Disgraced former FBI boss James Comey launched a shameful attack on the judiciary while peddling his book. The controversial figure who has claimed that he was not aware of the Russian and Clinton campaign origins of a dossier used to target the associates of the President of the United States attacked a respected judge for asking Clinton allies some tough questions in court.
It's deeply troubling that the former FBI boss has so little respect for the judiciary. And is eager to undermine confidence in the valuable work that they do.
Comey claims to respect the rule of law. But that is not how you show respect.
This is how you do it. Right?
That pitched tone of moral outrage. Associating individuals with the entire field. Treating any questions raised about one official as an attack on an entire civic institution. And then an attack on the rule of law and apple pie.
It's worked for Comey.
Former FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday criticized a judge who voiced skepticism about the prosecution of Paul Manafort, saying the judge’s comments about overstepping were themselves going too far.
“I don’t know how a federal judge could possibly know enough about an investigation … to offer a view like that,” Comey said in an interview with The Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig.
What do judges know about investigations anyway?
And he said he didn’t know where allegations in a recent House Intelligence Committee report about the FBI’s handling of former national security adviser Michael Flynn came from. The report alleged that bureau agents thought Flynn was merely confused, not lying, about meeting with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. “He pled guilty!” Comey said.
And we're supposed to believe that an FBI director doesn't know the difference between pled guilty and is guilty.