Don’t Miss the Significance of the Comey Matter

As expected, recent testimony given by James Comey to Congress was a big nothingburger. The worst thing for President Trump to come out of it, besides confirming Comey told him three times he was not under investigation, was that the elected executive of the people sought to discover whether an unelected enforcer of law, who acts in the president’s name, had any loyalty to the president’s agenda (an agenda chosen by the people). This looks bad to progressively minded people, to be sure, but it may be exactly what we the people need.

Democrats and the media (who, as Victor Davis Hanson points out, are now one and the same) both anticipated the event with such glee and certainty that it would prove disastrous to the president, that it almost could not have gone down any other way in their minds. As you might have noticed, their track record of understanding reality has been abysmal of late. And as for the rest of the Russia-Trumpscandal,” concerning which the Left continues to listen too much to its own echo chamber,  they miss all the evidence showing real collusion implicating Democrats, even as they allow real criminals to commit real crimes. Many people are missing the true significance of the whole affair.

The Comey affair shows us that there are big problems with the Bureau. Contrary to the old narrative that the FBI is full of patriotic, professional experts, empirical evidence suggests that the culture of the institution is partisan, unprofessional, and surprisingly unintelligent.

The “patriotic professionals” narrative has its roots in―wait for it―progressivism. The progressives promised us that the administrative state would be better than a government based on the consent of self-governing men, largely because it would allow experts to help us deal with the big problems of the modern world. Making government unaccountable to the people, they said, would be alright because we would be giving power to who really knew what they were doing with it and who would always be dedicated to the common good above all else.

Answering the question of “Who Should Rule?” in his 1948 book The Administrative State, Dwight Waldo wrote about “The ‘Compleat Administrator’” who

must in the first place, have an usual natural endowment of physique, stamina, the qualities of personality which enable him to “win friends and influence people,” andparticularlyintelligence. He must in the second place, be educated…[in] both “cultural” and “professional” subjects…Third, he must not only be educated, he must be “educated”; he must “know something,” be a “wise” man.

Moreover, the administrator is meant to be unencumbered by the people’s legislation. “The legalistic approach,” wrote James Landis in The Administrative Process, “that reads a governing statute with the hope of finding limitations upon authority rather than grants of power with which to act decisively” is not good. Instead,

the ablest administrator that it was my good fortune to know, I believe, never read, at least more than casually, the statutes that he translates into reality. He assumed that they gave him power to deal with the broad problems of an industry and, upon that understanding, he sought his own solutions.

This view of civil servants as independent, expert, intelligent, and “wise” professionals unencumbered by law (and also, apparently, any realistic understanding of human nature) matches Woodrow Wilson’s separation of politics and administration. It also explains why Comey, “a Don Quixote-like character,” wanted to shield the FBI from Trump to protect the “FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch;” why Rep. Ted Lieu thinks Trump, who presumed to fire FBI director for doing a poor job, exhibits “an incredible disrespect for the rule of law;” and why Dana Perino might say on the Five (and she did) that the FBI’s independence is important because of the separation of powers and the need for an independent judiciary . . .

align=”left” Never mind the obvious problems of separating the force of government (it is called “law en-force-ment” after all) from the control of the people, the whole Comey memo leak and ensuing Comey testimony prove that our Hegelian guardians are not as impartial, professional, or intelligent as they were billed.

Never mind the obvious problems of separating the force of government (it is called “law en-force-ment” after all) from the control of the people, the whole Comey memo leak and ensuing Comey testimony prove that our Hegelian guardians are not as impartial, professional, or intelligent as they were billed. A significant portion of the senior leadership at the FBI, both appointed and bureaucratic, appears to be ignorant of the law or extremely partisan. This, in turn, suggests the entire FBI has major problems, for bureaucrats tend to be products of the culture of their organization.

First, the Comey-Trump conversation likely does not indicate any wrongdoing by the president. As Elizabeth Foley points out in an extensive legal review:

As distasteful as the president’s statements may be, they do not constitute an obstruction of justice. Indeed, if they did, virtually every communication between criminal defense lawyers and investigators would be a crime.

