A very loyal reader sent me an email reminding me of a post from last December when the GOP Presidential primary race was heating up.
Who was my pick?
You guessed it: James Comey.
Among Comey’s qualities that I lauded were:
· High Integrity: Consistently praised by both ends of the political spectrum — not for being bi-partisan, but for being non-partisan
· Apolitical: He’s clearly “in the game” for the right reasons – to serve the country and its people.
· Independent: Earned enough FU-money in his real world jobs that he can’t be bought or swayed.
I thought that I was on safe ground since I had even fact-checked with somebody very, very close to Comey who assured me that the Director was the real deal.
I got it wrong … but somebody had the guy pegged right all along.
That “somebody” is the Wall Street Journal.
A WSJ editorial board member was on a news show tonite.
He was asked: Did Comey’s decision surprise you?
His answer: Not at all.
The guy elaborated, saying that Comey is a tough dude – sometimes too tough — when it comes to financial types and politicos who are out of favor — especially out of favor with liberals. But, he’s hardly apolitical and, paraphrasing, never takes on liberal political sweethearts. Never.
The host countered: That’s easy to say today … where were you before this ruling came down?
The WSJ guy immediately cited a WSJ editorial from 2013 – when Comey’s confirmation hearing was going on.
Bottom line: The WSJ nailed it back then.
President Obama nominated James Comey to run the FBI, and the former prosecutor and deputy attorney general is already garnering media effusions reserved for any Republican who fell out publicly with the Bush Administration.
Forgive us if we don’t join this Beltway beatification.
Any potential FBI director deserves scrutiny, since the position has so much power and is susceptible to ruinous misjudgments and abuse.
That goes double with Mr. Comey, a nominee who seems to think the job of the federal bureaucracy is to oversee elected officials, not the other way around, and who had his own hand in some of the worst prosecutorial excesses of the last decade.
Before Senators yawn their way to rubber-stamping President Obama’s “bipartisan” pick, they should ask Mr. Comey some harder questions than the ones to which his media fan base have accustomed him.
click to view full WSJ editorial
The WSJ assessment proved sage when Comey handed Clinton a get out of jail free card – re-crafting a law to offset a veritable mountain of evidence.
That gives the WSJ some crowing rights
For our money, the most revealing words in FBI Director James Comey’s statement Tuesday explaining his decision not to recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information were these: “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
So there it is in the political raw: One standard exists for a Democratic candidate for President and another for the hoi polloi.
We’re not sure if Mr. Comey, the erstwhile Eliot Ness, intended to be so obvious, but what a depressing moment this is for the American rule of law.
No wonder so many voters think Washington is rigged for the powerful.
The rule of law requires its neutral application.
We almost wish Mr. Comey had avoided his self-justifying, have-it-both-ways statement and said bluntly that he couldn’t indict Mrs. Clinton because the country must be spared a Donald Trump Presidency.
It would have been more honest and less corrosive to democracy than his Clinton Standard.
Kudos to the WSJ.
Thanks to JMB for the gentle reminder