Re­count­ing the facts about Comey

Both Democrats and Repub­li­cans lost con­fi­dence in his lead­er­ship at the FBI

The Washington Times Daily - - COMMENTARY - By Pete Hoek­stra Pete Hoek­stra is a for­mer chair­man of the U.S. House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee.

Since be­fore Pres­i­dent Trump was even in­au­gu­rated, the main­stream me­dia has been on a mis­sion to dis­tort, dis­credit and delegitimize his pres­i­dency. On mat­ters big and small, they have lied and mis­rep­re­sented the pres­i­dent’s state­ments and ac­tions, and now they’ve found a new hero: dis­grun­tled for­mer FBI Di­rec­tor James Comey.

The me­dia’s lat­est line would have you be­lieve that James Comey is a vic­tim who was com­pe­tently serv­ing the na­tion un­til he was base­lessly fired by Mr. Trump. But the facts tell a dif­fer­ent story.

The record ac­tu­ally shows that Mr. Comey had lost the con­fi­dence of elected of­fi­cials from both po­lit­i­cal par­ties and could no longer be trusted to serve as FBI di­rec­tor.

This in­cludes Demo­cratic lead­ers like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, who both said pub­licly that Mr. Comey was do­ing a poor job, and Hil­lary Clin­ton’s run­ning mate,

Tim Kaine, who de­rided the for­mer FBI di­rec­tor for pre­sid­ing over the “low­est mo­ment in the his­tory of the FBI.” Even Mrs. Clin­ton has re­peat­edly crit­i­cized Mr. Comey for the role she be­lieves he played in the 2016 elec­tion.

But now these Democrats have changed their tune, at­tack­ing Mr. Trump for do­ing pre­cisely what a bi­par­ti­san

Mr. Comey him­self tes­ti­fied on May 3 that he had never been asked to stop an in­ves­ti­ga­tion for a po­lit­i­cal rea­son, and re­con­firmed that in the writ­ten tes­ti­mony he will read to­day.

con­sen­sus in Congress agreed was right: re­liev­ing Di­rec­tor Comey of his re­spon­si­bil­i­ties and mov­ing for­ward with fresh lead­er­ship at the FBI.

In­stead of ac­knowl­edg­ing the pres­i­dent’s clear con­sti­tu­tional pre­rog­a­tives, the Democrats and many in the me­dia im­me­di­ately leapt to wild the­o­ries and spec­u­la­tion about the pres­i­dent’s mo­tives. Leaks and “un­named sources” in the me­dia have added fuel to their fire.

As the pres­i­dent has said, he never asked any­one, in­clud­ing then-Di­rec­tor Comey, to end any in­ves­ti­ga­tion, and even Act­ing FBI Di­rec­tor An­drew McCabe tes­ti­fied af­ter Mr. Comey’s fir­ing that “there has been no ef­fort to im­pede our in­ves­ti­ga­tion.”

On top of that, Mr. Comey him­self tes­ti­fied on May 3 that he had never been asked to stop an in­ves­ti­ga­tion for a po­lit­i­cal rea­son, and re­con­firmed that in the writ­ten tes­ti­mony he will read on Thurs­day. The sworn tes­ti­monies, pun­ish­able by per­jury if the for­mer di­rec­tor was ly­ing, con­tra­dicts vir­tu­ally all of the me­dia “re­port­ing” about this is­sue.

What makes these claims more out­ra­geous is that Mr. Comey should have raised a red flag, or made it widely known, if he felt the pres­i­dent or some­one in the White House was try­ing to im­pact an on­go­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion. That never hap­pened — an­other key fact that the me­dia will­fully ig­nores to try to drive its pre­ferred anti-Trump nar­ra­tive.

As the spot­light once again shines on Mr. Comey, it is im­por­tant for view­ers not to get wrapped up in the me­dia spin. James Comey was re­moved from of­fice be­cause both Democrats and Repub­li­cans lost con­fi­dence in his lead­er­ship, plain and sim­ple. Ul­ti­mately, Mr. Comey has no one to blame but him­self for his ter­mi­na­tion.

A weaker pres­i­dent may have ig­nored James Comey’s fail­ures, but that’s not the kind of pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump is. He took de­ci­sive ac­tion and is mov­ing for­ward with fresh lead­er­ship at the FBI for the good of the coun­try.

AS­SO­CI­ATED PRESS

For­mer FBI Di­rec­tor James Comey

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.