And does this review of a review need a review?

I'm reading "Obama’s Trump-Russia collusion report was corrupt from start: CIA review" (NY Post): "A bombshell new CIA review of the Obama administration’s spy agencies’ assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump was deliberately corrupted by then-CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who were 'excessively involved' in its drafting, and rushed its completion in a 'chaotic,' 'atypical' and 'markedly unconventional' process that raised questions of a 'potential political motive.' Further, Brennan’s decision to include the discredited Steele dossier, over the objections of the CIA’s most senior Russia experts, 'undermined the credibility' of the assessment."

Alternative meaning.

James Comey's now-infamous Instagram account is mostly about marketing his novel... which has a theme that's suspiciously close to his "8647" gambit.

At the top of his Instagram account (quoting Publisher's Weekly):

Thanks to Charlie Martin for pointing me at Comey's book: "So, now it turns out that Comey actually has a book coming out in a few days about a Mary Sue main character who investigates, arrests, and apparently convicts a conservative radio talker of inciting a murder by dog-whistling. Coincidentally."

I read Martin's post while I was still in bed this morning looking at my iPhone, and I quickly dictated this question into the ChatGPT app (I usually access A.I. by typing things into Grok):

"What is the argument that James Comey by showing a photograph of rocks in the shape of 8647 was really teasing a novel that he had written, which is about someone accused of inciting violence by giving out an obscure message and [Comey] will actually benefit from this new attention he’s getting from the right because people on his left will actually get excited about his otherwise incredibly boring book."

Yeah, that's the way I talk when I'm, essentially, talking to myself. Notice my lazy bias toward thinking everything is boring. Anyway, I had these follow-up questions:

1. "How smart is James Comey?"

2. "He would need to be smart in a marketing and media sense to have come up with the idea of posting that photograph as a way to gin up interest in his novel. He strikes me as someone who is too boring and staid to attempt such a flashy scheme, and he would have to be willing to do something different to expose himself to criminal accusations. It almost seems like something Trump would do ironically."

You can read all ChatGPT's responses here, but the bottom line is: "Your read—that he’s too boring and staid for such a risky, theatrical move—aligns far more closely with what we’ve seen of him than the idea of a QAnon-baiting media play."

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by James Comey (@comey)

"James Comey purports not to have known that 86 means to get rid of (after he posted a picture of rocks in the form 8647 (47 being easily read as a reference to Trump)). Is Comey credible?"

For the annals of Things I Asked Grok.

Follow-up prompts: "Compare that to how Trump was treated for telling protesters on January 6th, 2021 to walk 'peacefully and patriotically' to the Capitol" and "I'm interested in the difference in seeing violence in words and consider that Comey, like Trump, has loyalists who might hear direction and take it." And: "Detail Comey's 'history of cryptic social media posts.'"

Grok's responses: here.

AND: Here's the article in WaPo: "Comey under investigation for ‘86 47’ social media post, Trump team says/The Trump administration accused the former FBI director of insinuating a call to violence in his Instagram post, which he denied" (free-access link).

"This is firing the F.B.I. director.... It is extremely dangerous to have a change in an F.B.I. director just after a change in administration."

Said an anonymous "law enforcement official," quoted in "Trump Says He Will Nominate Kash Patel to Run F.B.I./President-elect Donald J. Trump turned to a firebrand loyalist to become director of the bureau, which he sees as part of a ‘deep state’ conspiracy against him" (NYT).

Mr. Patel laid out his vision for wreaking vengeance on the F.B.I. and Justice Department in a book, “Government Gangsters,” calling for clearing out the top ranks of the bureau, which he called “a threat to the people.” He also wrote a children’s book, “The Plot Against the King,” telling through fantasy the story of the investigations into Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign’s possible ties to Russians.... 

In planning to remove Mr. Wray from atop the nation’s premier law enforcement agency, Mr. Trump would be echoing one of the most defining acts of his first term, his dismissal of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director as investigations of Trump associates began to heat up. That act led to the appointment of the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who spent nearly two years examining the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia....

ADDED:

Do you guys even understand how amazing this Kash appointment is?!

