Washington is still trying to make sense of James Comey’s congressional testimony yesterday. My immediate reaction is here. A very smart lawyer—a friend of THE WEEKLY STANDARD and no fan of Donald Trump—emails this sharp analysis, which questions the reasons for and legitimacy of the special counsel investigation.
Is there any fair reading of Comey’s leak of the memo that isn’t just a naked act of vengeance? He says he wanted to spur the appointment of a special counsel. But the Russia investigation wasn’t looking at Trump. So why is a special counsel needed? Well, to look at obstruction perhaps. But Comey had himself not thought obstruction had occurred or he would have been compelled to do something about it. Is he saying that there might have been tapes to corroborate, so for the first time he thought he could prove obstruction? That’s just a load of crap. If I am a witness to obstruction by the president, I’m not declining an investigation simply because I don’t think I can corroborate with hard evidence. I’m looking into it, talking to people, trying to lay out the case. He didn’t do any of that when he could. So the whole special counsel investigation is an act of political revenge by Comey. How can it have any real legitimacy? People are going to jail, I’m sure (because they usually do), in an act of personal pique.