Andrew C. McCarthy made a similar point on Fox.  Even Alan Dershowitz seems to agree. If this is true, is it not reasonable to expect that FBI agents, especially senior ones, understand this? If they do, then the only reason to leak the memo in the first place would be to hurt their elected superior, either by presenting a false image of wrongdoing, or simply by presenting his way of doing business as suspect and questionable as compared with the ways to which they are more accustomed. This is neither professional nor non-partisan. And these agents forget that they are an extension of the president’s executive power, not a power unto themselves.

If the FBI agents think the conversation reflects a crime or any other kind of wrongdoing, this suggests that the FBI is ignorant of the law. It seems it should be part of their professional competence to be aware of the laws they are seeking to enforce, even if they only read them “casually.” But in the case of law enforcement experts, as opposed to regular administrators, I would hope they do more than read the law casually, since they must abide by it in addition to enforcing it.

But let us assume Foley and McCarthy are incorrect in their assessment and the conversation does indicate wrongdoing by the president; the FBI still looks ignorant or extremely unprofessional. As Matt Wilson points out, not reporting an obstruction of justice is itself a felony. Perhaps Comey and the senior officials at the FBI he told about the memo did not know this. Such ignorance would be staggeringly problematic.

Or perhaps they did understand the law and did not think the memo constituted any improper act, as Comey’s May 3 testimony and his testimony today would indicate. If so, why leak about the conversation? Assuming senior FBI officials are not so stupid as to misunderstand how it would be used by the media, the only reason is the the obvious one: a major breach in professionalism for partisan reasons.

None of this is overly complicated or hard to reason out. It would seem the FBI leaked the memo story to stoke these passions in spite of thinking, no matter the law or the content of the leak. In essence, senior officials in the FBI are either too incompetent to recognize the political climate (which I doubt), or (as I fear) they are willing to use what amounts to propaganda to inflame the heightened passions of the people and intentionally instigate division among Americans. Perhaps the Republicans are not wrong to consider cutting the budgets of the intelligence community experts.

Now, it might be a stretch to impugn the entire FBI because of the actions of a few senior agents, but it certainly does not give citizens confidence. As stated earlier, senior bureaucrats tend to be products of whatever culture permeates the bureaucratic organization in which they rise to prominence. They are careerists, not theorists about the nature of democratic government. If senior officials are unintelligent or unprofessional, it is not unreasonable to assume that the entire organization is largely the same. As a former boss once told me, “either you assimilate to the Borg, or the Borg assimilates you.” To get to the top, you have to be embrace the Borg.

align=”right” The Comey matter likely reveals rampant ignorance or partisanship in the Bureau, and it probably shows a bit of both combined with hubris.

And there does not appear to be any major outrage coming from the FBI, neither does there appear to be any agents stepping up to condemn the rampant leaks or Comey’s disdain for elected representatives controlling public force. Perhaps the upstanding agents at the FBI disagree with all of the things happening at the FBI, but there is little evidence to suggest there are more of them than there are of those who imitate the senior officials and talk to the New York Times. The more likely scenario is that most FBI officials actually believe in their capacities to be “above it all” and purely objective and thus believe that they deserve the public’s trust, no matter what.

In many ways, the prolific number of leaks suggests that it is a cultural norm to undermine one’s superiors whenever one wishes. Certainly, this aspect of bureaucracy in the executive branch is well known. As Michael Nelson points out in his Guide to the Presidency:

Members of the…bureaucracy have several means by which they can resist presidential will…They can delay or undermine the execution of presidential directives, provide the president only with information and options that do not conflict with their interpretation of an issue, leak details of a controversial or covert policy to Congress or the media, publicly oppose a policy, or resign in protest. The president may have the constitutional power to order an agency to carry out a particular task, but if that agency drags its feet or otherwise undermines implementation of the order, the president’s power can be diluted or even neutralized.