Let me remind you pic.twitter.com/nLo4aIFuDF

— Defender of the Republic 🇺🇸 (@realdefender45) December 1, 2024

AND:

🧵 of MSNBC Meltdowns tonight over Kash Patel 🤣

“The most dangerous nominee we’ve seen yet to our democracy” pic.twitter.com/QRhzfFUNOT

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 1, 2024

PLUS:

This is Kash Patel, Trump's nominee for FBI Director. The Deep State is f*cked. pic.twitter.com/cejy7hhioP

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) December 1, 2024

"The whole thing is hard for me to write. I couldn't sleep for two years after the election. I was so angry, I wasn't fit to be around."

"I apologize to all those who endured my outbursts of rage, which lasted for years and bothered or bored people who thought it pointless to rehash things that couldn't be changed...."

Writes Bill Clinton in his new book, quoted in "Bill Clinton makes stunning confession about his bizarre behavior after Hillary's defeat in America's 'darkest election'" (Daily Mail).

Presumably, he means he didn't sleep well. The assertion that he couldn't sleep for 2 years is patently untrue. He's still alive.

Clinton also writes in a mode that would be called "election denialism" if it were pro-Trump: "Almost two years after the election, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a highly regarded social scientist said Russia's cyber attacks piled on top of Comey's interventions were effective enough to persuade voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to vote for third parties or stay at home. If so, Putin's enablers were Comey and the political press."

What about the Russia hoax that Hillary participated in?! Shouldn't that balance the effect of "Russia's cyber attacks"?

What were the "cyber attacks"? Here's Kathleen Hall Jamieson's book, "Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President: What We Don't, Can't, and Do Know" (Amazon Associates link). From a 2018 New Yorker article about that book:

"'No reasonable prosecutor': remember him? He’s back! No, not James 'Higher Loyalty' Comey. He’s sitting in a corner somewhere..."

"... counting his doubloons. But like some inky creatures of the deep, he emitted lots of spawn. They’re maturing now and taking after dear old dad. Remember the original sitcom. Despite the best efforts of every one from the country’s 'intelligence' chiefs to its fawning media, news emerged that Hillary Clinton had essentially run the State Department from an insecure server in her home. On that server, it transpired, there were thousands of classified documents (along, of course, with yoga routines and plans for her daughter’s wedding). Presented with a subpoena to turn in the classified docs — there were some 30,000 of them. Hillary simply BleachBit the lot and dared Comey to do something about it. He didn’t, of course. 'No reasonable prosecutor,' you see would pursue such a case. Now James Comey’s spiritual heir has strode into the limelight. Meet Robert Hur...."

Writes Roger Kimball, in "The Justice Department won’t prosecute Biden? Color me shocked/Don’t we have trials precisely to establish the guilt or innocence of a defendant?" (The Spectator).

"People who publish novels can be generally sorted into furtive daydreamers and pragmatic careerists. Comey goes in the second camp."

"This is not an aspiration he’s held close, or for long. He dismissed it when his agents initially pitched him on co-writing a book with James Patterson, and when the editor of 'Saving Justice' (his second memoir, after 'A Higher Loyalty') suggested he might be good at writing fiction.... But writing fiction was 'something that I think was tickling the back of his brain,' said Comey’s wife, Patrice. 'It would come up every once in a while, and at some point I realized that maybe he’s taking this seriously.'... Comey’s novels — plural; he’s already finished the draft of a sequel — are a family affair: The heroine of 'Central Park West,' Nora Carleton, includes aspects of all his daughters but owes a particular debt to his eldest, Maurene, who like Nora is tall, in her early-to-mid-30s and a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. Comey first thought of the protagonist as a younger version of himself but found it more fun to write using someone else as his inspiration — though the method has its hazards: 'The kids are a little creeped out,' he said. 'Well, "creeped out" is a strong word — it’s just that they know that they’ll be asked about it.' (Asked about it, the Comey children declined to be interviewed.)"

Writes Sophia Nguyen in "James Comey is trying to master the twist ending. This time, on purpose. The former director of the FBI hopes his debut mystery novel, ‘Central Park West,’ will be the first of many" (WaPo).

The wife goes on record about what she thinks tickles the back of Comey's brain, but the daughters don't want to talk about whatever it is that made their dad say he'd creeped them out.

"The former FBI director, who has been teaching and speaking on government ethics, joined others in celebrating the upcoming arrest of Trump because nothing says 'ethical leadership' like a patently political prosecution."

Blogs — scoffs — Jonathan Turley.

