The hypocrisy of the Democrats going after James Comey and defending Hillary Clinton reached a fevered pitch over the past 96 hours. What a difference a month, or a week, makes, when James Comey was such their hero—despite deleted tweets by Democratic Party operatives, like Donna Brazile, praising Mr. Comey. But In Re: All This, eight thoughts:

1. If Hillary Clinton had never set up her private server, against all common sense and law, we would not be here. But this is part and parcel of the Clintons thinking the laws do not apply to them. Or, as George Will once put it: “The Clintons can find a loophole in a stop sign.” Jake Tapper was certainly right when he asked/told John Podesta over the weekend: “Do you accept the fundamental premise that the reason we’re here is because Hillary Clinton and her inner circle, not including you, made a horrible decision to set up her private e-mail server and everything that has happened since then is her fault?”

2. Slowly, but surely, the complaints by the Clinton defenders against what Mr. Comey did are melting away. For example, over the weekend it was, “There isn’t even a search warrant.” Well, now there is.

3. For all the Main Stream Media’s hounding of Mike Pence about whether he stands by statements he has made in light of various of Donald Trump’s statements, will the media start asking Tim Kaine about whether he stands by any of his previous statements, like, oh, say, this one a week ago: James Comey is “a wonderful and tough career public servant… he’s somebody with the highest standards of integrity.”

4. For that matter, for all the commentary about newspapers and Republicans that endorsed Hillary Clinton for the first time, how much attention will be paid to the comments of the likes of respected Democratic operatives such as Doug Schoen who said he is reassessing his support of Hillary Clinton and “I’m deeply concerned that we’ll have a constitutional crisis if she’s elected.” Will there be other Democrats? Shouldn’t there be?

5. For all the hand-wringing about James Comey dropping a bombshell like this investigation before the election, should not the question and prospective hand-wringing go the other way? In other words, if James Comey had opened this investigation and said nothing, and then, say, Hillary Clinton won the election, and then the investigation turned out to bear fruits of illegality, and then we were all informed the investigation began before the election, wouldn’t we all be up in arms for such concealment? That is: shouldn’t we want to know if a presidential candidate and/or his or her top aide is under FBI investigation? Isn’t it interesting Democrats—today—don’t think we should?

6. This is a reminder of what you get with the Clintons. This is the Clinton dialectic, this is Clinton, Inc: Allegations of wrong-doing, claims of innocence that blame the accuser(s) or prosecutors, temporary media reprieves due to those claims, investigations, then, soon after, evidence of even more wrong-doing. This is what you get with the Clintons, all the time.

7. It’s also a reminder of who the Clintons surround themselves with. Huma Abedin may be a great aide-de-camp. But that she chose, and for too long chose to stay with, Anthony Weiner says one thing about her. Her background and involvement with the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs says another. The Clintons hiring her in the first place and keeping her around says yet another.

8. If Hillary Clinton is elected, do we honestly think we won’t see more of this kind of thing All. The. Time? (See Point 6, Supra.).