The Left’s Attack On FBI’s Comey Just Crossed The Line – This Is Low Even For Hillarybots

In an election season where many in the mainstream media see their job as defending or even promoting Hillary Clinton, this effort borders on the absurd.

Americans have gotten used to the Democrat-aligned, Clinton-favoring media trying to compare Donald Trump to the worst tyrants of the past century. Some so-called “journalists,” however, who go to truly bizarre lengths to smear even government functionaries who jeopardize Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations, are clearly out of bounds and out of control.

Because FBI Director James Comey is now being compared to one of the liberals’ worst bogeymen of all.

In an exercise of dishonest, tortured logic being camouflaged as “news analysis,” New York Times reporters Scott Shane and Sharon LaFroniere weighed in this week with a 23-paragraph polemic positing Comey as a possible 21st century version of legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

It’s a transparent effort to discredit Comey and undermine the FBI’s latest move in reopening the Clinton emails investigation.

To a liberal, suggesting that Comey is akin to a reincarnation of Hoover is enough of an insult to cause uncontrollable shudders. But not even The Times could bring itself to quite believe it, considering the headline on the piece: “James Comey Role Recalls Hoover’s FBI, Fairly or Not.”

In a better day, and with a better newspaper, the “fairly or not” part might have automatically spiked the story, since it basically tells the reader, “there’s really nothing worth reading here.”

But this is the 2016 presidential election, and this is The New York Times, which months ago issued a front-page suspension of the rules of journalism for the duration of the presidential campaign to justify its declaring open season on the Republican nominee – and probably for the next four years if Donald Trump wins the presidency.

And it’s not just the headline, the piece itself basically admits its own false premise with a “never mind” reminiscent of “Saturday Night Live’s” Emily Litella:

The parallels to Hoover, who ran the F.B.I. and its predecessor from 1924 to 1972 as a fief that reflected his personal and political views, may be quite a stretch. People who know Mr. Comey well dismiss out of hand the notion that he acted to tip the election to either Mrs. Clinton or Donald J. Trump. If he is guilty of anything, they say, it may be a sort of moral hubris, a desire to put his rectitude and incorruptibility on public display.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that Times employees are unfamiliar with the concepts of “rectitude” and “incorruptibility,” considering the Democrat candidate for president they’re trying to foist on the country, but most normal people would consider them an asset in a public official.

As to putting them on “public display,” being the head of the FBI has a tendency to do that, whether the personal traits are positive or not. (That’s one reason we’re still talking about J. Edgar Hoover, a quarter century after his death.)

But ignorance and inanity aside, The Times piece highlights just how low and whimpering partisan journalism has become at the “newspaper of record.”

For starters, the lead quote comes from one Sanford J. Ungar, whom The Times describes as “a former journalist and author who has written about the F.B.I.’s history.” Fair enough, you’d think he’d have something pretty damning to say, right?

Read it and see.

“I think this is sort of a flashback to the days of J. Edgar Hoover,” said Sanford J. Ungar, a Georgetown scholar, former journalist and author who has written about the F.B.I.’s history. “I don’t mean to smear Comey, and it may be an unfair comparison. But Hoover would weigh in on issues without warning or expectation. I just wonder how Comey sees his role.”

There’s that “unfair” business again. And we’re reading this story because …

After a few more paragraphs explaining the singular nature of the events Comey is facing — like a major American political party actually nominating a suspected felon with a long history of self-serving misbehavior to be president of the United States (that would be Democrat Hillary Clinton) — The Times gets around to finding a Democrat to blast Comey, because … he was too open about the investigation.

Stephen Gillers is a professor at the New York School of Law, who apparently specializes in what The Times almost laughably refers to as “legal ethics.”

Gillers doesn’t like the way Comey criticized Clinton when he announced he wasn’t recommending a prosecution. The New York Times never gets around to mentioning, oddly enough, that Gillers is a published author, who wrote an opinion column in The Times itself back in 2004, pushing Bill Clinton to be then-Democrat nominee John Kerry’s vice presidential pick.

Imagine, a professor of ethics pushing a lawyer disbarred from the Supreme Court for perjury to be the vice president of the United States. (That’s a thing called Democrat ethics. Harry Reid can give classes on it, too, once he retires.)

But best of all was the piece’s closer, a quote by its sole Republican voice, albeit one that is backing Hillary Clinton for the presidency this year.

Michael Chertoff, who led the Justice Department’s criminal division when George W. Bush was president, told The Times that Comey’s handling of the Clinton emails case provided “fodder for a lot of unsubstantiated allegations and half­baked accusations.”

Accusations like James Comey is the J. Edgar Hoover of our time?

Perish the thought.