Long time CTH readers will note we extended well over a year of benefit-of-the-doubt to the motives of former FBI Director James Comey with regard to the severity of his politicized nature and disposition. Throughout the entire Clinton investigation we remained ambivalent to Comey’s motives.

Indeed it wasn’t until after the Pulse nightclub terrorist attack when Comey obtusely noted the FBI had been contacted (prior to the attack) about the sketchy behavior of Omar Mateen by a ‘random concerned citizen’ -and our finding that the actual ‘citizen’ was the far more substantive St Lucie county sheriff Ken Mascara– that we recognized how far Comey was willing to go to save his political face.

Yesterday, a friend of James Comey by the name of Benjamin Wittes, editor and writer for lawfare blog, now steps out and admits he was one of the primary sources for the New York Times Comey Memo article (Michael Schmidt); and in so doing outlines the severity of the political nature of the former FBI Director:

[…] I called Schmidt Friday morning after reading his earlier story, which ran the previous evening, about Comey’s dinner with President Trump and the President’s demands at that dinner for a vow of loyalty.

[…] I did this interview on the record because the President that morning was already issuing threatening tweets suggesting that Comey was leaking things, and I didn’t want any room for misunderstanding that any kind of leak had taken place with respect to the information I was providing. […] I insisted that Schmidt record the conversation and give me a copy of the recording, so that we had a good record of what was said. […] Comey understood Trump’s people as having neither knowledge of nor respect for the independence of the law enforcement function. And he saw it as an ongoing task on his part to protect the rest of the Bureau from improper contacts and interferences from a group of people he did not regard as honorable. This was a general preoccupation of Comey’s in the months he and Trump overlapped—and the difference between this relationship and his regard for Obama (which was deep) was profound and palpable. (read full article)

The gist of Benjamin Wittes outline is that he interpreted his friend -the magnanimous harbinger of truth, justice and the American way- James Comey, as expressing a feeling of undue potential influence by horrible Trump that Comey did not feel with the more well regarded Obama. etc. etc. {insert pearl-clutching/couch-fainting violin music here}

Except there’s a problem.

Not only did FBI Director James Comey testify to congress that neither President Trump nor President Obama ever attempt interference; but there are earlier media reports which outlined President Obama’s administration specifically interfering with an investigative intention of FBI Director Comey (emphasis mine):

March 29th 2017 – Newsweek: FBI Director James Comey attempted to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election, but Obama administration officials blocked him from doing so, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Newsweek. […] the source with knowledge of Comey’s request says that the FBI director wanted the Russian interference made public earlier and that it was a sluggish White House that denied Comey and delayed the announcement. “The White House shut it down,” that source says. “They did their usual—nothing.” Both sources spoke to Newsweek on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. (link)

Funny how FBI Director James Comey, as relayed by his good friend Benjamin Wittes, was concerned about Trump’s potential innuendo of influence, but Director Comey was perfectly okay with Obama’s specific interference to block Comey’s intended investigative action.

Additionally, the New York Times and Washington Post feeder pools are writing articles based on the hearsay recollections of Mr. Comey’s good friend Mr. Wittes. Those feeder stories are fueling second, third, fourth toward infinity level rehashes and revisions of the same structured woe-is-Jim narrative.

When journalists write articles based on media reports of media reports, the concentric circles of self-serving sanctimony expand toward the infinite horizon of nothingness.

Personally, I hope Benjamin Wittes keeps writing on behalf of, and with full approval of, his good friend James Comey. We are bound to find out much more about how severe the former FBI director was willing to go in advancement of his political objectives. After all…

[…] “This was a general preoccupation of Comey’s in the months he and Trump overlapped—and the difference between this relationship and his regard for Obama (which was deep) was profound and palpable”…

Remember what we previously said about “motives“?