Anticlimactic but informative; not entirely objective. Already knew/heard much of this from news. Disappointed that it delved so shallow into the title/topic Deep State. The author does a thorough job overall but again, there’s a slight bias that pervades the entire work. I had hoped for this to delve into the mystery of what she (Clinton) is concealing. My fear is that it is something, well, abominable. Why do I go there? Well I think that there were things found that are quite disturbing to The American People and that are of some nature or content that is extremely embarrassing to the Clinton foundation. Moreover why was there an interest-concern in Ronan Farrow’s reporting on Harvey Weinstein, the omnipresent Hollywood producer, from them? This book did little to explain why Anthony Weiner had that stuff on his laptop, and how its contents had so moved the FBI to look into it. Stewart, the author, turns the story around James Comey, holding him out to be a most upright and trustworthy man, and goes further to encourage support for the FBI and other branches of government, generally speaking. If you’re looking to go down a rabbit hole with an author who reveals a deep state then you’re out of luck here. It’s pretty conventional reason from James Stewart. From his ultimate view there is no evidence of a secret cabal. It’s all just a mesh of agencies. I’ve not read the other books that relate to the whole subject, books from Comey or others, but the reviews say that such books confirm what Stewart has written here.
Is it me or does anyone else want to REALLY know the content of the emails? If it was some thing that is outside the purview of the general public, some thing that would have caught us all unaware or off-guard, then this is problematic, no? Was it all to do with the election, some back-deal stuff that the Clinton campaign was up to? This book doesn’t go there.
The content on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, whatever it really was, in it’s entirety, caused enough consternation in the conscience of investigators that there came necessary the moment for the FBI to reckon with themselves: if we don’t say anything about this, about what we’ve found, then we’ll look complicit or guilty of concealing important information, but if we do say something about this, how do we say it, and (my most fervent inquiry), how much of it do we say?
We’re in an age of low literacy. NBC, CNN & FOX got us hooked. Their narratives. And then Facebook & Twitter & YouTube. They push narratives. Their nature is to be without bounds, or to push bounds. Our low literacy leaves us weak and without the volition to research or stay actively engaged in political science. There’s hardly enough time to read in a day amidst the buzz of the world! But our schools don’t do well to prepare us for political realities. The country advanced far in obtaining for more and more citizens the right to vote for a person to make executive decisions for the country for four years. It is our alternative to war. And yet the voting depends upon being informed. And well-informed voting leads to the most just decisions. But how informed are we Americans if we’re only permitted the filtered water of information which Anderson Cooper or Sean Hannity (et. al) yields? Who are their bosses?
A common rebuttal is that conspiracies fail the test because too many people cannot keep such a secret or operate so deceptively and synchronously. Say, “ if you fool the right ones, then the rest will fall in behind.” I think that theories that help to unravel what our rational mind grapple with are useful and valid. It is part of being human. It is the seeker in us. The seeker for truth. What aids me to comprehend the big mysteries of the 21st & 20th centuries are theories that do not require a great many minds to be in on a secret.
What this book did not do was: go there! It was quite objective in portraying Comey’s countenance. But what else about him? How could he be conceivably compromised? Why was it that the second event of the email leak, the one about the laptop, why was it that that took so little time to look over? If there was so much data to go through and only so small a staff , how could Comey say that he had confidence enough not to incriminate Clinton? Someone else had brought this point up, and I agree with it: Something prompted the FBI to go up to the public and say yet another thing about her emails. What else did they discover? And why did it take so little time for them to decide that it wasn’t serious enough to investigate? This is why I agree with the current president, that there is something fishy about all of that, and this whole book feels like an encouragement or a push for us to all trust the FBI wholeheartedly and entirely and completely because they will never deceive the American public, or that they will never lie to us, or that they are not interested in seeing one or another win an election. If the FBI is to be so trustworthy, and if the director is to serve a 10 year term, then who is their check, who balances their authority and investigates them?
The establishment of order in the world and of tranquility amongst its peoples is the desire of every denizen on earth. I fancy this. So I am personally not out to bash the FBI or any institutions of authority and power today. We need to be informed! If there is wrongdoing, and if it is serious, then the FBI needs to do its job! Arrest people. Finish it. Finish it all and get everyone who needs to be punished punished. Otherwise we lose faith in the whole system when we see guilty people, or suspect people, go untried and free without any investigation or consequence or penalties. Democratic party adherents are quick to forget or eager to overlook the blatant and technical foul, nay, flagrant foul of sideswiping Bernie Sanders at the Democratic national convention. This is unfair to Trump. It’s unfair because it’s moving according to a certain double standard: when the guy I dislike does the slightest suspect move I will pounce upon him and denounce him. Reds did it to Obama. Dems now do it to Trump. Shame. It is so damn silly, and irksome, because the hatred of the president beclouds objective judgment, and the animosity toward conservatism hinders sound reason. They sound bite Trump. A lot of his followers voted for him because they felt like every one among the politicians lies and that he, at the least, would be known and familiar to them to some degree for his speech and candor. Fake news. Well—is it true news? Shall we debate that? Is it unbiased news? Is the bad orange guy mad to suggest that media outlets push agendas and narratives?
I liked that the book took seriously the wonderment and puzzlement of the Comey “thing” but felt underwhelmed.