part, to protect Comey, the FBI and the Intelligence Community. This also is why Mueller, Comey’s friend, mentor and FBI predecessor, is flipping off his glaring conflicts of interest and serving as Special Counsel. It’s all about keeping a lid on the grotesque criminality that took place under the Bush and Obama administrations.

      • ladychurchillusa

        The real intent is to undermine the Trump Presidency. The democrats have taken their depression caused by Hillary’s loss and their own loss of power to a whole new level of obsession. The have become Ahab and it is not a pretty thing to watch a whole party going slowly insane but that’s what we are watching in real time.

        • Precisely!
          The Democrats and their junk yard dog media are a more ominous and extreme threat to the United States, Our traditions, foundation, and its People, than the Russians, China, or N. Korea are.
          They are performing so viciously, Our enemies can just sit back, watch, and laugh.

        • Christine Golden

          The real intent is to crush the peasants’ revolt so thoroughly that they never again rise up against the lords and ladies of the castle. Aka, it’s not about Trump, but the threat his supporters pose to their vicious hold on power.

      • You have ample conjecture with no substantive detail.
        Your dog and pony show is supposed to be better than Mr.McCarthy’s?

        • jack dobson

          Yes. Comey’s history is ample substantive detail.

          • Good point there, Jack.
            It’s astonishing that Comey is not embarrassed by his display of gross incompetence.
            As a former government employee, I’m not shocked at the rampant incompetence saturating Our government agencies.
            We, The People, need a leader like PRESIDENT TRUMP now, or We face a seriously bleak future.

    • BCML

      Don’t be too confident. The Impeachment Train is warming up as we speak.

  • Sambo Beezer

    If Flynn didn’t commit a crime and was fired, rightfully, for misleading the Vice President, then asking Comey to let it, the Flynn investigation, go, then this crisis is over.

    • BCML

      If, If If. Flynn is in a heap of trouble. And so is Trump.

  • E Deplorabus Unum

    I don’t share the author’s admiration for Comey. He has gotten very wealthy covering up the crimes of the Clintons and other swamp dwellers and Comey, without doubt. was one of the major leakers and unmaskers.

    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=72788

  • Whiskey Sam

    Sorry, but if Comey were so principled he would have resigned over Trump’s request if he thought it were illegal, where were his principles when he participated in the Clinton whitewash? He didn’t resign over that. Rather, he’s shown himself to be a self-serving political weasel doing whatever it took to keep his job and framing himself in the best possible light.

  • ClassicalStrings

    Does Mr. McCarthy know whether Comey was miffed enough to write a memo when President Obama let it be known he didn’t want Hillary prosecuted or when he claimed there wasn’t a “smidgen” of evidence in the IRS targeting scandal? Comey should have been fired for his faulty reasoning in allowing Clinton to skate, not to mention that he usurped Lynch’s authority in doing so. Comey should just go away.

  • ladychurchillusa

    The one problem this article has is that it indicates that intent is necessary in the Clinton case. It is not. She should have been prosecuted just as every one else in the same situation would have been. The decision was clearly a political one and has undermined the law.

  • Rick

    No, this is all about Comey getting even with Trump for firing him. That does not make Comey seem all that honorable to me. It makes him appear no less petty and vindictive than any other resident of “the swamp.”.

  • Karl Marx

    Mr. McCarthy, I’m glad you’ve known Comey for so long and can vouch for his character. The Swamp and the Deep State are not composed of Martians, inanimate objects, or Bond villains like Ernest Stavro Blofeld. They have names, like Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Yates, and Rice. Politics is about separating friends from enemies. Are you going to do that, Mr. McCarthy? Or continue your good relations with all these old Beltway hands? Day one, all of these people should have been fired and the “Russia investigation” shut down. Are any of THEM concerned about being investigate for violating OUR Constitutional rights?To ask the question is to answer it. Sessions turns out to be just another cuck. Now we’re going to get another Deep State cuck as FBI director, this Christopher Wray character. Hope you guys all enjoy your Big Law jobs on the backside!

  • ptsargent

    Last evening McCarthy explained all this to the American public on Tucker Carlson’s show. The question unanswered is if the FBI Director works at the behest of the POTUS, is appointed by him, is responsible to him, how could he be “investigating” the POTUS under any circumstances? As explained by McCarthy, every member of the Executive branch of the government works at the behest of POTUS. Only Congress, a separate and coequal arm of the government, can investigate the POTUS.

    • jack dobson

      The television explanation actually made his point better than this column did.

    • FriendlyGoat

      After the complete capture of your mind (as has occurred), you progress right up to true excellence in the justification of dictatorships. Don’t be surprised if America finds a way to refute your assumptions. After all, we can’t and won’t remain a free country if we don’t.

  • Icepilot

    What the Hell is a “decorated” former prosecutor? Any Purple Hearts? Perhaps a National Service Defense Medal with a “Justice” star?