As Senator Schumer pointed out, it is natural for bureaucrats to defend themselves from elected officials. And it only seems natural that this component of bureaucracy that divides the nation, shirks civilian control of government, and weakens what is supposed to be an “energetic executive,” is now celebrated as a positive good. It all fits with the progressive model of administration.

It is clear that recent events have not been flattering to the professionals in the FBI. The Comey matter likely reveals rampant ignorance or partisanship in the Bureau, and it probably shows a bit of both combined with hubris. If those in the FBI want to be perceived differently, then they need to take significant measures to police the rampant leakers and change the culture. And perhaps the American people, and those whom they elect, ought to demand more loyalty from their bureaucrats and to ask them to remember that they are subordinate to the sovereign authority of the people and the elected officials who represent them.


About David Danford

David Danford is a Major in the United States Army and a graduate of the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College. He and his wife live in Fort Montgomery, New York, with their four sons. The views expressed in this article are an unofficial expression of opinion; they are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or any agency of the U.S. Government.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

45 responses to “Don’t Miss the Significance of the Comey Matter”

    • Why are you here? Obviously didn’t read the article..Good job making an fool of yourself…

      • Yeah, that’s really good, Hope. That’s a true display of cognitive superiority. I guess it’s you who didn’t read the article, or you would have made some sort of comment germane to it. Instead, like a third-grade girl, you just threw an insult.

      • I don’t listen to liberal morons that are destroying my country. You are my enemy Rougy best hope we don’t cross paths.

      • You’re an idiot and a coward and if threats are all you have, you should really consider therapy, or therapy by way of prison will be thrust upon you.

  1. “Staggeringly problematic” is a well used and deserved term for the FBI, and most agencies under a staggeringly incompetent Obama administration.
    After reading this article and being reminded what moral fiber and integrity is necessary in a President, it is no surprise that Our government is in the pathetic shape it is in after 8 years of gross incompetent representation by a Democrat President.
    And to think that We could have been represented by someone worse than Obama?
    It is clear that America prevented (or perverted) an apocalyptic demise with the Democrats’ torchbearer of incompetence.

    • Unfortunately, the Obama administration was all-too competent at seeding the bureaucracies with dedicated leftwing statists (I dislike the term ‘progressive’, since Progress is a good thing, but statism is not). It’s going to take radical housecleaning and shrinking of the bureaucracies if the Leviathan is to be curtailed. Too big a job for the Trumpians in the White House? As of now they have managed to fill only a quarter of appointed positions. Fine, if they want to shrink the government, but that leaves the Civil Service drones untouched.

      /L. E. Joiner

      • “Seeding” is a good term since you know (being from the D.C. area of 50 years ago/your link) that is precisely what the Democrats have been executing since way back then.
        Obama was a perfect lightening rod to distract the attention from the comprehensive subversive “seeding” agenda of the Democrat Party.
        (As an entertaining aside: “Lightening rod” reminds me of Melville’s “The Lightening Rod Man”:

      • Thanks for the response. I don’t know if ‘agenda’ is the right term, as the process works by accretion, like attracting like, with white-collar molding in the academies turning out the clones in ever-greater numbers. Not for nothing do the statists urge everyone to “go to college.”

        Thanks for the Melville squib; what explosive use of language! Your link was broken by a proximate close-paren, so here it is correctly:

        /L. E. Joiner

      • Good term “accretion”; Like rust and corrosion.
        Never thought about the Democrats having the “seeds” for rust and corrosion, but it’s obvious they do.
        Thanks for fixing the link.
        Melville is magnificent.

      +$97/hr pay by google, I am making a good salary from home $7500-$9000/WEEK , which is amazing, one year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy, I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everyone,Here is I started,,,
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleMoneyTree422PerfectDeals$97hourly/Careers ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!ym422c:.,

  2. Marco Rubio’s observation yesterday highlighted the partisan nature of Comey’s FBI when he pointed out that the only thing not leaked was the fact the Trump was not under investigation. You make excellent points in your article. However, if you go back and read Rostenstein’s memo in the Comey firing – it lists Democrat and Republican justice officials who disagree with Comey’s actions as FBI director. The final paragraphs of that memo reads:

    “We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

    Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.”

