Recently, some former U.S. Attorneys’ have come to the defense of disgraced former FBI Director, James Comey, in a facile attempt to rehabilitate his justifiably tarnished reputation. Both are engaged in a fools errand, as neither one makes a terribly persuasive case for exculpating Comey.
As I noted in a previous post, Comey’s defenders can’t possibly exonerate Comey’s actions; they agree his conduct was inappropriate and a clear violation of Justice Department guidelines. Rather, in a marvelous demonstration of pure sophistry, they argue that, even though Comey’s conduct was indefensible, it’s a good think he disobeyed the rules for the good of the country.
Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman defended the actions of Comey and said history will judge him as bending the rules, but he was doing a “good thing.”
Litman told MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace.
LItman undercuts his own argument that Comey was justified in leaking the memos, when he states that,
“… if Andrew McCabe gets indicted, Comey might be a witness, Lisa Page might be witness. You have the Department of Justice continuing to be riven and in the public eye also it’s kind of capital already overextended.”
If Comey and FBI agent Lisa Page are called as witnesses, it is only because they were part of, or had first hand knowledge of the attempts made by McCabe and others in the bureau, most notably, Comey himself, to use extrajudicial and illegal means to drive a duly elected president from office.
Yet, in the same breath, Litman nonetheless contends that,
“…history will record him rightly as bending the rules when he decided but they’ll record him as having – it’s a good thing that he did it here and these memos came to light but nevertheless it provokes a whole new round of Trumpian rhetoric that plays well on the campaign rallies and continues to cause crises at the Department of Justice.”
LItman’s defense of Comey’s pilfering government property and disclosing the sensitive material for his own partisan political purposes, cannot possibly be reconciled