  • FreeMarketMaven

    Right now, having caught just a little of today’s testimony, my main question is who has the bigger ego, Trump or Comey? On the basis of “J. Edgar” Comey’s presumption of independence, and his whining about his reputation, I’d have to give the Big Head Award to Comey.

  • DoubledayCafe

    It is instructive that Obama in his April interview with Chris Wallace, he used the words “careless” and “not intentional” regarding Hillary’s private server investigation. He also made it clear that he did not view what she did as a legal violation of national security. Interestingly, Comey used the same words in his July press conference, “extremely careless” and “lack of intent”. So, it is clear that Comey received his instruction on the investigation from Obama. He testified today that he never felt uncomfortable and the need to document his meetings with Obama…..in his two total meetings in four years.

    • CosmotKat

      “He testified today that he never felt uncomfortable and the need to document his meetings with Obama…..in his two total meetings in four years.”

      Obama hired him did you forget that? Situation changed significantly following July of 2016 so his need for CYA was intensified. What was your point supposed to be?

  • PursueJustice

    It seems to me the only obstruction of justice is what took place last year when Comey gave enough evidence to put anyone else in jail, but said Hillary would not be indicted. Why should anyone believe anything he says today when he lied to the American people last year? Why didn’t he blow the whistle on Lynch last year? Let’s see justice from last year (Hillary and Lynch thrown in Jail = add Bill as well), and then we talk about wrong doing this year. Until then his testimony is BS.

  • BCML

    Comey may not have accused Trump of criminality. That will come later, from the Special Prosecutor, which will be followed by Trump’s Impeachment and resignation.

    • Dave Hunter

      Too much Kool-Aid this morning? It’s never going to happen.

      • BCML

        Don’t bet your trailer on it. You’ll be homeless.

        • Dave Hunter

          Say, I’ll bet you’re the one I read about this morning! There was a story about a village missing it’s idiot…

          • (Shhhhhh!
            They don’t want him back.)

          • BCML

            Did you read that on the outhouse wall?

  • BCML

    Get used to this: “Ex-President Trump”. Soon he just be a punch line.

  • cookiebob

    So Comey did the heavy lifting for the Obama administration, and refused to do it for the Trump administration.

    This does not make Comey a good guy. It makes him corrupt. And not evenly handed corrupt, part and parcel of all the corruption that was and is the Obama administration.

    He knew Hillary commit terrible crimes that hurt our nation and did nothing. He allowed himself to be used as part of the cover up of her crimes.

    Then he balked when Trump asked him to tell the truth to Americans. Trump’s ability to govern was hurt by the fake news the media was pushing, and Comey refused to declassify the information that Trump was not even under investigation.

    It was in the national interest to indict and try Hillary Clinton, it was in the national interest to tell America the media was lying about Trump.

    Comey worked against the national interest every single time.

  • FooDog2

    Thanks Mr McCarthy. Insightful as always.

  • Patrice Couture

    I find it a stretch to equate what Comey, Obama and Loretta Lynch did for Hillary with Trump saying “I hope you can let this go”. I’m guessing Andrew McCarthy is trying to defend a friend. There is no evidence that Trump tried to shut down an investigation. Comey objected to being fired. Comey was being vindictive. Nothing else explains the leaking of his memo to the press for the express purpose of having a special prosecutor appointed and creating more media hysteria. He fully intended to damage the Trump Administration. That leak was far more revealing of his motives than the excuse being put forward in this article.

  • Christine Golden

    There are at least three Congressional committed investigating Flynn, Trump, Russia, etc. So even if Comey had shut down the FBI’s probe, justice would not have been obstructed.

  • Thomas the Corfiot

    Thought this was a fair article. Funny how it’s not good enough for many folks if the author doesn’t insist that Comey ‘s the biggest liar since …oh, I dunno, Hillary?

  • msher_1

    I think Mr. McCarthy is naive or lying about his friend, James Comey. Comey is a snake, Clinton-plant and demonstrable liar.he has been a Clintonworld operative since as early as 2002. Presumably Obama appointed him because he knew he was corrupt and would cover up crimes. His deputy McCabe has at very least a huge conflict of interest that she have meant he automatically recused himself from Clinton or Trump investigations. Fact he didn’t means he must be assumed corrupt. I.e., this was deliberate partisan corruption at top of FBI.

    1 Comey first came into Clintonworld in 1996 as deputy special counsel to the Senate special committee on the Whitewater investigation.