    Additionally, it was widely reported during the presidential campaign that there was much dissension in the FBI ranks regarding Comey’s handling of the FBI investigation of the Clinton emails. So, perhaps there is reason to hope that most of this “Comey affair” was the result of James Comey’s actions and those with whom he shared his memo notes and not the FBI as a whole.

  3. “If those in the FBI want to be perceived differently, then they need to take significant measures to police the rampant leakers and change the culture.”

    Good luck with that! There isn’t anybody in the Trump administration that has a clue or the cojones to take on these Russia lies. Not Pence, not Sessions. Don’t recuse yourself, fight you wimp! Otherwise Schumer will be talking about the “troubling” connections with Russia with everyone in the GOP who is’nt pwned.

    When are people going to wake up and realize that the USG isn’t working anymore. This corrupt mess is destroying our country and our people and nobody but Trump is doing anything about it. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the Trump experiment has already failed. The regime elites will not allow the USG to be changed in any meaningful way. The Constitution IS a suicide pact. We are still on Flight 93 and we are going to crash. What’s the plan at AG, besides hand wringing? Who is willing to rise to these dark times and pen a contemporary “Common Sense” that presents a battle plan for what comes next?

    Where is Publius Decius Mus? I know where Michael Anton is: somewhere useless. You guys at AG have turned into the same Conservative Inc. cuckery that we used to get at National Review. In less than a year, you’ve gone from insurgents to Jonah Goldberg.

    • The point of “The Flight 93 Election,” I think, was that the Trump campaign was a last ditch effort to prevent the crash. Many if not most of us who agreed knew there was no assurance the system would not implode. Is it happening? Yes. Is it irreversible? Almost. The odds are longer today than ever, but it’s not a fait accompli, at least not yet, and I’m incredibly pessimistic. The federal government more or less has lost its legitimacy due to throwing the keys to the administrative state. Maybe those keys can be retrieved, but they probably cannot be recovered. That’s where we are.

      • Decius thought it was premature to talk about what comes next. It is not premature now . . .

      • Still, if the country is going to crash on the shoals I would much rather have President Trump at the helm navigating than anyone else.
        I have much optimism that President Trump will be able to navigate the country out of troubled waters hopefully by 2020 if not certainly by 2024 and considering the lightning fast speed President Trump moves righting the boat is very doable.

    • I expect Mark Levin is disliked here because he was anti-Trump and pro-Cruz, but maybe it’s time now for his Article Five Convention of States. Is there any other way to rein in the Administrative State Leviathan that has become a ‘fourth branch’ of government? President Trump can be entertaining as hell, but tweeting isn’t going to do it.

      /L. E. Joiner

  4. Is a democracy and a permanent administrative state with a police apparatus compatible? No, and that didn’t start with Comey. If the federal government wants to restore its legitimacy (if that even can be done), it will have to overhaul the FBI and IC, strip out civil service protections, and put them under intense scrutiny. I don’t think this will happen, unfortunately.

    Which takes us to a second issue. As you write:

    “If senior officials are unintelligent or unprofessional, it is not unreasonable to assume that the entire organization is largely the same.”

    To repeat a cliché about presidential administrations, personnel is policy. If Congress does the right thing and cracks down on the FBI, new blood is necessary deeper down than the director.

    • Sorry, pointless wonkery. Now is “who/whom” time.

  5. Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes are worse than useless cowards incapable of providing any “oversight.”

  6. It’s a choice between Plato’s philosopher king and the demos. History shows that though the demos is often wrong (they elected Obama to two terms) they are right more often than the philosopher kings.

  7. shut it down, it’s just a klown academy anyway.

  8. Comey is a snake, Clinton-plant and demonstrable liar.

    1 He 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 goverment, whom Rich often helped, asked Clinton to do that pardon. However even if so, it like the other pardons was corrupt as the Clintons reeived 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 Commissoin 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 supervisers on Clinton and Trump investigations. McCabe should have been recused. (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.

    • GREAT response msher_1….. And why are we not hearing this from the MSM? WE have met the enemy and they are—the MSM.

      • Reread #6. I had updated that in other versions of my post. What you read was bad, but I changed that for something worse.

        The bigger question, imho, is why aren’t GOP sticking up forTrump and saying any of this? They kow it’s no big secret. (And the leadership knew Trump sasn’t under investigation – and have said nothing.)

      • Don’t forget main he!pers: Establishment Republicans. And the so-called movement conservatives. Or Fox? Why aren’t we hearing any of this from them? (Or that Trump was never under investigation.)

        The best essay of the 2016 election. Trump thought so; he hired the author. It is about the sell-outs.

  9. Did Ya’ll forget Comey was your man when he harpooned Hillary? You don’t get to cherry pick the facts. Maybe the search for the truth is under appreciated over here, Comrade.

    • Comey hardly harpooned Clinton. If he had done his job she’d be going to college graduations with a big “pardoned” sign hanging around her neck. You need to remember that Clinton and cronies were long time government employees who unquestionably knew the law and protocols for handling classified information. Two of them, one being Clinton herself, were …uh … lawyers. They knew clearly they were violating the law. And yet somehow they ended up with sweetheart get-out-of-jail-free immunity cards and a judgement from Comey they they had “no criminal intent.” Had Comey/Lynch even a molecule of integrity, they would have forced Obama to pardon her before prosecution. For anyone, including the oh-so-fair Sen Collins, to suggest the man has integrity or that he’s some sort of patriotic public servant is … well all the good words have become overused and there’s no word left to adequately express the ridiculousness of that idea. This man and his top aids should be investigated and then indicted for public corruption. For him to have been given a stage to vent his petulance over having been fired is a second level of ridiculousness that is even beyond even the idiotic notion that comey might have integrity. Wash DC is a complete clown show. In a an age of fake news, fake integrity, fake honesty, i guess it should not be surprising that our “best and brightest” are a bunch of fake leaders.

      • Being the expert you are, is your statement correct? “We’re open, fair minded, intellectually honest and don’t stand for anything.” Being “Open” explains how the FoxGOPutin party and McConnell’s Senators are crafting the healthcare bill in secret behind closed doors. Intellectually corrupt is the correct interpretation of BS you so artfully write. And finally, you’re correct in stating you don’t stand for anything.

      • crafting healthcare law openly would only help obstructionist democrats. Republicans are being smart.

      • ” . . . are crafting the healthcare bill in secret behind closed doors . . .”

        Turn about, fair play. In secret, behind closed doors is how it got passed in the first place.

        Nasty Pelosi even said we would have to read it to find out what was in it.

        If you Lefties didn’t have hypocrisy and a double standard, you wouldn’t have anything in your arsenal but lying, cheating and stealing.

  10. I think these are astute observations. I also think this is intimately connected to the problem of the media and, interestingly to the Republican brand image. Just have a look at Susan Collins interview on CNN (over at realclear). The oh so earnest and oh so fair minded Sen basically through the president under the bus, saying that his conduct with Comey was inappropriate and wrong and that Comey was a “person of unquestioned integrity” and then she oh so politely suggested the president was either a rube or was obstructing. This from a republican.

    This type of behavior just destroys the brand of all republicans. We’re open, fair minded, intellectually honest and don’t stand for anything while the Dems are ruthlessly focused on achieving their ends. Why are we like this? It does not work in our favor. Even the idea of appearing on CNN should be considered near traitorous to the party at this point.

