No, I'm not making that up.
I awoke this morning to a lot of traffic on Lawfare, much of it routed to the site by this New York Times editorial on James Comey's announcement yesterday on the Clinton email mess. The editorial links to my Lawfare post of yesterday on the same subject to support the notion that Comey's decision was "undoubtedly correct":
Mr. Comey explained that there was no clear evidence Mrs. Clinton or her colleagues had intentionally broken any federal laws on classified information, and he said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would pursue an indictment in the case.
This legal decision is undoubtedly correct. The F.B.I. investigation, which began a year ago, examined tens of thousands of emails sent to and from Mrs. Clinton during her leadership of the State Department. It found that eight email threads contained information that was classified “top secret” at the time, the highest classification level. Several dozen more contained information that was either “secret” or “confidential,” the lowest level.
Since the Times editorial page has apparently now decided that I have impeccable judgment on matters of law and national security—indeed that all it has to do is link to my work to show its readers what is "undoubtedly correct"—I have a bunch of other Lawfare posts for the editorial page staff there to read: my many posts on factual errors in the Times editorial page's Guantanamo coverage.
Really, guys, I'm verklempt. My work on this planet is done.