Friday's HOT MIC
Whom to believe in this political battle of wits between President Trump and former FBI Director Comey?
Comey made it a particular point to harshly brand the president a "LIAR" during his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday. The often fact-challenged Trump, unfortunately, helps make that case himself when he says things that are not 100% factually accurate.
But the 2016 campaign aside, I would argue that the president's brash manner and use of imprecise language contribute to that perception more than anything else.
Comey, on the other hand, is a much different sort of animal. He seems to project a perfect Boy Scout image -- but is he?
People really need to read Sean Davis' eye-opening piece at The Federalist about Comey's Bush-era grandstanding to get a better idea of the kind of person he is.
To fully understand and appreciate Jim Comey’s approach to politics, the writings and testimony of Alberto Gonzales, who served as both White House counsel and attorney general during the events in question and is intimately aware of Comey’s history of political maneuvering, is absolutely essential.
Gonzales’s descriptions of his interactions with Comey, included in his 2016 book “True Faith And Allegiance,” are detailed and extensive. While his tone is measured, the language he uses to describe Comey’s actions in 2004 and 2007 leaves little doubt about the former top Bush official’s views on Comey’s character. Gonzales’s opinion is clearly colored by the fact that Comey cravenly used him to jumpstart his own political career by going public with surprise (and questionable) testimony that Gonzales had attempted to take advantage of a deathly ill man in order to ram through authorization of an illegal surveillance program.
Read the entire thing. In his book, Gonzales "paints a very different picture of what happened in that hospital room" and disputes many of the key details in Comey's self-serving version of events.