Anti-Trump Slowly Begins to Realize Comey has Led Them to Geraldo’s Vault

Pragmatically Distributed was right, again.

Judged by his prepared remarks Comey will go before the Senate with only fragments of an obstruction of justice case he was building but did not finish in time.

His prepared remarks are somewhat weaker than what I expected, and my expectations were already low.  Trump’s request that Comey look into dropping the case against Flynn dealt with a narrower investigation into a discussion held between Flynn and Russia during the Presidential transition, not a request to drop the broader counter-intelligence probe.

Since you asked, McCarthy, Flynn was grilled by the FBI because Comey had no evidence to backup an underlying conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

If there were strong evidence of a conspiracy, Comey surely wouldn’t have wasted valuable FBI time devoted to hunting for Comey’s next glowing headline by trying to trap Flynn on an ancillary procedural crime.

Once charges were filed against Flynn, and perhaps Manafort for not reporting income from Russia and Ukraine, the plan – as I believe it was – would be to keep records of new hostile encounters with an increasingly frustrated Trump until Comey had enough events to go public with accusations of obstruction of justice.

The salivating over Comey’s pending testimony among anti-Trumpers turns out to be a shadow of what Comey would have been able to deliver if he been given more time to passively-aggressively provoke Trump.

With the release of Comey’s opening statement, it’s finally beginning to dawn on a few anti-Trumpers that what Comey comments had assembled to date are arguably inappropriate, but still collectively inadequate to base an obstruction of justice case on.

CNN took down its “Comey Clock” soon after his remarks were posted.

And most of #NeverTrump was forced to concede Thursday’s testimony will be a letdown.

His testimony leaves Trump in a good position to spin to his own advantage Comey’s words.  Trump and his surrogates can repeat that according to former FBI Director (A) Trump is not under investigation and (B) Trump did not obstruct the investigation.

There will be some attempt to counter-spin and say Comey is indicating obstruction may have been committed.

But this argument undermines anti-Trump because, in Scott Adams’ terms, it undermines Comey’s status in the public’s mind as a legal subject matter expert.

The image the public has of FBI Directors is that they, as experts, are supposed to know when a crime has been committed and what laws were violated.

If Comey dodges making a definitive statement about what Trump’s status is in the investigation or whether he did anything illegal, Comey’s appearance will be the opposite of what the public expects of FBI agents; namely, decisive, clear, and straightforward.

By equivocating on whether any of Trump’s actions amounts to obstruction or collusion with Russia, Comey will lose the deference he was given as a legal expert.  Not sure who to believe if Comey can’t be relied on, the interest of the public will gradually drift away from the story.

Overall, this is has proven to be Geraldo’s vault for the Democrats and good news for Trump who will then be able to turn the tables and begin investigating the Obama administration’s illegal unmasking of not only Trump’s team but also other Republican candidates during the 2016 primaries.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Anti-Trump Slowly Begins to Realize Comey has Led Them to Geraldo’s Vault”

  1. Thanks for the summary. This story is confusing for me as a non-American, it’s all Byzantine deep-state labyrinths and counter-leaking. My general impression, which is admitedly hazy, is that your constitution must be in tatters if this kind of thing can happen. But it seems as if everyone’s been chasing rainbows.

    Sorry for an off-topic question, but on the subject of the Middle East you seem like the ‘Jew with a clue’ (would be a good name for you, actually): do you think the recent events in the middle east could presage a middle-eastern war? I ask in desperation, as it is starting to feel as if the only thing that could break the political sclerosis here (Europe/UK) would be global events; like the Yom Kippur war in ’73. I know you shouldn’t wish for war, but there you go.

  2. My general impression, which is admitedly hazy, is that your constitution must be in tatters if this kind of thing can happen. But it seems as if everyone’s been chasing rainbows.

    My contention is that there is nothing substantially wrong with the Constitution. The problem comes with Progressives acting outside the Constitution, which calls for only 3 governmental branches, through their Liberal 4th branch institutions.

    Sorry for an off-topic question, but on the subject of the Middle East you seem like the ‘Jew with a clue’ (would be a good name for you, actually): do you think the recent events in the middle east could presage a middle-eastern war? I ask in desperation, as it is starting to feel as if the only thing that could break the political sclerosis here (Europe/UK) would be global events; like the Yom Kippur war in ’73. I know you shouldn’t wish for war, but there you go.

    I don’t see a looming military threat to Israel beyond Iran’s nuclear program. But that program can be either severely disabled or wrecked by an Israeli airstrike lasting only a few hours to a few days.

    Neutralizing that nuclear program would not require a complete war effort like destroying North Korea’s nuclear program would.

    Aside from a potential airstrike against Iran and the perpetual diplomatic stalemate over Palestine, there are no immediate external threats to Israel. Syria will not become a threat so long as Trump does not try to topple Assad; Egypt is back under the control of a stable Mubarak-like dictator; Jordan remains at peace; and Turkey’s military is too embroiled with suppressing the Kurds and its ancient territorial disputes with Greece over the Aegean to turn against Israel.

    The tensions with Qatar look like some sort of internal Islamic feuding between it, other Gulf states, and Iran.

    I’m not sure how whether it might lead to a military conflict or be limited to Arab Sheiks rattling their sabers. I suspect the latter because Qatar is too small to wage a war against its larger neighbors.

    On the whole I think the Middle East will sort of muddle along in this condition without collapsing into a general war. Arguably the area is no more unstable than it has been since the end of WWII.

    What I’m most concerned about on foreign policy is North Korea. A confrontation there over the North’s ICBM program will be much more dangerous.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s