My take…

Comey personally disliked and distrusted Trump. This is indicated by his political affiliation transitioning from Republican to Independent some time in 2016, despite having contributed to the McCain and Romney campaigns in 2008 and 2012, respectively. In addition, Comey “felt compelled to document [his] first conversation” with Trump, when the latter was President-Elect, despite this having “not been [his] practice in the past”. Comey continued documenting his conversations with Trump, which he later leaked through a surrogate to the press after his termination.

Comey also personally disliked and distrusted Clinton. This is indicated by his press conference in July 2016, in which he referred to her as “extremely reckless”, proved that she had lied (the e-mails included classified materials), stated that there was “evidence of potential violations”, and implied that both she and the State Dept. were less than open and honest with the FBI and the public (thereby demanding Comey’s “unusual transparency”). In addition, Comey continued his “unusual transparency” in October 2016, when he sent a letter to Congress reporting that the investigation had been reopened. Although Comey’s “unusual transparency” was ostensibly due to wide and intense public interest in the investigation, he did not make any statements to dispel the popular sentiment that Lynch interfered in his investigation (e.g. her meeting with Bill Clinton, her response to the October 2016 letter, FBI dissidents in the New York office), and his recent Congressional testimony continues that trend.

It is curious that Comey specifically sought to testify to Congress in an open rather than closed session, but then withheld the one new revelation about Trump campaign contacts with Russian representatives for a closed session.

Here are Comey’s actions that I found most inappropriate:

  • The July 2016 press conference: why make the effort to admonish Clinton and her staff if there would be a recommendation not to prosecute, and possibly influence an election?
  • The October 2016 letter to Congress: why confirm and discuss an open and ongoing investigation, and possibly influence an election?
  • The May 2017 leak to the New York Times: how can the accounts be substantiated?


Unfortunately, Comey’s public activities regarding both the Clinton e-mail and Russian interference investigations, as well as his admitted inability (March 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee) to handle these during an election campaign, demonstrate a lack of fitness to perform his tasks. In addition, key aspects of Comey’s testimony in March and June were contradicted not only by Sessions but by McCabe as well.

With regard to both Clinton and Trump, Comey acted inappropriately, and if he truly felt that he was under any pressure – whether illegal or unethical – by his superiors, he could have resigned. Prior to his dismissal, both parties resented him and blamed him for unfavorable public opinion. Comey was biased or partisan: to his own opinions.

Trump also acted inappropriately, although this appears to be due more to Trump’s inexperience, a genuine perception that Comey was playing politics, and a genuine perception that any reference to Russian interference was part of a baseless smear, than out of a desire to obstruct justice. Clinton certainly did a much better job of heading off the 1996 Chinese campaign finance “matter”.

Unfortunately, both the FBI and CIA have very long histories of interfering in U.S. domestic politics, albeit in a far more discrete way than Trump and like-minded Americans probably imagine. This interference is in fact the norm, as bureaucracies want to survive and grow, and require the money and power to do so.

In my opinion, the Russian military threat lends itself to air and seapower as much as the Chinese threat does. However, it is difficult to separate expert and lay discussion of the Russian threat, from the Army’s desperation to find a mission that supports the level of resources it received throughout the occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Army’s partisans at the various think tanks are to be believed, the U.S. has no air or sea-launched cruise missiles or stealth bombers with which to defend NATO. Yet another bureaucracy wades into the swamp.