USA Today Images

Mike Siegel: Political Hack James Comey?

Does James Comey fit this definition?

Mike Siegel
June 12, 2017 - 11:11 am
Categories: 

Political Hack is defined as “a negative term ascribed to a person whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction.”

Does James Comey fit this definition?

  1. He now admits that Loretta Lynch as Attorney-General directed him to describe the investigation of Hillary Clinton as a “matter” and not as an investigation. Did he operate on personal conviction or victory in that case?
  2. Comey has now admitted to being a leaker of his notes taken on an FBI computer and written in an FBI SUV, while he was FBI Director. Who owns those notes of an official meeting: Comey or the U.S. Government? We all know the answer to that one. Was that personal conviction or victory as a motive? Since Comey saved those notes for the right time for his own personal gain and did not even have the courage to turn those notes over to the media himself, but rather through an intermediary, was that act personal conviction or victory as a goal?
  3. Comey testified to the fact that he was investigating the alleged Russia connection to the Trump campaign and made public that information. We now learn that he did, in fact, tell the President on 3 occasions that the President was not under investigation himself. Yet he never made that fact public. Was that personal conviction or victory? Clearly, we now know that Comey did not want to release any information that was beneficial to the President. And, the President’s letter of termination of Comey which included the fact that Comey had told him 3 times he was not under investigation was absolutely correct. Comey selectively released to the public that information beneficial to him and would not release factual information beneficial to the President.
  4. Comey testified publicly before a congressional committee that he was investigating the Russia connection (as noted above), but would not publicly acknowledge whether he was investigating the leaks coming out of government sources. This was duplicitous and hypocrisy since the only crimes committed at that point were the leaking of information and unmasking of General Michael Flynn. And, we now know that Comey is a leaker, no doubt of far more than the one memo to the New York Times, so if he investigated the leaking, he would have to investigate himself and recommend prosecution of himself. Again, personal conviction took second place to victory for himself.
  5. Comey said he did not know whether the President saying “I hope you will go easy on Michael Flynn,” was obstruction of justice. That lack of knowledge requires that Comey should go back and take the Bar Examination again. He has got to be kidding. As he had to admit in response to the question from a former prosecutor, no one has ever been convicted of obstruction of justice for saying “I hope…”
  6. Comey felt troubled by the President’s comments in that private meeting in the oval office. Why? He apparently did not recognize the fact that the President could have ordered the termination of the Michael Flynn investigation. That is the constitutional prerogative of any sitting President. He could have ordered that termination but did not do so. Comey had no basis on which to be troubled.
  7. Comey said he was a coward when he did not state to the President that the conversation about Flynn was inappropriate. If that were the case, why did he avoid reporting this to his superiors? Under 18 U.S. Code Paragraph 4, Comey may well have committed Misprison of Felony:

“Whoever having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or some other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Conclusion: Comey should bring his tooth brush and checkbook next time he appears in court.

  1. 18 U.S. Code Paragraph 641:

Whoever…knowingly converts to his use or the use of another…a thing of value to the United States or any department or agency thereof…

Whoever…conceals or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been…converted…

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 10 years or both…

Conclusion: Refer to the Conclusion in Paragraph 7 above.

So, we come back to the question: Is Jim Comey a Political Hack under the definition at the beginning of this discussion? It is clearly beyond a reasonable doubt that he fits the description perfectly.

Congratulations to Mr. Comey: You have removed any scintilla of integrity that may have remained with your public life. You once stated publicly that your integrity was more important than any other aspect of your life, with the sole exception of your family.

I would advise you cherish that family because Number Two is gone.

 

 

Comments ()