Is James Comey an honest patriot or a conniving operative? Depends on whom you ask — and when you ask them.

Both Republicans and Democrats, it turns out, have been lining up on both sides of this debate, picking and choosing when to take the fired FBI director at his word and when to warn of his untrustworthiness — sometimes practically in the same breath.

Consider Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader. Asked Sunday if President Trump could be guilty of obstruction of justice, he cited Comey’s testimony that the president pulled him aside at an Oval Office meeting the day after he fired his national security adviser and suggested (without actually saying so) that “we drop any investigation of [former national security adviser Michael] Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December.”

But when CBS “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson asked Schumer about Comey’s other sworn testimony that day — suggesting former President Barack Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, politically interfered in Comey’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information — Schumer was suddenly dismissive.

“Look, I heard what Jim Comey said,” Schumer said. “But I haven’t heard Loretta Lynch’s side of the story. So I’m not going to come to a conclusion as to who was right or wrong. Or whether it rises to the level that she should come testify.”

Comey was under the same oath when he dropped the bombshell that Lynch instructed the Justice Department to align its characterization of the investigation with Hillary’s campaign rhetoric, eschewing the term “investigation” in favor of “matter.”

Comey further testified that he was so concerned Lynch was in cahoots with Hillary’s campaign — especially after learning she had secretly met on a plane with Hillary’s husband, former President Bill Clinton — that he considered personally calling for a special counsel to take over the investigation.

Yet suddenly Schumer can’t smell obstruction. “All I’m saying with Loretta Lynch is before anyone jumps to any conclusions, we ought to hear what she has to say — and let her state something privately,” Schumer asserted.

Except he and other Democrats have abided no such judiciousness before leaping to conclusions that cast Trump in the worst light possible.

Democrats have also seized on Comey’s suggestion that Trump is a liar, noting that the former top G-man took copious notes of meetings with Trump, because he “was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting.” Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, called Comey’s account “disturbing.”

However, those same notes validate Trump’s statement last month that “on three separate occasions,” Comey informed him that he wasn’t under investigation for colluding with Russia in the election. Comey testified that he did just that — on Jan. 6, Jan. 27 and again on March 30.

Republicans have also selectively used Comey’s testimony to defend the president.

The RNC issued talking points to argue that Comey made clear “there was no obstruction of justice” by Trump. Yes, Comey admitted Trump did not directly instruct him to halt the overall Russia probe, only that he expressed “hope” that he would “let go” scrutiny specifically of Flynn’s meeting with the Russian ambassador since the general had already been punished.

While it’s likely true that hoping isn’t obstructing, Comey didn’t say that. He said, “I don’t know” whether it rises to obstruction of justice.

An outside group supporting the president put out an ad during the testimony that referenced Comey’s “own staff” having called some of his previous testimony “inaccurate.” And on “The View” a few days after the hearing, frequent Trump proxy Newt Gingrich cast doubt on Comey’s reliability because a recently fired ex-employee might be “disgruntled,” while also claiming Comey’s testimony was exonerating.

You could get whiplash just trying to follow each side’s contradictory claims on Comey’s dependability. It’s turning the hearings into a circus — something the Democrats don’t seem to mind as long as it derails Trump’s agenda.



Paul Sperry is a former Hoover Institution fellow and author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.” Twitter: @paulsperry_