Timothy Birdnow

Every time somebody who ought to at lest be neutral betrays us, conservatives immediately jump to excuse them. We've seen this over and over, with ridiculously creative Rube Goldberg contraption like excuses being made to somehow turn a chamber pot dumping on our heads to a refreshing rain shower. They did it with John Roberts, a man I warned would betray us when Bush first announced him; all manner of creative excuses were made to defend Roberts' flipping on Obamacare. But Roberts did more than just say "you have to take the consequences of your actions" but went so far as to rewrite the Obamacare law to squeeze it through the narrow gate of Constitutionality. At that time many conservatives defvended Roberts, coming up with all sorts of creative reasons why he was a political genius, putting the Democrats on the spot.

The reality was Roberts has always been a man who could be bullied, and that is why the Democrats did not oppose his elevation to the Supreme Court. He hung around D.C. for decades and yet was well liked by the Democrats. That doesn't happen to a principled man.

At any rate, all manner of digital ink was spilled over how Roberts suckered the Donkeys, only to be forgotten when it became apparent Roberts was more Sandra Day O'Connor than Antonin Scalia.

Here is another exercise in Rube Goldberg defense by a conservative writer. This time we are hearing a rehashing of the defense of James Comey that we got immediately after his bizarre press conference wehre he laid out the case against Hillary Clinton and then said no prosecutor would prosecute her because intent - an unnecessary qualifier - could not be proven.

Immediately after this a sizable number of conservatives contorted into pretzels trying to defend this action by the supposed man of high honor at the F.B.I. And now Shawn Mitchell rehashes the defense.

From the article:

"What was Comey thinking? His behavior throughout is hard to decipher. For an accomplished man in a very tough spot, one who cares about his hard-earned reputation and his future, there are safer ways Comey could have played mostly the same hand he eventually did. Of course, he could have resigned rather than submit to DOJ restrictions. But that was a futile gesture. The FBI’s number two man, Andrew McCabe, was tainted by Clinton graft. His wife received $500,000 for a Virginia state senate campaign from Clinton moneyman Terry McAuliffe. McCabe would certainly salute, not fight. If Comey were to have fallen on his sword, the same political interference and corruption would have prevailed.

Events make it reasonable to speculate that Comey chose a high stakes, personally damaging strategy of comply-but-defy. If he meant only to capitulate, he could have kept his head down. He could have issued a bland statement citing a lack of intent. But he did more. What profit is there for an official publicly to present an elaborate and damning case that convicts Clinton in lay vocabulary, only to then acquit her in legalese? The explanation displeased the administration and certainly Clinton. The decision not to indict enraged Republicans.

Comey knew he was walking into an inferno. But he willingly fired it up and walked right in. What motive would he have, other than to expose as much of the truth as possible, to allow voters to make an informed judgment?

Similarly, upon discovery of the emails on Weiner’s computer, Comey was compelled to continue the investigation. Reportedly, AG Lynch instructed Comey not to inform Congress. But he felt duty bound to update Congress on an investigation he had declared closed. Still, he could have been quieter, perhaps giving a private briefing to leadership, without creating a document with the FBI seal and his signature.

Again, Comey lifted heavier than he had to, with explosive effect on the political discussion. It is troubling to think of a law enforcement professional calculating in this way. Questions of ethics and propriety abound."

End excerpt.

For reasons that are beyond baffling Mr. Mitchell can't see the forest for the trees. James Comey was clearly playing both sides, trying to keep his career at the FBI intact while hedging his bets with the opposition. IF he were serious about hsi role as law enforcer he would have laid out the case, made his recommendation, publicly spoken of pressures on him to close the matter, and then let the chips fall. A failure to indict would then have been grounds to resign. This would have put the pressure on the Department of Justice and on Hillary. As things worked out, Comey couldn't have handed a finer gift to the Democrats because he laid out the case (which was true and incontrovertible) and then said "oh, but nothing to see here" which was of course spun to mean "Hillary is not guilty of a crime" - a much better thing than "Hillary was careless."

