I shed no tears at Comey's ouster, but of course I consider the whole post-election Russians-under-the-bed hysteria from team DNC to be ludicrous. As I do the double standard whereby (say) Obama's endorsing one candidate in last weekend's French election is not considered 'meddling' by the MSM, and actual election meddling such the U.S. (especially the CIA) has done too many times to count post-WW2 (from the ouster of Iran's Mossadegh in 1953 and replacement by the brutal but US-friendly Shah, to the more-recent Maidan Spring coup in Ukraine) is deemed just dandy because it's done by 'the good guys'. But, back to Comey:

[url=http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/05/04/the-triumph-of-james-comey/]The Triumph of James Comey[/url] | AntiWar.com

Note AntiWar is a lefty blog - here is a view from the right (from last Fall), to balance things out:

[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441593/fbi-email-scandal-hillary-clintons-fault-not-james-comeys]FBI Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s Fault, Not James Comey’s[/url] | National Review

Lastly, one thing I've found consistently misleading in the MSM coverage of the above: Most of the applicable statutes re. handling of classified materials [b]say nothing about malicious intent to distribute in terms of defining illegality[/b] - i.e. ignorance and 'whoopsie!' are no defense. There are numerous whistleblowers rotting in prison as we speak precisely because intent is irrelevant. If you're not a member of the oligarchy or the DC elite, that is. Note that I'm not saying the whistleblowers *should* be in jail - quite the opposite, there are longstanding legal exceptions to such laws when the 'illegal dissemination' is done in order to expose government wrongdoing - cf. the Vietnam-war-era Pentagon Papers or the Snowden NSA leaks. Rather, something like Hillary's former top aide Huma Abedin casually and routinely forwarding classified docs to her hubby Anthony Weiner to 'print out for me - but no peeking!' is flat-out felonious, since there is no 'legitimate public interest' involved there as there is in whistleblowing. Nor is it the FBI director's job to decide (or even make a recommendation regarding) whether to prosecute such cases. From the AntiWar article:

[quote]So let’s parse this. According to Comey, the distinction between WikiLeaks, and, say, the [i]Washington Post[/i] – which has been publishing leaked information from its friends in the intelligence agencies in order to smear the President as a tool of the Kremlin – is that the latter “will almost always call us before they publish.” What this means is that Comey and company can leak whatever they want – but anything not approved by them in advance amounts to espionage. The leaking of the fact that former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was in contact with the Russian ambassador prior to the election, and the releasing of the contents of a transcript of those calls to the media – that’s just fine and dandy. But Julian Assange publishing a video of a US military helicopter mowing down a van full of journalists, or revealing the fact that the Democratic National Committee actively sabotaged the Bernie Sanders campaign, is a “crime.”

...

This episode ought to scare the daylights out of anyone who is genuinely concerned about the survival of democracy in America. Comey’s prominence, his growing visibility in the conduct of our politics, is in itself a symptom of the danger: for now we have the chief law enforcement officer acting as the arbiter of who is and who is not a journalist. That he is now taking center stage in our political drama is indicative of the fact that we are living in a police state.

This is the logical consequence of our all-pervasive all-seeing all-knowing “intelligence-gathering” apparatus, which peers into our computers, our phones, and every aspect of our lives.

If knowledge is power, then Comey and the heads of our various intelligence agencies, are all-powerful. Forget the alleged Russian “meddling” in the last election – Comey had far more of an effect than did Julian Assange, as even Mrs. Clinton implicitly avers.

This is where we are in the year 2017: the accouterments of democracy are falling away, like the remnants of a chrysalis. What is emerging is a creature that bears no resemblance to anything the Founders intended, although they did warn against its appearance. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, foresaw the incubus that would possess us if we failed to guard against it:
[i]
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people…. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
[/i]
We have been in a state of continual warfare since September 11, 2001, and Madison’s warning against the dangers of militarism is surely more relevant today than ever before in our history. For the apparatus of universal surveillance that has invested people like Comey with such inordinate power was born in and is sustained by this state of perpetual warfare.[/quote]
And note some [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/05/links-5617.html#comment-2811609]shocking facts from NC reader Jim Haygood[/url] re. the US "justice" system in re. whistleblower prosecutions under the Espionage Act. This kind of kangaroo-court "justice" is the reason folks like Edward Snowden could never get a fair trial, and make a mockery of Obama and others in the DC officialdom calling on Snowden to return to the US to "face justice". Rather reminiscent of the secret FISA court system, in which only the government presents cases. Paging Franz Kafka on Line 2...

[QUOTE=ewmayer;458692]Note that I'm not saying the whistleblowers *should* be in jail - quite the opposite, there are longstanding legal exceptions to such laws when the 'illegal dissemination' is done in order to expose government wrongdoing - cf. the Vietnam-war-era Pentagon Papers or the Snowden NSA leaks.[/QUOTE]
I object! The "Pentagon Papers" case not only went forward, but the defendants were explicitly barred from any kind of legal defense based on explaining [i]why[/i] they leaked the documents. I believe the distinction in the present instance is that between sending documents by E-mail to a friend, and getting them published in the New York Times or WikiLeaks. This goes to the issue of "criminal intent" to "disseminate" the documents.

The reason the defendants in the Pentagon Papers case walked, was much more in line with the idea of not getting a fair trial. The judge ruled (May 11, 1973) that government misconduct in the case had been so egregious as to preclude the possibility of the defendants [i]ever[/i] getting a fair trial. Case dismissed.

Judge Byrne himself did not go unscathed -- he met twice with top Nixon aide John Ehrlichman during the trial. During those meetings, Ehrlichman offered him the job of -- wait for it -- [i]Director of the FBI![/i]

From the judge's [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011401165.html]obituary[/url]
[quote]In the midst of Ellsberg's trial, the case took a number of bizarre twists. The first, on April 26, 1973, came in the form of a disclosure by the government prosecutor that White House operatives had burglarized the Beverly Hills office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist. The burglars, led by G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, were not apprehended until after the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington nine months later.

