Just What Kind of a Moron Do We Have in the White House?
This utterly incredible piece of information from Talking Points Memo today:
After all the vicious abuse, after all the betrayal and treachery he has had from Republicans over the last eight years, he still thinks this? What the hell is the matter with him?
"White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Monday said President Obama does not believe FBI Director James Comey was meddling in the presidential election by announcing Friday that his agency discovered new emails that may be related to its investigation of Hillary Clinton's private server.
In his daily press briefing, Earnest said Obama believes Comey “is a man of principle and good character,” and “doesn't believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of the election."
After all the vicious abuse, after all the betrayal and treachery he has had from Republicans over the last eight years, he still thinks this? What the hell is the matter with him?
Comments
Krugman offered this yesterday:
"...the best guess is that Mr. Comey, like many others — media organizations, would-be nonpartisan advocacy groups, and more — let himself be bullied by the usual suspects..."
You hold Comey as being a self-motivated usual suspect himself, which view I would tend to share, but this is Krugman's take: He goes on to talk of Comey as weakening to Right wing operatives as part of a larger narrative:
"The moral of the story is that appeasing the modern American right is a losing proposition. Nothing you do convinces them that you’re being fair, because fairness has nothing to do with it. The right long ago ran out of good ideas that can be sold on their own merits, so the goal now is to remove merit from the picture."
Krugman actually sounds weary. Like he himself is being worn down by the relentlessness of Right wing mendacity.
Given that the scale of Democrat victory was looking like a wave of tidal proportions even those Republicans who disdain Trump would want to fortify the numbers against Clinton ever being able to do something productive, in continuance of their approach to Obama. This October non-surprise (non-surprise because we knew it was coming and because it's a fat load of nothing of substance, only innuendo) is probably intended to achieve that, not to help Trump.
As for Krugman, sorry, this is one time that I think he is just wrong. The Republicans, and that includes Comey, know damned well what they are doing. This is not weakness on Comey's part; he is a willing collaborator in subversion.
(1) It looks like a Nixonian Saturday Night Massacre, and the right-wing press will present it that way;
(2) It looks like "proof" Clinton is guilty of something, and the right-wing press will present it that way, too.
Comey should be fired, but doing so now will feed the jerks in the media and further Trump's cause. It's probably better to wait until after the election to fire Comey.
From Think Progress:
The irony of Comey’s bluster is that its highly political nature likely insulates him from consequence.
In the still-probable event that Clinton wins the presidential election, she cannot fire Comey — at least until the FBI concludes this latest phase of its examination of her emails — lest she appear to be engaged in self-dealing.
That leaves President Obama, who no doubt does not want to be accused of protecting his chosen successor. He may also be worried about leaving a key vacancy that the dysfunctional Senate is unlikely to fill before the next president takes office. If that president is Clinton, there are obvious reasons why she should not appoint anyone to replace Comey until after the email investigation is concluded.
-D Hagopian.
P.S. Andrew McCabe would be temporary head of the FBI if Comey were to go. The right-wing smear machine has already come up with a garbage story that his wife Jill McCabe received $500K as a campaign contribution to ensure that Andrew would protect the Clintons. I think that's why Comey waited. If he gets fired, the press will call it worse than Watergate.