Comey declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton on her email scandal despite finding that she violated federal rules and handled classified material “carelessly.” He declared, “Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth.” 

Yet now Comey is heralding the effort of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who campaigned on a pledge of bagging Trump for some unspecified crime.... 

The Washington Post fact-checker checks "Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘zero emails’ were marked classified."

Here's Glenn Kessler (who does not assign Pinocchios on this one)(the boldface is mine):

During the contest between Trump and Clinton, we wrote 16 fact checks on the email issue, frequently awarding Pinocchios to Clinton for legalistic parsing. But in light of the Trump investigation, Clinton is trying to draw a distinction between Trump’s current travails and the probe that targeted her.... 

Clinton, in her tweet, suggests none of her emails were marked classified. That’s technically correct. Whether those emails contained classified information was a major focus of the investigation, but a review of the recent investigations, including new information obtained by the Fact Checker, shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump. 

"Mr. Garland’s decision to make a public appearance came at an extraordinary moment in the [Justice] department’s 152-year history..."

"... as the sprawling investigation of a former president who remains a powerful political force gains momentum, with prosecutors from an array of the department’s divisions and regional offices taking new actions, seemingly every day. Mr. Garland, a laconic former judge, had come under increasing pressure this week to provide more public information about why the Justice Department decided that a search was necessary and who approved it — or at least to offer an explanation of the legal processes undertaken by his subordinates. But he seemed, even on Thursday, to do so with considerable reluctance, and reiterated his often-stated commitment to conducting the inquiry within the confines of the legal system rather than in public.... Mr. Garland did not say how, or when, it became clear to his team that the 15 boxes of material turned over by Mr. Trump earlier this year was insufficient. But he cast his decision to approve the warrant as an exigent necessity. 'The department does not take such a decision lightly,” he said. “Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken.'... Mr. Garland and his inner circle are eager to avoid the approach adopted by James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, whose public statements about investigations into Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign were seen as a political and legal disaster. "

From "Garland moves to make public the warrant and supporting documents used in the search of Mar-a-Lago" (NYT).

"Carter Page sued fired FBI Director James Comey, fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, the FBI, and others involved in the improper Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act snooping..."

"... on the former Trump campaign associate that relied upon British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s discredited dossier to obtain approval from the FISA court."

The Washington Examiner reports.

"President Trump commuted the sentence of his longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr. on seven felony crimes on Friday..."

"... according to the White House, using the power of his office to help a former campaign adviser days before Mr. Stone was to report to a federal prison to serve a 40-month term. Mr. Stone, 67, a longtime Republican operative convicted of obstructing a congressional investigation into Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, has been openly lobbying for clemency, maintaining that he could die in prison and emphasizing that he had stayed loyal to the president rather than help investigators. 'He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him,' Mr. Stone told the journalist Howard Fineman on Friday before the announcement. 'It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.' Mr. Trump has long argued that Mr. Stone was persecuted and lashed out at the prosecutors, the judge and even the jury forewoman in his case. The real villains, he argued, were former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., whom he has falsely accused of spying on his campaign, as well as the people who investigated his associates, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey."

The NYT reports.

"Republicans have seized on the document as potential evidence that the outgoing president had ordered the FBI to spy on the new administration..."

"... as Trump has alleged. And they have raised questions about the 'unusual' nature of Rice memorializing the conversation in an email to herself, suggesting that in warning Comey to proceed 'by the book,' Obama was implying that top law enforcement officials had done the opposite. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Rice said it shows the Obama administration handled the Flynn situation appropriately. The email, most of which was already declassified, describes a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting that followed up on an intelligence briefing about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Attendees included then-President Barack Obama; Comey; Sally Yates, who was the acting attorney general; Vice President Joe Biden; and Rice, who was Flynn's predecessor in the job. The email, which memorialized the meeting two weeks after it happened, said Obama wanted to be sure 'every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities "by the book."' 'The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective,' the email continued. 'He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.'"

From "Trump administration declassifies full Susan Rice email sent on Inauguration Day/The email describes a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting about Michael Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 election" (Politico).

MORE:

"It has always been ugly and a little nuts in our huge, complicated country. We last had a relatively stable consensus during George Washington’s first term..."

