There is evidence that former FBI director James Comey leaked information to a third party to ensure that it reached the news media—a legal breach—and lied to Congress. Is it strong enough to meet a beyond a reasonable doubt threshold? Maybe not.
He is still an ethics villain. Comey managed to make hash out of the 2016 election, first refusing to charge Hillary Clinton for a crime that he—falsely—claimed other, lesser officials had never been charged with, and then tried to make up for handing Hillary a “Get out of the negative headlines free” card by opening a new investigation even closer to the election sparked by the appearance of some of Hillary’s emails on her assistant’s boyfriend’s computer. Comey was the epitome of the “Deep State” embedded foe of President Trump—you will recall that he recently approved of the legend 8647, as in “Kill President Trump,” in a social media post. A a fan of ethical government and democracy, I am not sorry to see some adverse consequences coming Comey’s way. As a legal ethicist, I am dubious about the indictment.
But not as dubious, I have to say, as I am about the head-spinning hypocrisy of the Axis media, which cheered on the obviously politically motivated prosecutions of Donald Trump and now reacts with horror to Comey’s prosecution which, as weakly supported as it may be, still looks better than any of those contrived cases.
How in the world can a New York Times reader countenance this [gift link] without throwing up on the paper? “A prosecutor’s drive to indict James Comey trampled over the Justice Department’s long tradition of keeping a distance from politics and the White House, and raised the prospect of more arbitrary charges,” is the sub-head. Give us a break. I can’t remember a time when the Justice Department tried to keep any distance from politics at all, Comey being a prime example. And that headline: “Trump Gets the Retribution He Sought, and Shatters Norms in the Process”!
The Times found no shattered “norms” when the party it pimps for every day pretended that a demented POTUS was running the country when it knew—it had to know!—some combination of the poor geezer’s wife, felon son, Barack Obama and un-named far left political operatives were really in charge. If there were ever a justification for “whataboutism,” that’s it.
I also must again raise the fact that the “democratic norm” attack on Trump is one of the Axis Big Lies (#6) dating from his first term, and, I confess, my brain automatically shuts out the arguments of anyone who leads with it.
Sadly, objective analysts of this case (or any case brought by the Trump administration) are just about impossible to find. Here, for example, is a comment from one of the legal ethicists in the legal ethicist association of which I am an increasingly disillusioned member and which is, I estimate, about 90% Trump Deranged, on the question of whether Comey will be found guilty: “Time will tell. Maybe there’s probable cause of a false statement (but the indictment provides no detail), but I am very skeptical that there is probable cause about intent or “corrupt influence.” The fact that no real prosecutor was willing to sign this is telling, but instead one without experience deliberately appointed in order to exact revenge under direct and publicly bleated orders from the Mad King, is not irrelevant.”
“Mad King.” Nice! That’s certainly a fair and unbiased characterization from an ethicist.
But I can’t deny that he has a point. It is many things—idiotic, an abuse of power and position, “punching down,” damaging to the public perception of the justice system, potential grounds for dismissal on the basis of tainting the potential jury pool—all of them bad, for the President of the United States to express a public opinion on who is guilty or innocent of a crime, who should be prosecuted and for what, or whether someone belongs in prison. The fact that Trump has done this for decades is makes it a cautionary tale about bad habits: it was one thing when Trump as a New York celebrity opined about the Central Park Five, but quite another when Trump as President engages in the same kind of inflammatory rhetoric.
This is one of the many reasons why so many Americans who on the whole agree with the thrust of his second term nonetheless tell pollsters that they don’t like or approve of the President. Will somebody please sit this infuriating man down and explain how this
works to undermine him? Because it is how he can lose elections for his party…
Ethics Alarms 
And it’s why he lost in 2020. He has no filter and can’t restrain himself when he’s effectively plowing ahead on so many other, more current issues. It’s like Obama’s “the police acted stupidly” comment years ago – but THAT was glossed over by the MSM. Presidents should not denigrate those facing accountability for their actions, nor try to steer the outcome. They should just be quiet and let the system play out.
Like you, Jack, I’ve wondered for years why his family and top advisors don’t hammer that into his perpetually “gotta have the last word” mind.
I do not think prosecuting miscreants like Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Schiff, and Laetitia James will hurt Trump in the elections, as this is exactly what the Republican base is asking for. My impression from conservative podcasters is that conservatives have doubts about the DOJ (with Pam Bondi in particular) because of lack of effectiveness. However, my concern is whether the cases they bring are strong enough to secure a conviction.
My understanding is that Comey perjured himself to Congress. If my understanding is correct than I have no ethical or legal objection to the indictment. If anybody lies to an FBI investigator (other than perjury), than that person is guilty of a misdemeanor and can be punished to a one year prison sentence, as Martha Stewart found out. Therefore the FBI director needs to demonstrate exemplary integrity, and perjuring himself to Congress put the integrity of the entire FBI in doubt.
A conviction will send a strong message to the American people that the Russian collusion hoax was indeed a hoax, and a necessary correction of a big lie. This will hopefully serve as a deterrent to officers of federal agencies in the future. It will also send a message to the people that the USA does not have a two-tier justice system, where laws are only for the little people.
The Democrats will complain that the Trump administration is dishing out retribution like a dictator. Of course they are going to say that. Let them, and ignore them. Their protests are ethically irrelevant.
President Trump will not run again in 2028. Doing what is right should be more important than taking clues from (unreliable) polls.
“It will also send a message to the people that the USA does not have a two-tier justice system, where laws are only for the little people.”
THIS. So very very much THIS.
This is needed in a big way right now, and Comey is the perfect symbolic vessel for it.
When he decided that Secretary of State Clinton was somehow above the law in terms of handling of classified data and FOIA avoidance, he became the symbol of a Justice Department that picks and chooses its prosecutions according to politics rather than whether or not the law was broken. Prosecution HIM is the best, loudest, and clearest way to send the message that this is over.
–Dwayne
Can anyone explain how Comey’s son-inlaws resignation from his DOJ job ( is that cronism?) helps him be faithful to his oath to “defend the Constitution”? (his words)
Comey’s son in law was in the same jurisdiction as the indictment. His position as a US attorney served as a shield for Comey. When he was no longer effective in shielding his father in law he resigns suggesting that he is virtuous and unwilling to be part of the authoritarian regime. This is the same ploy Comey is using.
The asshole doesn’t fall far from the ass. Or something like that….
Could someone explain factually/legally the basis of Comey’s decision to ‘not prosecute’ Hillary Clinton? I am not an American, and thought such decisions were made by prosecuting authorities such as US attorneys and the DOJ generally. I believed that police forces investigate and pass a file of evidence to prosecutors who decide whether to lay charges – in all Common Law-based systems such as America.
Thanks in advance
Because this was a matter of mishandling classified information, the FBI was charged with investigating and making a recommendation to the Attorney General. She did not have to take it, but Comey’s recommendation was not to prosecute. Here’s what I wrote at the time of Comey’s report. https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/05/ethics-observations-on-fbi-director-comeys-statement-regarding-the-clinton-investigation/ I have learned that Comey is not and was not trustworthy, so my opinion that his report and conclusions could be trusted have changed.
Many thanks, Jack!
He willfully misrepresented the case, there is ZERO mens rea required to violate it. At the same time as her case there were others that were found guilty with both intentional and ignorant violations.