Christopher Wray hammers Comey the God!

THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2017

We wonder why nobody else did:
Yesterday, FBI nominee Christopher Wray appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It was his confirmation hearing. At one point, Lindsey Graham asked him about last summer's performance by Comey the God.

We think Wray's comments are worth recording. Here's how the colloquy started:
GRAHAM (7/12/17): Comey. Did you see the press conference he gave about the Hillary Clinton investigation in July of last year?

WRAY: Not live, but yes.

GRAHAM: Would you have done that?
Please note. Graham was talking about Comey the God-in-July. He wasn't discussing Comey's subsequent pair of interjections, very late in the fall campaign.

Last July 5, Comey delivered a scathing lecture in which he assailed the conduct of Candidate Clinton. Graham asked Wray if he would have done that.

At first, it almost seemed that Wray was trying to escape the question. But Graham pushed him back on topic, and got the following answer:
WRAY (continuing directly): Well, Senator, there is an inspector general investigation into Director Comey's conduct, so—

GRAHAM: I'm not talking about the investigation. I'm asking about you. Would you have done that?

WRAY: I can tell you that, in my experience as a prosecutor and as head of the Criminal Division, I understand there to be department policies that govern public comments about uncharged individuals. And I think those policies are there for a reason. And I would follow those policies.

GRAHAM: OK. He talked about somebody that was never charged in a disparaging fashion. Do you agree with that?

WRAY: That's the way I understood his comments.

GRAHAM: Do you also agree that he took over the prosecutor's job by saying, "There's no case here?"

WRAY: Well, Senator, again, there's an inspector general investigation into his conduct—

GRAHAM: Look, you would not have done either one of those is what you're telling this committee. At least I hope that's what you're telling this committee.

WRAY: I can't imagine a situation where, as FBI director, I would be giving a press conference on an uncharged individual, much less talk in detail about it.

GRAHAM: Fair enough. Thank you.
You can watch that exchange on this tape, at the 1:50 mark.

Ow ow ow ow ow ow ow! Prodded several times by Graham, Wray criticized last July's behavior by Comey the God.

According to Graham, Comey had "talked about somebody that was never charged in a disparaging fashion." Wray said there are Justice Department policies forbidding such conduct, and he said they exist for a reason.

Ow ow ow ow ow ow ow! "I can't imagine a situation where as FBI director I would be giving a press conference on an uncharged individual, much less talk in detail about it," Wray said.

As he did, he threw an official establishment god directly under the bus.

It took some prodding, but Wray directly challenged last July's conduct by Comey. Today, you should ask yourself this question:

How come no one else did?

Last July, in real time, why did you see Steve Kornacki aggressively adopting Comey's anti-Clinton line on two successive nights while serving as guest host on the Maddow Show?

Even more significantly:

Maddow returned from her richly-deserved vacation on Monday, July 12 of last year. She never mentioned Comey's name until very late in October! Why didn't our own favorite fiery liberal god challenge this other god's conduct?

We think you should ask those questions for a reason. Again and again and again and again, you've been abandoned, left for dead, by the self-serving boys and girls who pose as the progressive stars of corporate "cable news."

All too often, these people seem to be playing the game in service to themselves. Again and again and again and again, they desert you at moments of truth.

It can be hard to notice the various things our TV stars don't do. All last summer, deep into the fall, Maddow didn't challenge what Comey had done, just as she didn't challenge the Benghazi-related attacks on Susan Rice four years before.

Back in 2012, the invention of Benghazi got a total pass from Maddow. Four years later, Comey got the same pass.

In truth, Maddow completely avoided the email topic all through last year's campaign. She made zero attempt to clarify, challenge, debunk, explain. She ducked Benghazi and "emailgate." In fairness, she did entertain us.

Were you being played by Maddow the God? How many times will this major star run off and hide in the woods before liberals start to catch on?

One more point: In press corps novelizations, Comey now stands in opposition to Trump. For this reason, he is being re-established as an establishment god of unassailable moral authority.

In reality, James B. Comey isn't an unassailable moral god. The story here just isn't that simple, except when the group novels start.

Much of our "news" involves novelization. The public interest is poorly served by these childish games.

12 comments:

  1. "He talked about somebody that was never charged in a disparaging fashion"

    I like that. Those of us capable of carrying two thoughts at the same time comprehend that Trump and Comey are both assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No one criticized Comey because it would have put them in the position of defending Clinton, and that was verboten. The right wasn't going to do it and the left was too busy appeasing Bernie and trying to pretend there were no criticisms of Clinton coming from every direction.

    "Do you also agree that he took over the prosecutor's job by saying, "There's no case here?"