"Since then, right and left in the United States regularly vie for and lose power, frequently giving us deeply flawed leaders. And the world doesn’t end, even though it sometimes feels that way. As I grew up, I started to see the narrative pattern: Democrats were going 'extinct' in 1972 with Richard M. Nixon’s landslide. Republicans were 'finished' after Watergate and the 1976 election. In 1984, Democrats were really 'doomed' this time, wiped out by the 'Reagan Revolution.' Of course, the way Republicans are acting today means they will inevitably lose power, and for a very long time — an exile they will richly deserve. But neither party will disappear because the American center — that great lump of us clustered around the middle — always holds.... That lump is our national ballast. To survive, our two political parties compete for that center, forcing them to change as we do. They regularly miss the mark, which is why the parties, not the United States, suffer repeated near-death experiences, always followed by miraculous revival."

Writes James Comey (of all people) in "Trump won’t be removed. But we’ll be fine" (WaPo).

I agree with some of that, but certainly not the part about the Republicans inevitably losing power. That's a talking point today, I think, that the Democrats are losing in the impeachment trial, but they'll win in the coming elections.

Chris Wallace pushed James Comey to choose between "gross incompetence" or "intentionality," and it's easy to see why he wouldn't.

I watched the interview on "Fox News Sunday," and I'm examining the transcript today. I recommend watching the whole thing. It is painful and funny.



But I want to focus on something that happened in the end. The interviewer, Chris Wallace, quoted the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, on the FBI's handling of the Russia/Trump investigation.

We see a video clip, with Horowitz saying: "It's unclear what the motivations were. On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence. On the other hand, intentionality."

Horowitz doesn't decide. He leaves it open. It was either "gross incompetence" or "intentionality." So which was it? If you were James Comey, who was the director of the FBI, which would you prefer it to have been? Both are terrible, but for different reasons, and — if we knew which one — very different consequences.

Comey tries to avoid choosing. He intones what we already know, that the IG "doesn't conclude that there was intentional misconduct by these career special agents." That's part of the question asked and exactly not what is called for in an answer.

Chris Wallace repeats the question: "Gross negligence or they intended to do it. They intended to lie to the FISA court."

Comey uses the same move he used when the question was asked the first time. He tells us — again! — that the IG "doesn't conclude that there was intentional misconduct by these career special agents." Now, it's obvious that Comey is deliberately avoiding the question. He's supposed to pick. Which is it — "gross incompetence" or "intentionality"?

"The activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this..."

Said Michael E. Horowitz, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, reported in the NYT.

Mr. Horowitz was responding to [Senator Lindsey] Graham’s mention of an Op-Ed by the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey published in The Washington Post after Mr. Horowitz’s report became public.

While Mr. Comey acknowledged that the inspector general found “mistakes” in the administrative process associated with the wiretap applications targeting the former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page — the focus of the report — Mr. Comey wrote that Mr. Horowitz’s “most important” finding was his debunking of the insinuations by Mr. Trump and his allies that F.B.I. officials, driven by political bias, conspired to sabotage Mr. Trump.

Here's the op-ed in question: "James Comey: The truth is finally out. The FBI fulfilled its mission." (WaPo).

"Former FBI Director James Comey violated FBI policies in his handling of memos documenting private conversations with President Donald Trump..."

"... the Justice Department’s inspector general said Thursday. The watchdog office said Comey broke bureau rules by giving one memo containing unclassified information to a friend with instructions to share the contents with a reporter. Comey also failed to notify the FBI after he was dismissed in May 2017 that he had retained some of the memos in a safe at home, the report said. 'By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees — and the many thousands more former FBI employees — who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information,' the report says.... Comey said he considered his memos to be personal rather than government documents, and it never would’ve occurred to him to give them back to the FBI after he was fired. The inspector general’s office disagreed, citing policy that FBI employees must give up all documents with FBI information once they leave the bureau."

AP reports.

"Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, will speak about the Russia investigation at 11 a.m. on Wednesday morning..."

"... his first public comments since he took over the inquiry two years ago, the Justice Department announced."

The NYT alerts us. (Nice photo at the link.)

I was just noticing James Comey's new column in the Washington Post, "No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that."

I had passed over it earlier today, because I have low tolerance for that sort of thing these days, but I got interested in it when I read this enticing interpretation from wildswan in the comments in last night's café.

