Re: Comey … WSJ got it right … in 2013!

Comey never has been a political….


Prior to last July, Comey was branded as independent, high integrity and apolitical.


While people seemed shocked these days, his stripes were clear years ago.





The Wall Street Journal had the guy pegged right all along.


A  while back, I saw a WSJ editorial board member was on a news show.

He was asked: Do Comey’s actions (press conferences, leaks, political jolts) surprise you?

His answer: Not at all.

Say, what?

The guy elaborated, saying that “Comey is a tough dude – sometimes too tough — when it comes to financial types and politicos who are out of favor — especially out of favor with liberals.

But, he’s hardly apolitical and, paraphrasing, never takes on liberal political sweethearts. Never.”

Whoa, Nellie.

The host countered: That’s easy to say today … where were you before this stuff started happening?

The WSJ guy immediately cited a WSJ editorial from 2013 – when Comey’s confirmation hearing was going on.



Bottom line: The WSJ nailed it back then.

President Obama nominated James Comey to run the FBI, and the former prosecutor and deputy attorney general is already garnering media effusions reserved for any Republican who fell out publicly with the Bush Administration.

Forgive us if we don’t join this Beltway beatification.

Any potential FBI director deserves scrutiny, since the position has so much power and is susceptible to ruinous misjudgments and abuse.

That goes double with Mr. Comey, a nominee who seems to think the job of the federal bureaucracy is to oversee elected officials, not the other way around, and who had his own hand in some of the worst prosecutorial excesses of the last decade.

Before Senators yawn their way to rubber-stamping President Obama’s “bipartisan” pick, they should ask Mr. Comey some harder questions than the ones to which his media fan base have accustomed him.

click to view full WSJ editorial


The WSJ assessment proved sage when Comey handed Clinton a get out of jail free card – re-crafting a law to offset a veritable mountain of evidence.

That gives the WSJ some crowing rights


For our money, the most revealing words in FBI Director James Comey’s statement Tuesday explaining his decision not to recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information were these: “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”

So there it is in the political raw: One standard exists for a Democratic candidate for President and another for the hoi polloi.

We’re not sure if Mr. Comey, the erstwhile Eliot Ness, intended to be so obvious, but what a depressing moment this is for the American rule of law.

No wonder so many voters think Washington is rigged for the powerful.

The rule of law requires its neutral application.

We almost wish Mr. Comey had avoided his self-justifying, have-it-both-ways statement and said bluntly that he couldn’t indict Mrs. Clinton because the country must be spared a Donald Trump Presidency.

It would have been more honest and less corrosive to democracy than his Clinton Standard.

Kudos to the WSJ.




Follow on Twitter @KenHoma            >> Latest Posts


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s