    Somerby and others seem to forget that Lynch had recused herself by saying that she would follow the FBI's recommendation, following her meeting with Bill Clinton. That put Comey on the hotseat, which is why he made a public statement. Graham is upset because Comey took it upon himself to recommend no charges, but that was explicitly delegated to Comey by Lynch. He wasn't overstepping his role as CIA Director. He was fulfilling it according to the instructions of his boss, Lynch.

    But who cares about historical context? The rest of Comey's statement went beyond his brief, but he has explained that he was attempting to keep the right happy with his decision, because the rule in politics and business is to make no enemies (except Clinton, I assume).

    But the larger question here is why Somerby is going out of his way to praise Graham for raising an issue that no one raised at the time. Graham is giving Wray a chance to differentiate himself from Trump's enemy, the hated Comey, and to look like a good guy to liberals, helping his nomination. Graham isn't serving truth or helping Clinton. He is serving conservative interests. Why is Somerby praising that?

    I get it that Somerby is not partisan, especially not before truth, but lately he seems entirely clueless and even underhanded in his choice of targets to defend against what, misunderstanding? If his point is that the same actions mean different things at different points in time, in different political contexts, he could say that more directly. He isn't suggesting that Graham is now a god, is he? That would be ridiculous. Graham, McCain, Comey, and various others are all still Republicans, serving a conservative agenda and cause, and not reborn public servants, citizens of democracy or whatever other romanticized notion Somerby may carry in his head. These are still bad guys, Wray is their minion and so was Comey. That doesn't change because Trump dislikes Comey, who wouldn't white wash his friend and won't participate in his Russia conspiracy. Comey et al. are still conservatives with other bad deeds to their credit.

    So I agree with Mutaman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point in Somerby "going out of his way to praise Graham" (never mind that he isn't going out of his way & that he doesn't praise Graham)) is to perhaps show to some stray woolly-headed liberal the way their supposed liberal media heroes ignore and facilitate the media narratives that eventually eat their preferred candidates alive.

      Those of us who share in the amazing powers claimed by yourself and Mutaman to carry more than one thought at a time are able to recognize that although we personally have no faith for Maddow or Comey, there are a great many who do. So we welcome anyone disabusing of such faith as Somerby ably does.

      Delete
    2. "...perhaps show to some stray woolly-headed liberal..."

      Great. Somerby is now using the age-old right-wing tradition of making up a liberal in his head, and is now schooling them.

      Delete
    3. Amirite? I mean, *everybody* knows there are no poorly-informed liberals!

      Delete
    4. anon 1:08 - you are incredibly dense. The reason Democratic legislators and many liberal pundits laid off Comey for his disgraceful press conference was because Comey concluded that Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted (while at the same time ripping her apart for her "extremely careless" private server emails. The Republicans were in a dither that Comey didn't recommend criminal prosecution. I'm not defending the Dems - they were wishy- washy and pandering toward Comey, always cautious and superficial. You are completely wrong that Lynch asked Comey to give the press conference. He did it on his own, and if anything Lynch disapproved of it. Under well-established protocols, prosecutors don't cast aspersions and give press conferences like Comey did - it's against protocol. He screwed Clinton. The fact that Graham criticized Comey for doing this in his questioning of Wray speaks well for Graham, though he may have been motivated in part by his displeasure that Comey didn't call for Clinton's imprisonment - that doesn't come out in his questioning. You don't seem to be capable of reasoning very well.

      Delete
  3. "I get it that Somerby is not partisan" Bull BS is very partisan. He's an old conservative white guy who is consumed with jealousy and envy for Rachel Maddow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The question is, how come Comey got a pass on his "October Surprise" that he was re-opening Hillary Clinton's email investigation, based on Anthony Weiner's email account?
    Why does it take Lindsay Graham, of all people, to broach the subject?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Graham isn't serving truth or helping Clinton. He is serving conservative interests. Why is Somerby praising that?"

    True. But at least Graham said it- didn't hear any Democrats raise the subject. We'll take it where we can get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gravymaster & Mutaman - I agree. Did you read the Rosensein {sp?} report that was the purported basis for Trump's firing of Clinton. It is along the lines of Graham's questions, but in much more detail. You get a completely pale, watered-down version of this report from the press's summarizing of it.

      Delete
  6. "anon 1:08 - you are incredibly dense. "

    Well except for that part where he said he agreed with me.

    ReplyDelete

  7. am so glad to share my testimony how Mallam Abudu help me conceive after several years of marriage i found it difficult to conceive and i thought is was over i will never conceive again after 6years of marriage my husband plane for divorce but with the glory of God i found a man who is bless my God with root and herbs who help me get pregnant i want to say a big thanks to him and to the world for the great help he rendered to me for making me a complete woman today now i am 8months pregnant hoping to have by own baby soon. Glory be to God.email Mallam Abudu and he will help you conceive via: mallamabuduspiritualhome@gmail.com can call him +2349055637784

    ReplyDelete