    2. Comey was lead prosecutor while in U.S Attorney’s Office for Southern District of New York against Marc Rich. In 2002, as the US. Atty for Southern District, he oversaw criminal investigations into Clinton’s last-minute presidential pardons, including of Rich. The investigations concluded there was no wrongdoing on the Clinton’s part, despite donations to Clintons. All of pardons stunk – money went to Clintons, or Hillary’s Senate run. Rich pardon gets most attention because of large amount of money involved- $450,000 from Rich to Clinton library and $10O,O00 from Rich’s ex wife to Hillary Senate campaign. I personally wonder whether Israeli government, whom Rich often helped, asked Clinton to do that pardon. However even if so, it like the other pardons was corrupt as the Clintons received money for it. There were no prosecutions on any of the pardons.
    3. Comey was DoJ prosecutor who in 2004 let Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger off on misdemeanor charges for stealing classified Clinton Admin. documents wanted by 911 Commission from National Archives. He also stopped investigation from probing whether Bill Clinton involved.
    4. As General Counsel of Lockheed Martin, he approved payments to Clinton Foundation.
    5. Back at work in DoJ, he was DoJ prosecutor who appointed his close friend Fitzpatrick as Special Prosecutor in Valarie Plame matter, and approved Fitzpatrick prosecution of Scooter Libby.
    6. To get his appointment as FBI Director, he told story of how he rushed to bedside of hospitalized AG Ashcroft to stop W.H. counsel Gonzalez and Chief of Staff Andrew Card from getting Ashcroft to sign an unconstitutional measure. How dramatic, and how presumptuous. Gonzalez was equally competent to make that determination, as was Ashcroft. Another example of him thinking only his opinion could be right – and throwing Bush people under bus.

    7. His brother is an accountant who works for firm that did Clinton Foundation internal audit and does Foundation’s tax returns. His brother works on Foundation matters. Any investigation of Foundation would necessarily extend to his brother. Yet Comey in charge of Hillary and Foundation investigations. Why has no one raised glaring conflict of interest? Mr. Boy Scout, indeed!
    8. His deputy McCabe is close enough to Clintonworld that his wife got $750,000 from Clinton friend/benefactor/former campaign manager Terry MacAulife for her failed Senate run. Yet McCabe was/is actual supervisors on Clinton and Trump investigations. McCabe should have been recused. MacAuliffe was likely to get big job and/or have big influence in Hillary Admin. Did either McCabe aspire to job in Clinton Admin? Wife clearly had political ambitions. (Why no howls about that conflict of interest?)

    Comey testified he didn’t know what Trump meant when he told Comey he had never raised “the McCabe thing.” Demonstrable lie. Of course Comey knew what Trump meant.

    Here is one credible narrative of Comey’s role in protecting Clintons and bringing down Trump.

    http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2017/05/24/trump-dropped-the-hammer-on-comey-part-1/

  • RJones

    This argument is nonsense cubed. So, we’re to believe this man of integrity who made “damn sure the public knew the FBI did it’s job” didn’t have the guts to resign or take notes with the intention of inflicting a special prosecutor on Clinton, but somehow, just somehow, trump is far more untrustworthy? Right. You may want to try again prosecutor because this attempt doesn’t get past the BS test. A man of impeachable integrity would have called out Obama on his comment, and if not permitted to recommend prosecution would have resigned. And he definitely wouldn’t have gone along with sweetheart immunity deals to *lawyers* who darn well knew, without question, they violating the law. And violating it in precisely the manner this particular author laid out in excruciatingly clear detail. This was no judgement call. This was a case of public corruption…Comey himself should be investigated and considered for prosecution to clean out the rot and to ensure people like Clinton never again are permitted to indiscriminately violate laws, including selling access to the government to foreigners. The whole show was disgusting, and this author impugns his own integrity in standing up publicly for Comey. What is wrong with you people?

  • Sam McGowan

    The most important point in this article is that the President of the United States, and only the President of the United States, is the chief law enforcement in this country – by Constitutional authority. Therefore, there is NO WAY a president can “obstruct justice” when it comes to Federal law. Remember that Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil matter.

  • mariner

    Mr. McCarthy,

    James Comey stands revealed as a liar, a leaker and general all-around snake.

    Your willingness to continue carrying Comey’s water casts doubt on either your judgment or your integrity, and perhaps both.

  • Liberalism Has Failed

    Director Comey saw President Obama through Attorney General Lynch shield Hillary Clinton from Prosecution (that ‘secret meeting’ in Phoenix was caught intentionally) and Comey was sent a very clear signal: “Mess with us and die!!”
    In Obama’s own words, “It’s The Chicago Way!”. ALL of the FBI’s evidence against Mrs. Clinton, and there were TRUCK-LOADS of it, were set aside because the Lynch DOJ had no interest in any of it. Hillary Clinton was the chosen-successor to BArack Obama and short of MURDER, nothing was going to get in the way. Did Comey write a memo here?

    Oddly enough, no he didn’t…. THIS was the largest single example of “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE imaginable and it was being orchestrated by the first Mixed-Race (black?) President in this countries history!! And Comey was totally silent….
    All he could do was verbally indict Clinton in-front of The Media and then (in order to spare his life) let her off the hook.
    Compared to what he observed between Obama/Lynch/Clinton, this stuff with Trump/Sessions is childs-play!!