The Clinton's have used to careless argument before; remember the Sandy Berger affair where Bill said they were all laughing because Berger was so sloppy and, Golly! that was just like him to stuff a document down his trousers and then hide it under a construction shack. Or When Bill lost "the football", the codes for launching our nuclear arsenal. Or his "forgetting" about his romantic liasons. The list goes on and on.

The Clintons know everyone is careless or sloppy at some point, and are apt to forgive. A crime is something else.

Comey was unwilling to be a mere tool of the Clinton crime syndicate, or of his boss, and he prided himself on his dignity and honor. He was desperate to find some middle path that would allow him to live with himself, not be guilty of dereliction of duty but still obey his masters. He was too cute by half, coming out with damning evidence then saying, "but there isn't anything illegal here". He is a liar; he knew damned well there was something illegal there.

He took a lot of heat for that, and realized his career could be lost over it. So when the Weiner e-mails surfaced Comey had to get on top of it in a hurry. He did so by sending a letter to Congress (and it was Congress and not Comey who leaked it to the media) saying he was re-opening the case. Then, after a ridiculously short time he did what we, or at least I, knew he would do - closed it again so Hillary could say "see, I am innocent!" It was a hiccup when it should have been a heart attack. Hillary went into the election having been "exonerated". And Comey gave the Democrats what they needed, the ability to call him a partisan hack.

Had he stuck to his guns in either instance that argument could not have been made. His wishy-washy approach gave the Democrats ammunition. Hillary would have lost worse had Comey simply done his job.

Why did Comey do it? I am convinced he did it to play both sides.

In the movie the Karate Kid Ralph Maccio is given a lesson by his new Sensei, Mr. Miyaggi who tells him:

"Daniel-san, must talk. Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later, get squish just like grape. Here, karate, same thing. Either you karate do "yes", or karate do "no". You karate do "guess so", squish just like grape. Understand?"

Apparently James Comey missed that dialogue in the movie. He could have done his job, or not done his job. He chose to "guess so" do his job and got squished like grape.

Why are conservatives eager to excuse people like Comey? That is a tough one. But I would say it probably stems from the fact that we hold certain values dear, and among them are honesty and loyalty, and our minds balk at the notion that people really will sell us out for thirty pieces of silver. I suspect Mr. Mitchell is like that, unwilling to accept the reality that a man who supposedly values honor could so easily be turned. We expect that from the Left, a group who holds standards only for others but excuses themselves. But people on our side of the aisle are supposed to be made of better stuff. SAdly, that isn't true, because liberals are people too (I know; it's hard to believe) and the difference between our side and theirs is one of the choices we have made. We choose to accept reality and to make God an external locus rather than ourselves. But any of us would be a liberal if we were to compromise enough, and that happens over and over as we send people to Washington who are then coopted by the system. John Boehner, for example, was a lion and a rock-solid conservative until he ascended to power and began making compromises. He left D.C. in disgrace, a shell of what he had been. So many others, so many people (Pat Toomey comes to mind) have betrayed us. Why? They get into an environment where it is demanded the go along to get along. Eventually the boble dreams die and only the realpolitik and dealmaking remain. In the end, they are seduced, like a tender young lady sent to serve drinks on the docks in the old days. The sweet young girl who wanted to be a nun winds up selling her body for a couple of bucks. In the end she dies alone, sick and haggard.

James Comey sold his virginity for a couple of bucks and a place at the Washington table. He is learning that there is a price.

I wish the people on our side would understand that this is how it works. We cannot rely on anyone's virtue in that environment. Corruption is the water in which the political fish swim. The only way to hold them to a standard is to make it hotter to betray us than to suck up to the powers that be.

It is a big part of why Donald Trump was elected; he came from completely outside the corrupt system. But he bears watching too. Washington is truly Babylon, and America will never be blessed until she leaves that corrupt city.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1735 words, total size 10 kb.