Comey's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee was bad for President Trump. Really bad.
Latest in FBI Director James Comey
Comey's communicativeness with the committee—and through it with the public—will almost certainly be inversely proportional to the seriousness of the Russia investigation.
White House Interference with Justice Department Investigations, Part II: The “Reince, What Are You Doing?” Edition
For the second time this week, we have to analyze the propriety of communications between the White House and elements of the Justice Department. The messiness of the allegations pretty neatly sums up why such communications are, as a matter of policy convention, so restricted to begin with.
We attempt to disentangle what various news organizations and government officials have confirmed about current investigations into Trump associates and where there is persisting uncertainty.
So let me sound a note of dissent—several notes of dissent, to be precise—on Comey’s villainy. And let me emphatically dissent on the question of whether of whether he should be replaced as FBI director.
An astonishingly bad piece appeared in Politico this week attacking FBI Director James Comey. The thesis is bold. The evidence is shockingly weak. Critical history and information is left out. Quotations are seemingly intentionally distorted. And important information in the story is just wrong.
We took out all the crap and bring you just the questions and just the answers in James Comey's showdown with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Comey's decision to talk in detail about the Clinton investigation is justifiable. But don't let it become a precedent. When prosecutors and investigators decline to indict someone, they should shut the heck up.
Director Comey's criticisms of the information security culture of the State Department should not be overlooked.
Jim Comey's statement is simultaneously emphatic that Clinton and her staff behaved inappropriately and equally emphatic that no reasonable prosecutor would want to bring a case against them. His reputation for personal probity and apolitical behavior is such that both statements must be taken seriously.