So where are our standards?

It's a situation dripping with irony. The Inspector General put out a highly anticipated report specific to the conduct of former FBI Director James Comey. For most of us who have been paying attention, the report provided very little "new" information. But what it did clarify is whether or not the actions in question were considered justified normal FBI behavior, behavior that broke FBI rules and regulations, or whether or not any of his behavior actually broke the law.

Comey and his supporters had spent a lot of time justifying the behavior of the Director as little more than a concerned agent, dutifully and aggressively investigating the President over the legitimate concerns that he was a hostile foreign agent. They also justified the fact that he treated this President differently, kept him in the dark, lied to him, and ultimately leaked information in order to (by his own admission) prompt a Special Counsel to continue the probe he was working on.

Critics of Comey obviously saw it differently. They believed that the FBI director was not acting within the boundaries of his office, that he had gone rogue in his investigation of the President, and that some of his behavior could have been seen as criminal.

The Inspector General report split the difference at somewhere around 75-25 in favor of the critics. The report was scathing regarding the behavior of the Director. It did not mince words that James Comey broke FBI rules, regulations, and that he ultimately broke the sworn and signed terms of his employment agreement. The report flirts around the idea that some of what Comey did may have been in violation of the law, but stopped short of making a criminal referral. There would be literally no way on earth than an objective person could read this report, and make a case that Comey should not have been fired.

The irony works both ways. Much like the Mueller report, this report focuses on somewhat murky grey areas of misconduct. Mueller's volume one basically falls short of either establishing any sort of conspiracy or coordination or finding anything criminal in any of the actions in terms of Russian contacts. Volume two was more  of an accusation of misconduct which fell short of suggesting any of it was criminal. Trump supporters quickly called the report an exoneration and focused almost entirely on the fact that nothing was actually deemed criminal (obstruction allegations were declared not criminal by the AG, DAG, and OLC). Meanwhile, liberals jumped on the fact that the report showed behavior that might be considered non-becoming, even if it wasn't deemed criminal. Of course, others continued to argue that Mueller and/or Barr were wrong, and that it was all criminal.

So what are the reactions to this IG report on Comey? Exactly the same, with both sides switching logical allegiances. Comey (and some of his supporters) decided that the lack of criminal referrals exonerated his actions. Comey even tweeted that he expected apologies. Meanwhile Comey critics focused on the meat of the allegations, quick to point out that the behavior was against rules, regulations, and his employment agreement.

Now if there are certainly significant differences. The Mueller report remains to this day murky. There are no allegations that Trump broke any rules, regulations, or any sort of personal contract. There is just a question of whether or not certain questionable behavior had risen to something criminal. Much of that was entirely speculation and theory, as we have no actual laws that suggest a President can obstruct Justice by aggressively tweeting criticism, or by demanding people make public statements to the press denying media reports.

This IG report has specific regulations it can cite, and can demand that these rules were broken without any real ability to argue differently. There is no question that an FBI director attempting to blind side the President with misinformation or lie to him with the intentions of tricking him into doing or saying something damaging is wrong and against all FBI protocol.  There is no question that Comey's memos were not personal property, and that leaking them was in violation of FBI rules. These statutes and regulations were clearly cited by the report. This was very different from the Mueller report that sort of just purposely left things open to people's own interpretation.

At the end of the day, everyone had differences of opinions on what known actions actually meant. Were they justified, were they wrong, were they criminal. For some reason we feel it important that someone in authority be allowed to make a judgement (even if most people will still remain convinces of their previous beliefs). In case against Trump, that was Mueller. In the case against Comey that was IG Horowitz.

I suspect that the next report (the overall report about FBI behavior focussing on FISA warrants and the like) will end up being similar. Much of it will be known information (at least by those of us who keep up) and we will just be looking for someone in authority to agree with our own opinions on that subject.