Comey: Between a Rock, a Hard Place and the Clinton Machine



by Phil Erwin

The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hypocrite! 

*Tennessee Williams

Williams was clearly thinking of politicians.

Back in July, when FBI Director James Comey ostensibly “cleared” Hillary Clinton and her crew of any wrongdoing regarding her e-mail server, Democrats championed Comey as a stalwart defender of Justice:

Tim Kaine...what was I thinking?

Tim Kaine…Did I say that?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: He’s a great man, we’re very privileged to have him…

Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine: … a wonderful and tough career public servant with the highest standards of integrity…

Congressman Elijah Cummings: I commend you… for your independent investigation.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid: He’s a fair, impartial Director of the FBI…)

Now that Comey’s informed Congress he’s “re-opening” the investigation on the basis of new evidence, he’s suddenly a hateful partisan:

Pelosi: The public interest would be served by the FBI providing the facts, rather than… innuendo and falsehoods…

Kaine: …you violated [Department] protocols, you owe the public full information.

Cummings: Director Comey made a grave mistake…

Reid: Your Partisan actions… clear double standard… selective approach…

(Note: Comey did not actually “clear” Clinton. Democrats simply, repeatedly, claimed that he did.)

I wrote earlier about Comey calling Clinton’s handling of national secrets “extremely careless” but not indictable, suggesting Comey probably caved to political pressures to “clear” Hillary.

Now I’m not so sure.

James Comey taking his oath of office -- Photo FBI

James Comey taking his oath of office — Photo FBI

Observers who understood the legalities were absolutely certain Comey had miscarried justice by letting Clinton and her staff off with merely a public shaming for infractions that routinely land anybody else in jail. (Ex-Prosecutor Rudy Giuliani identified sixteen separate laws that were repeatedly broken.)

But though Comey appeared to reverse course last Friday, what he actually told Congress (I’m paraphrasing) was, “I said I’d inform you of any relevant change. I’m hereby informing you of a possibly relevant change: We have new evidence to examine.”

The political firestorm from that fairly bland notice is off-the-charts. If you’re a Hillary fan, you are ready to draw-and-quarter Comey; if you prefer Trump (or hate Hillary!) you’re ready to kiss Comey in public and recommend him for Knighthood.

But in all the incredibly partisan verbal flailing, no one is asking two simple questions:

  1. What first compelled Comey to issue his public “non-indictment indictment” in July, when he laid out all the requisite legal points justifying an indictment of Hillary, if he did not intend to recommend her indictment?

  2. What caused him to possibly reverse course now, when he knew it would be incendiary?

The answers may be very revealing of the state of our law enforcement leadership. Remember:

  • Attorney General Loretta Lynch

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch

    ​The top of our legal system is the Justice Department, run by Attorney General Lynch, who reports to President Obama, and considers President Bill Clinton a friend (whom she owes for appointing her as U.S. Attorney.) Lynch is Comey’s boss.

  • Obama is busily campaigning for Hillary Clinton, and calling Donald Trump a clown.

  • Lynch met with Bill Clinton in private and against Justice Department policy and legal ethics, while both Hillary and the Clinton Foundation were under investigation, and just prior to Comey issuing his “non-indictment indictment.”

  • Lynch “recused” herself, but not in the formal, legal sense. She simply said she’d go along with whatever Comey recommended. But… Did Lynch tell him what to recommend? Or what penalty would follow if he didn’t?

Comey clearly had an indictable case in July. Somebody, probably Lynch, must have either ordered him, or somehow convinced him, that Clinton must not be indicted (perhaps arguing it would “inappropriately” influence the election – as Lynch just asserted his recent letter did.) And if Clinton was to escape indictment, Comey may have felt conscience-bound to tell the public the truth somehow, so voters could decide the importance for themselves. He couldn’t indict Hillary without Lynch’s approval; his only recourse may have been to inform the public by addressing Congress in the unprecedented way that he did.

If that was his plan, it worked. People found out just how careless Hillary and crew had been in handling our nation’s secrets.

So why would Comey now “re-open” the investigation? Why inform Congressional leadership about finding another 650,000 e-mails?

For one: He told Congress he would keep them informed. So he did.

But suppose Comey had believed, in July, that his “non-indictment indictment” would prove to all reasonable citizens that Hillary should be in jail, not in the Oval Office? What if he underestimated the ability of the Clinton-Democrat machine to obfuscate, to distract, to outright lie to the public?

Democrats crowed in unison that Comey had “cleared” Hillary of any wrongdoing… and the public bought it! Maybe Comey was surprised and chagrined at how adeptly the Clinton-Democrat machine buried her obvious guilt by bamboozling the public with a full-court press of lies, deflections, obfuscations.

And when another huge cache of illicit e-mail turned up, Comey took the opportunity to inform the public, via Congress, that they had missed his message. He sent another smoke signal: There really is fire here! Don’t get burned!

And now he’s being excoriated – by the very same people who loved him in July – for “unfairly influencing” the election with just days to go. (But Comey’s letter was sent to the Congressional leadership! Congress released it – not Comey!)

And Comey’s own boss, AG Lynch, is right at the head of the (pardon!) Lynch mob. Rather than explaining that Comey was fulfilling his responsibility to Congress, Lynch criticized Comey for violating Department guidelines.

I’m just guessing here. But I’m not sure we understand how limited Comey’s choices were. And limited by whom.

Maybe Comey hasn’t bowed to political pressures, as everyone assumes he has.

Maybe he’s done everything he could do to make sure the American people have the information they need to make the best choice they can.

That might rightly be considered Heroic.



Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He would like to support some Democrat ideals, but he has a visceral hatred for Lies and Damn Lies (and is highly suspicious of Statistics.) That pretty much eliminates supporting most Democrats, and a bunch of Republicans to boot.

Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE


3 Responses to Comey: Between a Rock, a Hard Place and the Clinton Machine

  1. Oh Golly March 24, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    I am a fascinated Australian. It is March 25 2017.. Comey has had a hell of a week. What is really going on? Mr Comey seems to have all the hallmarks of a Kingly man being deeply prevented and obstructed and whom is doing a colossal job of remaining true to a course. Or an ideal. Or an agreement.
    This man is the crux of history at this moment for me.
    I cannot decide. All I know is I hope he is for the good. not something I like to have to call on.

  2. Citizen Reporter November 1, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Plausible assessment, Phil.

  3. William "Bill" Hicks November 1, 2016 at 8:28 pm



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *