Crosstalk: Scrutinizing Comey’s words

Revelations on the eve of the election that more emails had been found and were being investigated further stirred the Democratic ire, some claiming the last-minute revelations, although resolved quickly as not changing the outcome of the original investigation, cost Clinton the election.

Had Clinton, who has credited her defeat to the last-minute revelations regarding her email, won the election it seems likely she would have fired Comey herself.

After the election, Comey further angered the Democrats when he revealed in March of this year that the FBI had been investigating possible links between Trump associates and Russian officials since July, the same month he held an unusual news conference to discuss the investigation into Clinton.

In explaining his decisions in regards to what was said and what wasn't, Comey said he was consistent and fair to both parties.

"I can't consider for a second whose political futures will be affected and in what way,” he said in response to suggestions he had influenced the election. “We have to ask ourselves what is the right thing to do and then do it."

Delving into the realm of fantasy, had Clinton been elected and subsequently fired Comey, I would have not been surprised.

If she had, and the controversy somehow boiled down to a “he said, she said” presentation of the facts — as is happening now between Comey and Trump — my support would have gone to Comey. His reputation for independence and his integrity as a law officer are such that, as an American, am more inclined to thank him for his service than question his decisions.

Of course, Clinton didn't win the election.

President Trump won the election and fired Comey May 9.

In regards to the firing, Trump wrote in a letter to Comey, "It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission.”

Sounds fine, although I personally lost neither trust nor confidence in Comey as FBI director: He was making both parties mad as hops, and in doing so seemed to me to be serving the American people well.

The next day, Trump told Russian officials during an Oval Office meeting that firing Comey helped to de-escalate the investigation into his ties with the Kremlin, according to a report by The New York Time on May 19.

Since then, Comey has testified under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee, saying that President Trump pressured him to to drop an investigation into one of his senior advisers, fired him after he would not do so and lied it.

He also said he leaked memos of his conversations with Trump to a friend to spur the appointment of a special counsel after Trump suggested he taped their conversations.

He leaked the information after he was fired, which is important in terms of the legality of his action. I’m impressed he did not try to hide his action.

Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasoqitz, responded by denying the president pressured Comey and accused the former FBI director of leaking “privileged information.”

He said that it was Comey who lied when he detailed conversations between himself and the president, raising the accusation that Comey committed perjury while testifying under oath.

So here we are, “he said” versus “he said” and who are we to believe?

Who is speaking truth?

I'm not a betting man, but if I was, my money would not be on Trump, any more than it would have been on Clinton.

Neither have impressed me with their honesty or integrity.

My money is on Comey: He may have made mistakes, his judgment may have been questionable, but he has at least asked himself what would be the right thing to do for our country, rather than himself or a political party.

— Mark Gibson

Republicans and Democrats alike are claiming that James Comey’s testimony last week was a victory for their side and the media is endlessly hashing out the implications.

Here’s what was truly significant:

• Comey confirmed that Trump has never been the target of the investigation into Russia connections and that the president became angry when he refused to reveal this to the American people. Why not? He made sure to tell the nation that Hillary Clinton had no prosecutable crimes

• Comey said he was asked by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch to play down his statements on the investigation into Clinton’s email scandal. He said Lynch asked him to call it a “matter” instead of an “investigation.” He expressed concern that Lynch was trying to align DOJ’s comments with the way the Clinton campaign was talking about the probe. That is a pretty big admission of corruption within the Obama administration ranks.

• Comey admitted to leaking his own memo to the media about President Trump asking him to suspend the Flynn investigation. He wanted to manipulate the situation and force appointment of a special counsel. Why that and not the Lynch matter? Why refuse to stop the Flynn investigation when he ended the bigger one into Clinton’s illegal handling of classified documents during her tenure as secretary of state?

• Comey said there was no evidence to support Russia changing vote tallies across the nation.

Bottom line, there was no smoking gun in Comey’s testimony, as Democrats hoped in their never-ending quest to obstruct Trump by fabricating that he colluded with the Russians to undermine Clinton’s campaign.

That myth is being paraded as truth even though there is NO EVIDENCE after all these months. Plus, if the Russians caused Clinton to lose, how can you explain the scores of other Republican victories in state and federal offices?

The worst that Comey, appointed FBI director by Obama, could come up with against Trump was that the president stated “hope” the investigation against Flynn would end and requested “honest loyalty.”

Comey bent over backwards to conclude that Clinton had no criminal intent in the handling of her private emails, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence of wrongdoing. However, he leaped to conclusions against Trump with the eagerness of the resistance movement. “Hope” and “loyalty” equated to orders not to follow the evidence.

Legal experts agree that no one has ever been charged with obstruction of justice on such vague language as “hope” or “loyalty.”

If Comey really thought that Trump was giving him orders to obstruct justice, he had a duty to do something about it. He handled these issues the way he wanted to, but not how the law demanded; his actions were inconsistent and partisan.

His bias can really be seen in his admission of turning over notes on his interaction with Trump to a Columbia law professor to start the ball rolling on the appointment of a special investigator. That goes along with the “any end justifies the means” crowd that is intent on delegitimizing the legitimate election of Trump, and undermining his legislative agenda.

At the end of the day, Comey damaged his own reputation and exposed Lynch as a perpetrator of the very behavior others have improperly attributed to Trump. He was fired for good reason.

All of the hoopla over Russian collusion is directly in contrast to media silence over the clear and substantiated evidence of collusion between Obama, Clinton and Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president.

Remember Obama’s “hot mike” assurance to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that “after my election I have more flexibility” to surrender NATO’s plan for anti-ballastic missile defense in Poland and other allied countries.

Medvedev then replied, “We stand with you.”

Recall how Clinton approved the back-channel sale of 20 percent of our uranium reserves to Putin’s cronies? Remember how she lied about what had happened until hacked emails revealed the truth? And how the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in connection with the deal? Or how Bill got $500,000 from the Russians for one speech?

There is just too much hypocrisy here.

— RaeLynn Ricarte