Archive for the ‘Comey, James’ Category

A Inauguration Day irony …

January 20, 2017

Comey probably did cost the Dems the White House …


Here’s something for Dems to ponder on inauguration day.

My theory of the case from the get-go was that

(1) Hillary did break the law by grossly (and intentionally) mishandling classified information

(2) There was both harm & foul … i.e. foreign agents hacked the info.

(3) Comey brushed past the intent  (which wasn’t really required for criminality) and the harm of the foul … because he didn’t want to go down in history as the brutish guy who stopped the first woman from being elected president.



Here’s the irony for the Dems ….


Departing AG Lynch’s opens investigation of Comey & the FBI …

January 18, 2017

Her action might prompt re-opening of the Clinton server investigation.


Departing AG Lynch lobbed a clock-winding-down grenade … unleashing the DOJ’s inspector general to review “broad allegations of misconduct involving FBI Director James B. Comey and how he handled the probe of Hillary Clinton’s email practices.”

Center stage are Comey’s July 5 non-sequiturial press conference (lots of evidence, but issue a stay-out-of-jail free card anyway), his re-opening of the case when classified emails were spotted on Anthony Weiner’s laptop and Comey’s last minute pronouncement for every to fuggitaboutit.


There are a couple of ways that Dem-loyal Lynch’s ploy might backfire.

First, beyond Comey, the IG said that he’ll be investigating “whether Peter Kadzik, the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, improperly disclosed non-public information to the Clinton campaign” and whether “FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe should have been recused from the case since his wife, Jill McCabe, ran for a Virginia Senate seat and took money from the political action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a fierce Clinton ally.”

Said differently, the IG is likely to find more influence peddling and tampering from the Clinton side than from the Trump side.

Second, while Lynch has narrow-scoped the investigation to exclude her not-so-secret tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, an in-coming AG might broaden the scope to dig into the “event” that forced Lynch to punt the ball to Comey … setting the stage for his press conference and letters.

Her improprieties certainly contributed to the mess.

Third, and most important, while the IG said that he’s not going to relitigate the findings in the Clinton case, the IG review is likely to rip off some scabs at the FBI and prompt a re-look at the case.

And, there are a couple of plausible motivators for re-opening Clinton’s file …


Why the FBI probe will take some time (if DOJ does squash it) ….

November 3, 2016

The lingering question is “intent”.


Let’s connect a couple of dots today …

I’ve been wondering why Comey re-opened the email investigation, why it will take awhile to resolve itself, and what the outcome will be.

A couple of occurrences brought things into focus for me.


First, my son and I were chatting about how the Clintons always push to the legal edge of the law (or further), but don’t leave many fingerprints… and certainly no smoking guns.

I opined that they’re like the mob bosses who direct activities with ambiguity and deniability.

You know, like the “it would be too bad if he had an accident” line used to order a hit.


The 2nd occurrence was Obama weighing in on Comey yesterday for being premature in issuing his letter and reprimanding that “it’s not the way we do things around here.”



How do “we” do things around here?


Got me thinking back to Comey’s July non sequitur ruling: she broke the law … no direct evidence of intent … so, no charges.

Since then, it has become clear that the law in question does not require proof of intent.

To the contrary, it was written so that intent would be immaterial

So, where did Comey get the idea?


FBI: Hillary evaded indictment using the ‘Steve Martin Defense’…

September 6, 2016

By now, you should have heard that – during her FBI interview – Hillary had trouble recalling many details.

Details such as whether she gave or got state department guidance on email policy.

More of the “I can’t recall” items are listed at the end of this post

For the record, she signed a statement stating that she understood the rules & consequences … and emailed her minions about the importance of following the policy to the letter.

Easily forgotten, right?

And, she told the FBI that she could not recall any briefing after her December 2012 fall that left her with a concussion.

Say, what?

That’s presidential timber for you …


Frankly, I expected Hillary to plead the ‘George Castanza Defense’ … just asking “was that wrong?”

Nope she went the Steve Martin route.

In a famous skit, Martin tips people how to get a million dollars tax-free.

His advice:

First, get a million dollars and don’t pay taxes.

Then, when the IRS calls, tell them “I forgot … I forgot to pay taxes.”

Martin  offers the same advice for bank robbery and other transgressions.

Click to view the 3-minute clip … it’s really funny.



Also, for the record,  here’s a list of other things that Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview:


BleachBit: Hillary’s gift to criminals …

August 26, 2016

How many times have you seen clips of the police confiscating a suspect’s computer for forensic analysis?

Pretty common on Forensic FIles, CSI and the 11 o’clock news, right?

And, the punch line is always the same …

The perps try to delete files & browsing histories, but unknowingly leave behind evidence.



Well, thanks to Team Hillary, FBI documents and a shout-out by Congressman Trey Gowdy, criminals now have no excuse for not covering their tracks.

Introducing to the American consciousness: BleachBit:


Here’s the story ….


Sailor tries “Hillary defense” … then is carted off to jail.

August 23, 2016

Bottom line: Neither ignorance nor innocent intent are stay-out-of-jail cards for ordinary folks.


