Scott Adams tells you why FBI Director James Comey is a national hero

This gets me to FBI Director James Comey’s decision to drop the case against Hillary Clinton for her e-mail security lapses. To the great puzzlement of everyone in America, and around the world, Comey announced two things:

1. Hillary Clinton is 100% guilty of crimes of negligence.

2. The FBI recommends dropping the case.

From a legal standpoint, that’s absurd. And that’s how the media seems to be reacting. The folks who support Clinton are sheepishly relieved and keeping their heads down. But the anti-Clinton people think the government is totally broken and the system is rigged. That’s an enormous credibility problem.

But what was the alternative?

  • It is criminal.

  • AmicusC

    That’s bs. Dems would have had another candidate one likely more acceptable to both sides

    • V10_Rob

      Have to wonder if the Clintons ever actually gave the Democrats a choice in whether or not to back Hillary…

      Still time to parachute in a compromise candidate that most Dems could get reluctantly get behind. How they could square it with Dem nomination rules I won’t pretend to know, but they could probably find someone who checks off enough boxes to be tolerable (at least in the face of letting Trump run unopposed).

      1) Promises more free shit
      2) Some kind of identity politics to score a “First (Woman/Latino/Gay) President!” achievement
      3) National name recognition
      4) Crony enough to know which backs to scratch.

      Then once the Dem vote is locked down they just have to win over a majority of undecideds/independents, by trumpeting their candidate’s virtues while pushing the Trump Is So Scary meme 24/7. It could be doable.

  • simus1

    To fit squarely in the guilty and not guilty paradox hints that there is some sort of legal magic in place to make sure prosecuting Hitlery would be a waste of time. Some sort of National Security protective cloak or guaranteed pardon all worked out and now put in place by Emperor Barry seems plausible.

  • V10_Rob

    Interesting argument. But then at the end…

    “Thanks to Comey, the American voting public will get to decide how much they care about Clinton’s e-mail situation. And that means whoever gets elected president will have enough credibility to govern effectively.”

    That presumes the election isn’t rigged as well, that Americans will even get the chance to decide how much they care about Clinton’s emails.

  • B__2

    “The alternative was the head of the FBI deciding for the people of the United States who would be their next president. A criminal indictment against Clinton probably would have cost her the election.” – Scott Adams

    By this Adams logic, Bernie Sanders could have pulled out a pistol at a televised debate and shot Hillary dead, and would be protected from being indicted on a charge of murder, because the police would be deciding on who would be the ‘next president’. It would then apparently be up to the citizens to vote for Bernie if they wanted a murderer for President, and not up to the legal system to make any determination.

    Can you see the fault with Scott Adams logic?

    • Well. I didn’t link the article because I necessarily agree with it. I just think it’s interesting.

      If you follow Adams at all you’ll know he states repeatedly that mere facts don’t matter when it comes to political persuasion. Or any persuasion. (The guy is big on “persuasion”.) So I think he’d say – I think he would – that the reductio ad absurdum logic of the position he’s taking (which you have just described) is morally relevant but situationally irrelevant. For one thing, murder on live TV is awfully dramatic. Email servers are not dramatic.

      It’s not about how people should feel and react, just about how they do.

  • FactsWullOut

    1. The FBI is part of the government, and has lost all credibility.
    2. Scott is dead wrong.

  • Hard Little Machine

    No one who’s gone the expense and the trouble to buy the media and the election, break the FBI and laugh about it is ever going to leave their ultimate goal up to chance, or worse, the ‘voters’. No I’m afraid what you saw yesterday was the first day of the Hilary Regime. Oh we’ll hold an election but it will be an even bigger rigged up hoax than what we saw yesterday. All the so called votes have already been counted & the remaining work is crafting a narrative for election night and the weeks following that spin a yarn whereby people won’t get very upset, at least not violently upset. I suspect also that this will be the last regularly scheduled presidential election for a good long time. The Hillary Monarchy will figure out some way to create a politically digestible rationale to suspend most national elections until she can guarantee their outcome or use the friction to her own advantage.

  • WalterBannon

    Scott Adams is an idiot

    how about this spin on his silly cultural Marxist argument:

    “I think laws regarding abortion are most credible when they are agreeable to the majority of unborn babies, no matter what the majority of women think.”

    How do them apple taste Scot?

    As for your notion that someone should be above the law because they are running for president? That is just asinine.

    Your argument that it is the laws fault that “it would be picking the president” if it did its duty, well that is not the fault of the law, that is the fault of the idiots who choose to run an unindicted criminal as their candidate.

    His idea of what credibility is, is just not credible, like most “progressive” thinking..

    I also love how comments are closed on his odious spew.

    • I suspect you overestimate the degree to which Adams is pushing an agenda. He’s mainly interested in strategies. To the degree that he has any agenda I doubt it’s what anyone wold describe as “progressive”. He has stated that he has endorsed Hillary “…for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.”.


      For ages he he has been writing about his admiration for Trump’s “persuasion” skills, which he considers almost beyond compare.

      I don’t know why he’s closed comments, but he did that only maybe a couple of weeks ago, and if you look at any of his comments threads I doubt you’ll conclude that he’s trying to crush dissent.


    • Look, it’s not about what’s morally logical. Not in Scott Adams’ online world. Not necessarily because he doesn’t care about such things, but because they aren’t what interests him when he blogs. Notice how he doesn’t give you a personal opinion about abortion. He says “imagine an abortion-related law that was acceptable to 90% of men but only 10% of women. It wouldn’t be credible. Nor should it be.” That’s because it wouldn’t be. Because the overwhelming perception would be of an oppressive and woman-hating government, which can’t work in our culture.* He’s not saying he likes or even endorses legal abortion. He’s saying that a political polity in our part of the world can’t operate that way.

      If a state policy is widely perceived by the people of that state as tyrannous, then it has no moral legitimacy. And a government without moral legitimacy will either fail or fall. That’s his point. (At least, that’s what I understand it to be.)

      *The Saudis have a genuinely woman-hating culture. But most of them, including the women as far as I can tell, perceive it as pro-woman. So their government is therefore still, in some sense, “legitimate”. And we should probably nuke them.

  • Spatchcocked

    Fiat justicia ruat Coelem used to be on the top of the mop and pail….