Comey right to divulge investigation

If the measure of a FBI director is the ability to make political enemies, then James Comey is one of the best. In the past nine months he has alienated both ends of the political spectrum.

Last summer, Republicans were irate when he appeared before Congress and said Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was “careless” with her emails while she was secretary of state.

He delivered a public rebuke detailing her failings, but then said there was not enough evidence to prosecute her. Democrats breathed a sigh of relief and said it proved Clinton did nothing wrong.

Then, just 11 days before the election, their joy turned to fury when Comey announced the FBI had reopened the investigation because of what appeared to be new evidence. Days later he announced it wasn’t really new information.

Many Democrats reviled Comey, saying he was in league with the GOP and claiming he had cost Clinton the presidency.

But Monday, the FBI director went before Congress to directly rebut Republican President Donald Trump’s wild charge that President Barack Obama had ordered Trump’s phones tapped during the campaign.

He also confirmed the FBI is conducting an investigation into Russia’s likely involvement in the election and even the possible coordination between

Many Democrats reviled Comey, saying he was in league with the GOP and claiming he had cost Clinton the presidency.

the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

Then he said he would make no further comments until the investigation is complete.

It is rare for the FBI to disclose even the existence of an investigation. “But in unusual circumstances, where it is in the public interest,” Comey said, “it may be appropriate to do so.” This is such a case. There is so much energy floating around both matters that it was right for Comey to talk about them.

Make no mistake, both are important.

If, indeed, Obama ordered a wiretap of candidate Trump, that would be an egregious abuse of power.

However, based on Comey’s statement and those by a bipartisan sampling of congressional leadership, there seems no evidence to support that charge.

Until Trump can point to credible evidence — evidence, not “alternative facts” — that Obama made such an order, the public should dismiss such charges.

Trump has repeatedly called the Russia stories “fake news.” But the intelligence community and a congressional committee beg to differ. So do we.

There is little doubt that Russia was creating havoc during the election and that it will likely happen again both here and in Europe.

It remains an open question as to whether Trump’s campaign was complicit with the Russian efforts. But the FBI’s probe should settle the matter and that will be real news, indeed.