Let’s connect two articles from last week.

The first is a legal opinion from The Hill:


It’s relatively short and direct – well worth reading.

The essence of the legally supported conclusion:

In letting Hillary off-the-hook, Comey revived two old, tenuous legal defenses: “ignorance of the law” and “no direct evidence of criminal intent”.

Every kid is taught that ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse, right?

And, courts have regularly dismissed the need for prosecutors to prove “willfulness”.

If you did it, you did it

Old adage: Do the crime, do the time (or pay the fine).

But, since Comey’s leniency rested on ignorance and willfulness (“no direct evidence of criminal intent”), those defenses are making a comeback.

Here’s a specific case …..


Bubba turns on Comey … Congress gives Comey a chance to strike back.

August 17, 2016

Over the weekend, former President Bill (Bubba) Clinton lashed out at FBI Director James Comey.

You may remember that Comey laid out the evidence against Hillary … and then let her walk.

Righties were displeased because of Comey’s illogic: The conclusion didn’t follow from the premises.

Lefties simply dispute premises … since they reveal Hillary to be a boldface liar.

Hubby summed it up: “Comey is full of bull …)


Former President calling out the current FBI Director … who gave his wife a stay-out-of-jail free card.

My question: will Comey take that lying down?

NY Post

He doesn’t have to … Congress just provided Comey with an opportunity to rehabilitate his cred as a straight arrow.


Did Comey outsource Hillary’s prosecution to Putin?

July 27, 2016

Did Comey punt to American voters: let them decide if Hillary is guilty and whether it matters?

The DNC email flap has given rise to another possible adjudicator- designate: the Russians.



For the record, HomaFiles was early on to this one.

The day after Comey dished Hillary her stay-out-of-jail-free card – we posted:

The Russians claim to have Hillary’s emails in their possession.

What if they release a couple of damning ones?

See Why did Comey choke on the biggest decision of his career?


Let’s flashback …


“Comey” : Now a part of speech …

July 25, 2016

He ‘pulled a Comey’ on us”.

Responding to Cruz’s convention speech, star-rising Kentucky State Senator Ralph Alvarado cut to the chase.

OMG … an FBI Director has become a part of speech.



You know, like Xerox is not just a company … it‘s a noun synonymous with “ copy”. … and a verb, as in “go Xerox this”.

What did Alvarado mean?


Basically, Cruz seemed to be laying out a case supportive of Trump, then he took a turn with “vote your conscience”.

Alarado coined it a “Comey”

Now, Comey’s dictionary legacy will be:

(1) Comey, noun … an illogical or counterfactual conclusion drawn from a compelling body of evidence .. e.g. “to pull a Comey”

(2) Comey, adjective …  an illogical or counterfactual conclusion drawn from a compelling body of evidence   … e.g. “that’s Comey logic”

(3) Comey, verb … to draw an illogical or counterfactual conclusion from a compelling body of evidence.


Comey wanted to go down in the history books  as a fair, just, apolitical FBI Director.

Instead, he may have planted his legacy in the Urban Dictionary.



Follow on Twitter @KenHoma            >> Latest Posts


Do Americans agree with Comey’s decision?

July 12, 2016

Short answer: A majority disagree with Comey’s decision  not to indict Secretary Clinton.


Two recent polls queried  public opinion on Comey’s decision to let Hillary off the hook.

The right-leaning Rasmussen Reportl headlined:

Most voters disagree with FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to seek a criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton.”

Specifically, 54% of likely U.S. voters disagree with the FBI’s decision and believe that the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment of Clinton … 27% agree with Comey and 10%) are undecided.

Said differently, 2/3’s of the people with an opinion disagreed.

The Rasmussen results are consistent with those of the left-leaning Washington Post / ABC poll which put the split at 56% disagree to 35% agree.



Digging deeper, the details – “internals” in research jargon – are directionally predictable, but interesting…


Friendly fire: Team Hillary blasts Comey.

July 11, 2016

Comey probably expected to be attacked from the right for his illogical decision – amassing a pile of evidence that he then summarily dismissed by parsing words (“extremely careless” vs. “gross negligence”), inserting criminal intent as a criteria (apparently never hearing of, say, negligent homicide) and channeling George Castanza: “Perjury? Is that wrong?”


But, since he slipped Hillary a stay-out-of-jail-free card, I doubt that he was expecting to be attacked from the left.

Silly boy.

Quickly, Team Hillary moved from defense to offense …



First, the Washington Post ran an op-ed by Matthew Miller – a former director of DOJ’s public affairs office under Eric Holder.

Title of the piece was James Comey’s abuse of power.

I was expecting the guy to point out that Comey should have simply presented the evidence and let the prosecutors do the prosecuting.


Miller’s central premise was that Comey – since he let Hillary off the hook – had no right to present a litany of  half-baked circumstantial evidence.

How would you feel if you were innocent of any wrong-doing and a sloppy, indiscriminate fact-finder started airing your inconsequential dirty laundry.

Shame on you, Mr. Comey.


Piling on, Team Hillary started reprising their original talking points.