We weren't plotting against Trump, we were also plotting against Hillary and everyone else. Our goal was power over them all. But our plots seemed about to fail. We had to cut Hillary down to size; but then, while we maneuvered against her, unexpectedly Trump won. Of course, we had an insurance policy against him, so that swung into action. We formatted it as usual as an "investigation." But unexpectedly there was trouble getting his people to accept our lies. And he wouldn't give in. It was His fault that we had to ratchet up our attack so much. And if He wants to call our investigations and jailings and leakings a coup, it was a self-inflicted coup and also it didn't happen. Due to Him. We aren't to blame. We tried to "investigate", as we call it, Him into impotence. God knows how we tried; and so do Melania, Barron, Kelley Ann Conway, George Conway, General Flynn, his wife, his son, Papadopoulos, his fiance, Manafort, the members of his firm, Roger Stone, Sarah Sanders and assorted individuals fired for no reason except supporting Him against the "investigation". Nothing is my fault; they should have given in. They should give in now. Last chance. I am FBI.

Don't know if that's accurate. Don't know if that's remotely related to what Mueller wants to say to us.

There's also this, which came out in the NYT yesterday: "White House Insider Account Has Feel of an Outside View, and Prompts a Mueller Denial":

Two years ago, the author Michael Wolff parlayed his access to one of President Trump’s most powerful advisers, Stephen K. Bannon, into “Fire and Fury”... Now, Mr. Wolff is back with a sequel, “Siege: Trump Under Fire,” which appears to rely just as heavily on Mr. Bannon. But the author’s source left the White House in August 2017 and has watched Mr. Trump’s circuslike presidency from afar since. That gives the disclosures in Mr. Wolff’s latest book a secondhand feeling — and one of his most sensational claims drew a quick, emphatic rebuttal.

A spokesman for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the Russia investigation, denied Mr. Wolff’s claim that in March 2018, Mr. Mueller was preparing to indict the president for obstruction of justice on three counts, including witness tampering. Andrew Weissmann, one of Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors, whom Mr. Wolff says led that effort, did not even work on the part of the investigation that focused on obstruction....

I'm guessing that's what Mueller wants to talk about.

UPDATE: Why did Mueller make an occasion out of his closing of the office and resigning? He took no questions and he mainly said the written report is the thing and we should read that and that alone. "The report is my testimony," etc. etc. I know there's a lot of chatter on the TV news channels, but they have to do that.

"Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation..."

"... according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful. John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees. His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates. The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced."

The NYT reports.

I'm finally making a new tag for this. My longstanding tag for the Russia investigation has been "Trump troubles," and I would be having Althouse troubles if I used it on this post.

(The tag "I am making a new tag for this" is not new.)

ADDED: The last time I made a new tag and commemorated the occasion with "I am making a new tag for this" it was "Zuckerberg rhetoric." That was back in June 2017: "I only make a special 'rhetoric' tag for a person when I'm seriously following a run for President and I expect a lot of material."

The second-to-last time I used the "I am making a new tag for this" tag was for "nervous": "I've noticed what I think may be a significant trend in reporting in the Trump era: reporting it as news that somebody is — perhaps only by slanted inference — nervous." That reporting trend was detected in May 2017. But, like the Zuckerberg candidacy, it didn't take off.

Or did I just stop noticing? Unlike a Zuckerberg candidacy, it's the kind of thing you could adjust to and accept as normal.

AND: There are only 2 other uses of the "I am making a new tag for this tag": "furry" and "artisans." Maybe some day all these tags will arise in the same post. Who knows where the origins-of-Russia-investigation investigation may lead?

IN THE COMMENTS: Nobody said:

Comey publicly stated that there was no crime. Obviously he was using his position as a former prosecutor with corrupt intent to undermine this investigation and obstruct justice. He sent Martha Stewart to prison for protesting her innocence publicly, after all, so enjoy your time on the business end of the political weapon you built, Comey! Be sure not to say or do anything in response that could conceivably be interpreted as interfering in any way with the “justice” of this investigation!

Remember too that it’s obstruction even if there really is no crime!

But don't expect a MSM report that Comey is nervous. By the way, the post where I first made the nervous tag was about Comey. The Daily Beast had reported that White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was "nervous" about "a possible Comey memo," and I said: "Maybe Comey should be nervous...."

It's what you call poetic justice, and there's no obstructing that. It flows quite freely on its own.