But just days after the disclosure in Judge Byrne's courtroom, Nixon's two top lieutenants -- John Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman -- resigned, along with acting attorney general Richard G. Kleindienst. White House counsel John Dean was fired.

A few days later, another disturbing revelation came from the judge himself. He disclosed in court that he had had two recent contacts with Ehrlichman, who had offered him a job -- director of the FBI. Although Ehrlichman later testified before the Senate Watergate Committee that Judge Byrne had expressed interest in the FBI job, the judge insisted that he had told the Nixon aide he could not discuss any job offer while the Ellsberg trial was underway.

The trial was shaken again on May 9 when Judge Byrne learned of yet another impropriety: The FBI had secretly taped telephone conversations between Ellsberg and Morton Halperin, who had supervised the Pentagon Papers study.

When the government claimed it had lost all relevant records of the wiretapping, Judge Byrne declared a mistrial on May 11, 1973.

"The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice," Byrne told the court that day. "The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."[/quote]

FWIW my all-time favorite instance of "national security" secrecy also occurred during the Vietnam War. The Nixon Administration had decided to give North Vietnam (and therefore the USSR) the information required to clear the mines we had put in Haiphong harbor. However, this information was [i]not[/i] made public "for national security reasons."

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;458727]I object! The "Pentagon Papers" case not only went forward, but the defendants were explicitly barred from any kind of legal defense based on explaining [i]why[/i] they leaked the documents.[/QUOTE]

Thanks - in fact the Jim Haygood link I gave at end of my post is precisely about that travesty - banged together a bunch of material in haste last night, I'm afraid. "Ellsberg *should have* been properly treated as a whistleblower" was the point I was trying to make, but botched rather badly.

[URL="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/332889-trump-tells-economist-he-invented-the-phrase-priming-the-pump"]Trump tells The Economist he invented the phrase 'priming the pump'[/URL]
[QUOTE]President Trump in an interview published Thursday said he invented the phrase “priming the pump,” a common saying used in economics.

[B]“Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just… I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do,” [/B]Trump said during an interview with editors for The Economist.[/QUOTE]

Catch phrases frequently repeated and tweets. A modern communication battery.

[url=https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-expected-pick-for-top-usda-scientist-is-not-a-scientist]Trump’s Expected Pick for Top USDA Scientist is not a Scientist[/url] | ProPublica
[quote] The USDA’s research section studies everything from climate change to nutrition. Under the 2008 Farm Bill, its leader is supposed to serve as the agency’s “chief scientist” and be chosen “from among distinguished scientists with specialized or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics.”

But Sam Clovis – who, according to sources with knowledge of the appointment and members of the agriculture trade press, is President Trump’s pick to oversee the section — appears to have no such credentials.

Clovis has never taken a graduate course in science and is openly skeptical of climate change. While he has a doctorate in public administration and was a tenured professor of business and public policy at Morningside College for 10 years, he has published almost no academic work. …

Clovis has a B.S. in political science from the U.S. Air Force Academy, an MBA from Golden State University and a doctorate in public administration from the University of Alabama. The University of Alabama canceled the program the year after Clovis graduated, but an old course catalogue provided by the university does not indicate the program required any science courses.

Clovis’ published works do not appear to include any scientific papers. His 2006 dissertation concerned federalism and homeland security preparation, and a search for academic research published by Clovis turned up a handful of journal articles, all related to national security and terrorism….[/quote]
Hey, look - he's got a degree in political science - as the discipline's name implies, that's a *kind* of science, right?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;458879][url=https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-expected-pick-for-top-usda-scientist-is-not-a-scientist]Trump’s Expected Pick for Top USDA Scientist is not a Scientist[/url] | ProPublica

Hey, look - he's got a degree in political science - as the discipline's name implies, that's a *kind* of science, right?[/QUOTE]

That's not it. USDA is about plants. Well, I say he's a [i]plant[/i]!

Oh, I know where this is going. We already saw that in the U.S.S.R.
This is the American reinvention of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism"]Lysenkoism[/URL].
For U.S.S.R., of course, this did wonders.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;458879][url=https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-expected-pick-for-top-usda-scientist-is-not-a-scientist]Trump’s Expected Pick for Top USDA Scientist is not a Scientist[/url] | ProPublica

Hey, look - he's got a degree in political science - as the discipline's name implies, that's a *kind* of science, right?[/QUOTE]

any body of knowledge is a science as all science means is knowledge technology is the application of it. I think what you mean is he's not a natural scientist. he could fully fit a social scientist definition I bet.

Fortunately we can go to the experts for unscientific gut-theorizing because we can rely on Trump's expert opinions:
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-thinks-that-exercising-too-much-uses-up-the-bodys-finite-energy/2017/05/12/bb0b9bda-365d-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html"]Trump thinks that exercising too much uses up the body’s ‘finite’ energy[/URL]

Trump has this energy situation covered with an extra scoop of ice cream at dinner and we can stop wasting money by trying to get kids to eat a nutritious lunch.

[QUOTE=only_human;459017]Fortunately we can go to the experts for unscientific gut-theorizing because we can rely on Trump's expert opinions:
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-thinks-that-exercising-too-much-uses-up-the-bodys-finite-energy/2017/05/12/bb0b9bda-365d-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html"]Trump thinks that exercising too much uses up the body’s ‘finite’ energy[/URL]

Trump has this energy situation covered with an extra scoop of ice cream at dinner and we can stop wasting money by trying to get kids to eat a nutritious lunch.[/QUOTE]
Precious bodily fluids, anyone?