John Law (9:57)
Alright, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The red is mixed on the indictment, but many say Comey's actions laid the groundwork for his prosecution. Some say the case is fatally flawed and should be dismissed. Others argue Trump is righting past wrongs by holding Comey and others to account. In the New York Post, Jonathan Turley wrote, james Comey is no pristine model of ethics and now he's staring down karma. There are legitimate concerns about the targeting of a political critic of the president who publicly complained just days ago that Attorney General Pam Bondi was not indicting Comey and others. However, Comey is hardly the pristine model of ethical leadership that he described in his book. Putting aside his critical role in the Russia collusion investigation, Comey tossed aside even the pretense of ethics after Trump fired him, Turley said Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a scathing report that found Comey was a leaker and had violated FBI policy in his handling of FBI memos. Perjury or false statements can be challenging to prove, particularly when vague or nuanced language is used. This is neither vague nor nuanced, Comey repeatedly swore that he never asked anyone at the FBI to leak information that is either true or it is not. Comey will continue to be vilified and lionized by different parts of the population, yet this is an ignoble moment that he helped bring about, turley wrote. Now the man who bragged about nailing Michael Flynn will face the same false statement charge. The man who celebrated the charging of Donald Trump, including obstruction related charges, will face his own obstruction charge. In national review, Andrew C. McCarthy argued the indictment against Comey should be dismissed the vindictive indictment that the Trump Justice Department barely managed to get a grand jury to approve on Thursday is so ill conceived and incompetently drafted he should be able to get it thrown out on pretrial motion to dismiss. Legally, he'll be entitled to that, and it would short circuit the very expensive and punitive litigation process, McCarthy said. Put aside that McCabe, whom the perjury case against Comey appears to hinge on, is not a credible witness, particularly on this subject. The indictment fails on its own terms because McCabe never even claimed that Comey authorized the leak, as the term is commonly understood. A rational jury could not convict Comey of perjury on that record. Senator Cruz garbled what is meant by the word authorize. McCabe didn't claim Comey authorized a leak. Ergo, there is no evidence, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that Comey was lying when he told Cruz he hadn't authorized McCabe's leak, McCarthy wrote. The indictment should be dismissed because there is no factual basis for a perjury charge and because the second count, obstruction, hinges on the perjury charge. I'm sure Comey would rather have a jury clear him, but this baseless case should never see a trial court. In American greatness, Roger Kimball explored whether the indictment is retribution or justice. Is what Trump is doing a matter of retribution or of justice? There's no doubt that Trump is going after his political opponents, or to put it more accurately, he is going after those of his opponents who went after him and his associates, kimball said. But the point to appreciate is that Trump's goal is not vengeance, though that might be collateral benefit to him personally, but rather the righting of a wrong. For years, the deep State waged war against all things Trump. Trump not only survived but also triumphed. But in the course of the scorched earth campaign against Trump, his opponen acted like Pandora when she unsealed her fateful jar. The usual rules and conventions, the mannerly behavior and the gentleman's largesse were suddenly set loose. Perhaps someday they can be rounded up, placed back where they belong and reinstated as the norms of political conduct, perhaps, kimball wrote. For us now, the important point is that Trump's retribution is not an alternative to justice. On the contrary, it is the very name of and the prerequisite for justice. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying. Which brings us to what the left is saying. The left strongly criticizes the indictment, arguing Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department. Some say the indictment is flawed and may be thrown out. Others worried that the Justice Department is being taken over by Trump loyalists. The New York Times editorial board said the Comey indictment plunges the country into a grave new period. Long before this week, Mr. Trump crossed some of the clearest and most important lines in how justice is administered. He ran for office, promising to prosecute his enemies and appointed loyalists who have ordered investigations of people the president does not like on their own. Those moves deserve to be the biggest law enforcement scandal of the past 50 years. Yet they turned out to be just a start. He has now gone beyond ordering investigations to dictating their outcome, the board wrote. He has removed any pretense that the law is blind, as despots have done for centuries. He is persecuting people he considers his enemies with little justification other than raw political power. We know the response that Trump allies will offer, and it is wholly unpersuasive. They claim that the actions of Mr. Trump and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, are no worse than the Biden Justice Department's decision to indict Mr. Trump, the board said. But that notion buys into a false equivalence. In the earlier cases, there is no doubt that laws were broken, and there is significant evidence that Mr. Trump was part of it. No such evidence exists as yet about his current targets. In the Daily Beast, Shan Wu explored the fatal flaws in Trump's revenge case. Comey is charged with one count of lying to Congress and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding. These two counts make up an indictment so thin on evidence that any reasonable prosecutor, myself included, would not have brought it, wu wrote. In fact, that seems to be exactly what has already happened. Eric Siebert, the US Attorney who led the investigation into Comey, reportedly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge him. Career prosecutors also put together a memo outlining the lack of evidence. Comey, armed with the financial resources and a strong team to fight against weak evidence and a weak prosecutor may manage to avoid a criminal conviction. Our broader system of justice will not be so fortunate. Trump has now fully brought the Justice Department under his personal control and brags about it in ways that no other president would have dared, wu said. There are of course plenty of good line prosecutors with integrity that remain, but it seems clear that the price for showing that integrity is demotion and or dismissal. In MSNBC, Barbara McQuaid wrote, There is a reason Trump tapped Lindsey Halligan to take on James Comey. Halligan stands in stark contrast to Siebert. As described in a Justice Department press release from January, Siebert is an award winning 15 senior veteran of the office with supervisory experience. Halligan has a very different record. The former Florida insurance lawyer has no prosecutorial experience, McQuaid wrote. Her resume does not necessarily suggest someone capable of leading an office that handles some of the nation's most sensitive national security matters, including cases arising out of the Pentagon or transiting through Dulles International Airport. The DOJ's principles of federal prosecution prohibit prosecutors from seeking charges unless the evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain. With his training and experience, Siebert seems to have made the appropriate decision to decline to seek an indictment, McQuaid wrote. Halligan chose a different path and her journey is just beginning. Securing an indictment is only the first step. Now she has to mount a case and convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Alright, let's head over to Will for his take.
