últimas notícias

Former FBI Director James Comey has long been convinced of his righteousness, subconsciously comparing and contrasting his decisions to a morally-questionable proletariat. The former FBI director is a true believer in his own sublime moral superiority. He also currently portrays the chief protagonist in one of the longest running political tragicomedies since Watergate.

Sometimes a public figure’s demise is sudden, unexpected. Other times, as in the case of Comey, the end is preceded by an extended period of self-inflicted diminution; an inexorable march towards ruination of personal reputation. But in this case, hubris not only takes down the man generously imbued with it, but also does irreparable damage to an institution (the FBI) that he has repeatedly and demonstratively professed to love.

Comey’s denouement occurred on Friday. He arrived on Capitol Hill accompanied by his counsel, David N. Kelley, the man who succeeded him as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. When first subpoenaed last month to appear and testify before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, a cagey Comey employed the tactic of his chief antagonist (President Trump) in speaking directly to the people, via Twitter:

Clearly the irony of Comey decrying “selective leaking” could be lost on no one, except maybe Comey himself. His FBI headquarters was admonished by a scathing Justice Department inspector general’s report for its sieve-like qualities, and Comey famously leaked sensitive FBI documents through a surrogate to The New York Times.

Was his use of the word “resist” here a purposeful acknowledgment of the #Resistance? Difficult to not also notice the loudest message inherent in Comey’s tweet – his clear and obvious disdain for the GOP he once claimed political affiliation with, and the contemptuous derision he feels towards House Republicans in particular.

Comey has long shed any pretense of objectivity since being fired by the president in May 2017. He now employs Twitter as his cudgel of choice – again, adopting the preferred communiqué methodology of one Donald J. Trump. He has tweeted out a caution to Democrats to “please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left.” Because, according to Comey, “This President and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that.”

He has sided with Senate Democrats in questioning the testimony of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, while also lauding a Democratic candidate for winning a mid-term race in a district he reveled in pointing out had been held by Republicans since 1981. While encouraging his followers to vote in the midterm elections, he also described his wife as an “independent-voter,” then quoted her thusly: “I will not vote for another Republican until Trump is out of office.”

In a recent interview with Boston’s WGBH News, he also took an unnecessary dig at Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, warning, “He may not be the sharpest knife in our drawer.” Lest we forget the gratuitous shots at his former boss at the Southern District, Rudy Giuliani, whom Comey described as somewhat of a glory-hound in his tell-all tome, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.

Again, the jokes just write themselves.

With all this “nonpartisanism” as backdrop, it’s no surprise Comey balked at the GOP-issued subpoena. It certainly wasn’t a shock when he challenged the House subpoena in court. His request to have the subpoena rejected contained the deliciously ironic concern that potential leaks would damage his credibility and harm the public’s perception of FBI investigations. It also included the employment of a consistent lamentation from Comey’s legion of media defenders – of a “corrosive narrative” emanating from the White House, and of course, anyone who dares criticize James Comey.

No defense of Comey is complete without counteracting just criticism of him and some of his cohorts as “attacks for purely partisan political reasons.”

Comey ultimately conceded to the closed-door hearing, with a caveat that the transcript of the proceedings would be released within 24 hours of its conclusion. He Twitter-snarked afterwards that it was less a “search for truth” and more “a desperate attempt to find anything that can be used to attack the institutions of justice investigating the president.”

Ah, the classic political pivot away from wrongdoing, as in: Please don’t focus on my questionable or indefensible actions. Any criticism of me is a “corrosive attack on the institutions of justice.”

Thus necessitated a review of the 235-page transcript. And like almost everything debated in 2018 America these days, opiners and commentators saw in it what they expected to see. As is typical during hearings on the Hill, the party that senses political utility in the witness’s testimony becomes a sympathetic ally lobbing softball questions and bristling at any in-depth probing of the person under subpoena. Conversely, the opposition party serves as the aggrieved party and doggedly pursues the truth – according to their version of it.

The usual partisan cast was assembled on risers last Friday, eager to express their solidarity or disassociation with the witness. Once concluded, Republicans almost immediately tasked staffers to aggregate Comey’s responses to key questions. Some then raced to Twitter to diagnose the former director with a mild bout of selective amnesia. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., tweeted the score:

Then, just like clockwork, and consistent with how Trump tends to reward those who either praise him or criticize his critics, on Sunday came a report out of the White House that the president is considering Meadows to replace current White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Democratic response to Comey’s testimony was predictably summed up by Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s, D-N.Y., take. Nadler, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, pronounced the proceedings a “waste of time” and questions about bias at the FBI during Comey’s tenure as director as “nonsense.”

A polarized take on the affair by the engaged political parties – no news there. But some who carefully scrutinized the transcript and have closely followed the investigation into bias at DOJ and the FBI did sense some interesting developments. John Solomon at the Hill noted that Comey effectively admitted that much of the infamous dossier remained unverified some six months following the original FISA application that had used it as a predicate evidentiary source.

Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller noticed that Comey admitted that George Papadopoulos was not the lone catalyst for the opening of “Crossfire Hurricane,” long the conventional wisdom. The counterintelligence investigation related to the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential campaign was opened in July 2016, and targeted four, now ubiquitous, individuals: Carter Page, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Papadopoulos.

It certainly defies credulity that some who vocally demand accountability from the Trump administration appear so disinterested in the “faulty memory” of someone who kept copious notes of matters important enough to chronicle in his book. But was oblivious to easily discernible abnormalities related to the “loosening” of non-negotiable rules and guidelines at the FBI and DOJ. These guardrails are purposely enacted to make it damned difficult to intercept the communications of American citizens or spy on political campaigns.

Even as we hurtle towards a new Congress that will result in an orderly transfer of power in the House this coming January, none of this will go away quietly. Comey is scheduled to return for another round on the Hill in front of the committees in two weeks. Anticipate hearing more from the former director regarding just how little he knew about his command and what they were up to during an exceedingly sensitive and consequential investigation. For the public, this will undoubtedly inject even more doubts about the conduct of segments of our government once considered impartial and unbiased and duty-bound to follow the rule of law.

And that should be unsettling to all of us.

James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked in the FBI for 25 years. He is a law enforcement analyst for CNN and an adjunct assistant professor in homeland security and criminal justice at St. John’s University.