by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:

So here’s the prepared testimony…

I’ve read it several times.

There are people saying it’s a rorschach test — whatever you want to see you will find.

I disagree.

What I see there is very much what a private CEO might say to someone “investigating” — and there’s utterly nothing wrong with it in that context, because there is no “or else.” And that’s the key, when you get down to it — there has to be an “or else” for it to be actionable, either politically or otherwise.

Does any of this rise to that level? IMHO, nope. It borders on it, but threading that needle is not only perfectly ok it’s part and parcel of being a chief executive of any organization. Those who disagree with that have never run anything in their life.

At the end of the day that’s what I see here — a bunch of people who have never run anything. They believe nobody has to walk up to the bright lines, but not cross them. They believe nobody has to make the tough calls. They believe nobody should expect honest loyalty from anyone.

What’s the difference between “honest loyalty” and not?

The difference is that “not” is malicious prosecution based on invented narratives or otherwise corrupt acts.

Comey, like it or not, was Trump’s subordinate. As his boss Trump had every right to expect and, when he questioned whether he was receiving it, directly ask for exactly what he did ask for — honest loyalty.

He didn’t get that from inauguration day forward. I remind you that Hillary’s “email server being wiped with a cloth” did not go away as an issue on inauguration day. Nor did the Russian Uranium deals. Nor did Seth Rich’s death. Nor did a whole host of other potential scandals both in the DNC and RNC.

The so-called “focus” on “Russian interference” is, from all evidence to date, a sideshow. Should it be run into the ground? You bet. But so should all the rest of these issues and as far as anyone can determine exactly none of them are. Further, there are clear conflicts of interest between Comey, some of his underlings and Clinton and Comey failed to do anything about them.

Were Trump’s conversations uncomfortable for Comey? Yep.

Why?

Because Comey had, for quite some time, been failing to do his ****ing job.

When those conversations failed to produce corrective action on Comey’s part what would you expect to be next?

In Trump’s position you can’t threaten to fire someone if they don’t cut the crap, because that might be construed as obstruction.

But you sure as hell can demand honest loyalty and if you don’t immediately see corrective action in the form of receiving it you can then fire the person involved, which is exactly what happened.

That would be nice and neat, with the entire sordid episode being able to be tossed into the bin, but for what happened in the hearing.

You see, Comey admitted to not one but two incidents that are at least grounds for instant firing and, I suspect, constitute stand-alone felonies.

First was the “leaking” of material to his “buddy” who then made sure they were published in the press. I remind you that at minimum this breached Comey’s duty to the FBI and his oath of office. But worse, if there was any classified material involved in those “leaks” he also broke the law — period, full-stop.

Second, and at least as serious if not more-so, was that he admitted to interference in the Hillary email investigation by Lynch — and did nothing about it.

I’ve seen arguments that Trump should “let it go” now that (1) Comey confirmed he wasn’t under investigation and (2) that there was no “interference” by Trump. To that I respond with an emphatic NO.

Both of these incidents need to be run into the ground and the chips allowed to fall wherever they may. From what I heard yesterday there appear to be multiple serious felonies involved here both by Comey and a host of other people, including Lynch. For the AG to actively interfere in a criminal investigation is about as serious as it gets in terms of corruption and that must not be allowed to stand.

Read More @ Market-Ticker.org