Facts be damned, there were no emails that were specifically marked classified at the time that they were sent or received.

Don’t throw arcane classification symbols at us, Mr. Comey … show us the word “classified” on the documents.

No reasonable person would expect the Secretary of State to know all of the classification symbols.

And, disregard that document she signed saying that she understood the law re: handling classified material … and the legal consequences.

She had to sign so many things that she couldn’t possibly read them all.  Get serious, Mr. Comey.

Say, what?


Finally, when Wolf Blitzer – CNN’s journalistic attack dog (<= sarcasm)– sheepishly asked Hillary about Comey’s ruling, she asserted: Mr. Comey made many assertions that are based on solely on supposition.

“My record as Secretary of State demonstrates that protected classified information and the security of the country”.

English translation: There is no direct evidence that any of the information from my emails is in the hands of enemy agents. You said yourself, Mr. FBI Director.

So, Mr. Comey, prove it … or STFU.



Comey probably didn’t expect that the proverbial dog would eat the hand that fed it the stay-out-of-jail card.

But, it did.

Comey tried to give everybody half-a-loaf.

He may have ndicted Hillary  politically by airing her carelessness and lies, but he let her off the legal hook.

As the saying goes, he might have been “too clever by half”… and simply angered both sides.

Comey said that his 2 life priorities are his family and his reputation.

Now, he might want to just focus on his family …



Follow on Twitter @KenHoma            >> Latest Posts

Is Hillary a woman of destiny?

July 9, 2016

First, let’s establish a basic point:

The killing of 5 police officers in Dallas is a horrific tragedy to their families, to the city and to the country,

The massacre may go down as a defining moment in American history.

Time will tell/


That said, can you imagine the likely bipolar reaction at Hillary’s campaign headquarters?

One one hand, I’m sure that they shared the heartfelt shock and grief that most Americans felt.


On the other hand …

Can you imagine the sigh of relief when there was nary a word about the Comey hearings on the news yesterday?

Nothing yesterday … probably won’t be anything today or tomorrow or the next day or the day after that.

A tragedy of monumental proportions has shifted the spotlight off of Hillary at a very opportune time.

I’ll skip the obvious tasteless cliche and just say:

For better or worse, maybe Hillary is a woman of destiny.

Think about it …



Follow on Twitter @KenHoma            >> Latest Posts


Comey’s Testimony: Cutting to the chase ….

July 8, 2016

I watched the bulk of the Comey hearings yesterday.

First, I commend the Comey for showing up, for his 5-hour mental-physical stamina, for his recall of specifics and, with a couple of exceptions, his apparent forthrightness.

Second, too bad that Chaffetz and Gowdy couldn’t have all the GOP time for questions. They provided the most revealing moments.



Specifically, here are my takeaways.


I was wrong, very wrong … but somebody had it right.

July 7, 2016

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.

My nomination for President … experience, integrity, leadership.

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.


Why did Comey choke on the biggest decision of his career?

July 6, 2016

Short answer: He didn’t have the stones to make a historic decision.

Image from The Drudge Report


A weird turn of events put Comey under a particularly bright spotlight.

Before the events of the past week, the way I expected things to work out:

  1. Comey reads the 1st 14 minutes of his his speech laying out the body of evidence, concluding with a recommendation to indict.
  2. AG Lynch immediately puts the kabosh on the recommendation, refusing to indict.
  3. Or, AG Lynch green lights an indictment and President Obama quickly steps in to pardon Hillary “for the good of the country”.
  4. Hillary continues her campaign to become the first woman president.

Comey would have drawn the correct legal opinion based on the evidence, but the course of history wouldn’t have changed.

But, things didn’t work out that way, and Comey found himself in a much brighter spotlight … and, when the story ends, it won’t be pretty for Comey


My nomination for President … experience, integrity, leadership.

December 21, 2015

Last week, I built a partial Cabinet from the current cast of GOP Presidential candidates.

HHS – Dr. Ben Carson

Commerce – Ms. Carly Fiorina

State – Sen. Marco Rubio

Justice (AG) – Gov. Chris Christie

V.P. – Gov. John Kasich

For details & rational, See Let’s build a cabinet ….

OK, I’m ready to declare my pick for the top spot.

It’s a long-shot, especially since he’s not a declared candidate.

But I can dream, can’t I ?

I hoping that since the current field – on both sides – doesn’t have a president-ready candidate, that this guy will ride in on a white horse … or, be dragged in …. I don’t really care.




Here’s his top line bio:

Education: William & Mary, University of Chicago Law School (doubt that he studied under Prof. Obama)

Gov’t experience: DOJ under both GOP and Dem administrations

Business experience: Worked in both the defense sector and the financial sector (not just a political hack)

Proven track record: Has been demonstrably successful in everything he has done

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.

Orientation: “Gets it” regarding the war on terror … realistic, aggressive

Strong leadership: When the guy talks, I think he’s telling the truth and glad that he’s got a hand on the tiller (think, the polar opposite to Obama’s speech after San Bernardino.)


Pretty solid, right?

So, who’s my pick?