Comeygate

Dear Democrats,

You can NOT feign outrage over the firing of former FBI Director James Comey.  He was your villain when, 11 days before the election, he announced that the agency was re-opening its investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails after thousands of them were discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop.

Der Weiner, as you may recall, is married to top Hillary aide Huma Abedin, who reportedly forwarded said emails to her husband (why would you forward sensitive State Department emails to your spouse?).  He also has an infamous inability to keep his namesake in his pants, and was under investigate for sexting with an underage girl.

The emails discovered on his laptop (computer, that is) included the 3,000 or so that Hillary had "inadvertently" deleted and thus was unable to turn over to the FBI, which closed its investigation of her last July.

Comey's announcement that the investigation was being re-opened presumably, according to Democrats, tanked her chances at the White House.  As the fable - er, story - goes, that swayed enough people who were planning on voting for her to swing the election in Donald Trump's favor.

Never mind that, nine days later and two days before the election, Comey announced that the investigation of the emails found on Weiner's laptop found nothing to warrant prosecution, which presumably would have swayed those voters back in her favor before the polls opened.

Never mind that on election day, Democrats were swooning over what they believed was an easy win, thus it doesn't seem that many of her supporters were swayed.  In fact, her standing in key swing state polls improved in the ten days leading up to the election.

Comey was a pariah among Dems (and Republicans, who believed that back in July he copped out by not recommending prosecution).  So much so, that last week, when Comey testified before Congress, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the Democrats' poster children for Post-Election Denial Syndrome (PEDS), grilled him relentlessly, essentially re-prosecuting the election some six months after the votes had been tallied.

Others piled on, from both sides of the aisle, heaping criticism for his handling of the email scandal.  Let's just say that he didn't come out smelling like a rose.

So now, dear Democrats, you want to express outrage over the firing of a man you've wanted fired since November.  Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, no matter how entitled to that you may feel.

So what of this latest round of faux outrage?  Well, the prevailing (lack of) wisdom suggests that President Trump fired Comey just as the latter was closing in on some smoking gun linking the former to Russian hackers, whom the Democrats also blame for Hillary's loss.

Never mind that she was a hopelessly flawed candidate.  Never mind that everything about her that was uncovered by both the (alleged) Russian hackers and the FBI was undisputed, even by the Dems.  (They're just mad she got caught.)  Never mind that her campaign strategy sealed the deal for Trump, as she ignored key swing states that he won.

First, let's examine the timing of Comey's firing.  Then, we'll look at the justification.  After that, we'll consider the apparent reversal from candidate Trump praising Comey to President Trump firing him.  Finally, we'll consider Comey's successor.

There is nothing credible to suggest that Comey's FBI was anywhere close to finding some smoking gun linking the Trump campaign to the Russians.  Probably because that mythical link does not exist.

However, the firing does follow two things: first, the recent appointment of Comey's boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.  Trump nominated Rosenstein to the role in January.

The Senate finally got around to confirming him on April 25.  By a vote of 94-6.  If he was going to be such a slam-dunk, why did the Dems put off his confirmation for more than three months?  Maybe they were self-medicating for PEDS.  More likely, they were smarting over their loss, and wanted to delay key appointments as long as possible.  If they'd confirmed Rosenstein back in January, James Comey would likely have been gone then.  There goes the timing issue.

So Rosenstein's first order of business was to review the FBI Director's track record.  And what he found was a bipolar pattern of "she did it," "no, she didn't," "yes, she did," "no, she didn't" ...  All of which took place during an election cycle and raised the specter of FBI meddling, however far-fetched the notion may be.  Perception becomes reality, especially in the minds of the delusional.

Rosenstein recommended that Trump fire Comey, and that's exactly what Trump did.

Another thing that immediately preceded Comey's firing was his poor performance in his Congressional testimony last week.  After that, I'd lose confidence in the guy, too.  When Dianne Feinstein scores points on you, you're not up to the game.  That's like Usain Bolt getting smoked by Michael Moore in the 100 meters.

So much for the timing, now for the justification.  There's the mis-handling of the email debacle, and the very public announcements of what should probably have been kept under wraps until a definitive conclusion could be reached.  There's the poor showing in front of Congress.  Again, the cause goes hand-in-hand with the timing.  The firing was clearly justified.

Sure, a conspiracy theorist could engage in sufficient conjecture to come up with a nefarious motive.  But you could also argue that this whole thing started when the Martians landed at Roswell.  No amount of tin-foil speculating can refute the justification for Comey's termination, nor the timing of it.

Next up, Trump's purported reversal of position regarding Comey.  Anderson Cooper did his level best to bait Kelly Anne Conway on that matter, at one point asking whether candidate Trump is some fictitious character who longer exists.  Stay real, Pony Boy.

So a presidential candidate took a different position after being elected?  Pardon me for being jaded by U.S. politics, but that's not exactly ground-breaking.  The revered Barack Obama did it.  So did every one of his predecessors, going back to George Washington.

Why?  Some of it is due to politics, and getting elected.  Some of it is due to getting in office and actually having access to real information that isn't available to those of us in the public - other than the savants who know all and see all, thanks to Facebook and Occupy Democrats memes.

And part of it is due to the fact that no executive shows his cards until it's time to play the hand.  I know this; I spent 15 years as a CEO.  There were people that I knew I was going to have to fire, for good and just cause.  But I never telegraphed that to them months in advance.  "Hey, Mike, just so you know, I'm going to can you in two months."  No, you express confidence in them, all the while documenting the reasons that will justify their termination, which you know is imminent.

Sure, you warn them as their performance deteriorates.  And Trump did criticize Comey.  No, you don't give them an "Exceeds Expectations" performance rating two months before you fire them for poor performance.  That's an invitation for litigation.  But Trump didn't do that with Comey.

So you wait until the appropriate time.  You may need to keep them around for some reason.  You may need to give them one more opportunity to hang themselves - as was the case when Comey testified before Congress last week - before you can say, "See, world?  This guy has got to go."  Then, every rational person (key word: rational) will understand that the move was necessary.  The bottom line is that people who get fired tend to fire themselves, one day at a time.

All of that can be perceived as cruel and dirty.  Okay.  Business - and politics - can get dirty.  But the fact of the matter is, some people need to be fired.  It happens.  Organizations that refuse to fire underperformers don't thrive.  If you don't like it, start your own business.  You're not likely to fire yourself.  Good luck.

Finally, let's consider Comey's successor.  He's a Democrat, and a FOH (Friend of Hillary).  Isn't it more likely that he will aggressively pursue any link between the Trump campaign and the nasty ol' Russians than was James Comey, who swung wildly from appearing to be against Hillary, to for her, to against her, to for her, to ...  You could hardly call Comey a FOH.  Who knows where that man's loyalties lay?

If Trump really removed Comey because Comey was close to finding a smoking gun, wouldn't he have appointed, say, his son-in-law as FBI Director?  Someone who would drop the whole Russian thing?  No, he appointed a FOH.  That speaks volumes - at least to any rational person not suffering from PEDS.

So, dear Democrats, rail if you must.  After all, this is just one more manifestation of your condition.  Be in denial, feign outrage, gnash your teeth and rend your clothing.

But know this:

Hillary lost.  Trump won.  And all the angst you can muster will not change that.