    I think as a party we need to re-evaluate the wisdom received from WF Buckley that the best republican candidate is the one who can get elected. Obviously you have to have majorities to govern, but the brand has to have meaning and be legitimate. Sen Collins is a democrat who leverages the republican name and brand to get elected. I think there needs to be some brand enforcement otherwise all the investment in building the brand is flushed down the toilet.

    Sen Collins could have made the argument that Comey has very questionable integrity. She could have argued that trump was frustrated by the Russian cloud and how it was impeding his administration. She could have said she can understand how trump might have loyalty to Flynn and that Trump believed him a patriotic American. Instead she damaged him, she damaged the party, and she damaged us. Why do we permit this? Even sen Rubio had the sense to support us.

    This is a PR battle and we have traitors on our side. It’s time to fix this problem. If she and the entire David Brooks wing of the party is forced to pick a side, so be it. But, we need a brand that our members support and live up and that we ruthlessly defend. Otherwise, voters do know what we are. Unfortunately the Dems continue to drag everyone down the abyss with them. But the choice is to spiral down or just lose.

  11. “Surprisingly” unintelligent? “Rampant ignorance”?

    I agree with “rampant ignorance” and “unintelligent” – but why “surprisingly” ?

    Director Comney gave a speech blaming the victims and heroes of World War II for Nazism. I am not surprised that his ignorance extends to other matters. I remind everyone President Obama also displayed the same ignorance when he blamed the victims of the Holocaust for committing it (at least President Obama apologized although what an embarassment he was).

    But aren’t we allowing ourselves to get too caught up in this nothing? The media is lying, trying to impeach or disgrace the President.

    Take the example of that CNN reporter and the lawsuit against President Trump for blocking her on twitter – they’re claiming her First Amendment rights were violated…

    We should not be having discussions with them, we should attack back or ignore them and focus on the President’s agenda.

    When is Congress going to pass immigration reform, lower taxes, raise the tarrif?

  12. Bollocks! The FBI Director owes absolutely no loyalty to the president or his “agenda”. His loyalty is the the US Constitution. Period. READ THE OATH!

      • Lynch effed up. But the assertion that “Comey served Hillary” is just delusional. It was his statement a few days before the election that in large part doomed her.

  13. That’s why no Democrat can be allowed in any position of trust or authority anywhere. Next up, those judges that have breached the Canons of Ethics by inventing Unconstitutional grounds to oppose the travel ban must be impeached. They will be overturned in the Supreme Court and the utter partisan speciousness of their ‘arguments’ will be documented. With the 9th and 4th together, this will mean something like two dozen Democrat judges can be removed. And replaced. Forward.

  14. Major Danford rightly describes the current state of the culture of the FBI in particular and the federal government in general. And, what is on the horizon is Phase II with Mueller as Special Counsel. He and Comey already colluded with the plan not quite coming together. But, like Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald (and, by extension, those hanging chads) there has got to be a criminal out there somewhere. Ain’t that right Scooter Libby!

  15. They will never comply. Only when there life is in the balance will they finally repent. All it will take is a couple of FBI or intellegence patriots to expose the traitors like Comey. He should hang for his crimes. Now I think we will get down to exposing the collusion of the Democrats (OBAMA) and leftover traitors. WE need full exposure of the treason that DENNIS MONTGOMERY has captured in the 40 something harddrives containing 600 million documents. Here is the proof of the real collusion. Let the revolution begin and bring forth the guillontine.
    P.S. Sen Burr (R) Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, why is it you republicans never hold in contempt traitors like Sen Mark Warner who voluntarily read in Spanish from the well of the Senate to his foreign national illegal aliens an unconstitutional piece of legislation. Your cowardice and acceptance of this is unacceptable and should disqualify you as a patriot.

  16. It will be easy to purge the Intelligence agencies. Openly offer amnesty from prosecution any individual who can provide provable documentation of collusion by dems and leakers

  17. The slow and steady erosion of true Constitutional behavior by those at the highest levels of government is devastating. We are slowly but surely being turned into the old USSR, unless Trump can halt it. As noted it certainly will not be easy, they will fight to the last cockroach!