Tuesday’s New Day featured a respectful but vigorous debate between two CNN law enforcement analysts at the opposite ends of the spectrum on the James Comey book tour extravaganza.
In one corner, former Comey aide Josh Campbell declared that he’s “not a partisan” and defended his former boss while James Gagliano argued in the other that Comey’s a “good man” but carrying out a “vainglorious and self-serving” book tour.
For the record, the pair agreed at the onset that the so-called “raids” on President Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen were lawful and not anything close to being nefarious.
One point from that exchange was Campbell’s assertion that, when it comes to criticizing the FBI:
I'm not a partisan but in looking at the volleying back and forth, the left and right, and, you know, some of these attacks on the system, the attacks on law enforcement, I think that when you attack everything, you lose credibility in making those arguments.
Considering his attacks on Fox News, his questionable hiring, and how he quit the FBI, the suggestion Campbell wasn't partisan is simply fake news.
Gagliano went first when co-host Chris Cuomo shifted to Comey’s book tour and the retired FBI supervisory special agent emphasized that he need to “make an important distinction here,” which was that “[c]riticism of this former FBI director's decisions, which I have said and I continue to maintain there was a period of time in the Bureau where he made feckless leadership decisions” is “not a character assassination.”
Gagliano continued, making clear that this was “different than talking about his character” as Comey seems like “a good and decent man” (click “expand” to see more):
I've listened to Josh's warm anecdotes about the personal life of the man. I've watched him, I've listened to him. He seems to have a compelling story. The timing of the book — which The Washington Post, by the way — their book review critic said it is an author who doesn't just quote Shakespeare, he quotes himself quoting Shakespeare — is a bad look and I also believe that of recent, you've got a number of folks — an assistant director — two or three of them actually — an executive assistant director — folks that worked for Comey in that seventh-floor circle that have come out and said he's damaged the brand. Now, I'm not here to protect the FBI, I'm here to call it as I see it. I spent 25 years in it. I bleed FBI blue and gold, but here's the problem. The two things that you point out — the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation — Josh has taken issue with the term that I use called “punting it back across the street.” It's not an abdication of duty when your responsibility is not as an FBI director to step out in front of cameras and talk about the closing of a case. To basically dirty somebody up, which is what happened — not purposely, but maybe ham-handed....To the Russia collusion piece that you just mentioned, I believe that he made the right decision there. I don't think he should have mentioned that. Why? He said Donald Trump was not a target.
“I disagree also with the look of the book tour. I think it's vainglorious and self-serving, and I think it further tarnishes the FBI. Having said that, I don't believe James Comey is a bad man. I think he was the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong position,” he concluded.
Campbell replied by claiming that “this book is about” “leadership” which is “very important to Jim Comey” as opposed to making money and becoming lionized in the media for condemning the President.
He also made a not-so-cryptic reference to the Daily Caller story questioning his hiring by CNN (which, for tweeting about it and his initial apperances, got this writer blocked by Campbell).
“I'm not saying that when you question...James Comey's decision that you're attacking his character....What I'm talking are when you have the people at the highest levels of government calling him a liar, calling him slimeball, calling him disgraceful, you tell me that's not character assassination,” Campbell added in reference to tweets by the President.
To Cuomo’s credit, he countered by invoking Comey’s pot shots on Trump’s physical appearance as having done the President “a favor,” but Campbell disagreed by discounting it as “a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what's in the book, actually and that's obviously the salacious part that's going to get the headlines.”
Sorry, Josh, but that’s like saying people buy Playboy to read the articles.
The pair concluded with a back-and-forth as Campbell asserted that his former boss’s book isn’t one that’s a “typical, standard Washington” work of “look how great I am” (click “expand” to read more):
CAMPBELL: It's not that. What he's doing is sounding the alarm. He's saying that our system right now, we are in a situation where things are dangerous, where we have norms that are being destroyed, these important foundations that, you know, on which our country sits and stands and if we don't go to the ballot box, if we don't speak out in the public square, these things are going to take root and we're going to become numb to them. So you tell me, when is the best time to do that? When is the next best time to do this, after the next election?
GAGLIANO: I — I can answer that.
CAMPBELL: Hold on, Jimmy, I’m not finished. When is the next best time to do this, after the next election? You tell me.
CUOMO: Alright, we're short on time. Keep it tight and we’ll take it up on Twitter.
CAMPBELL: In two years from now? You tell me.
GAGLIANO: So I can answer that. It's not during a current, ongoing investigation of which he's not just a peripheral witness, he's the central witness too. Second of all this, James Comey had nine interactions with the former — with the President. In none of those meetings did he push back, and that's why I go to the feckless leadership part. He didn't go back and say I'm sounding the alarm. I'm going to the Attorney General and sounding it. He waited now. It's helping him sell books. It's not a good look, Josh.
CAMPBELL: Yeah, I disagree.
To see the relevant transcript from CNN’s New Day on April 17, click “expand.”
CNN’s New Day
April 17, 2018
7:55 a.m. Eastern
JOSH CAMPBELL: I think what I do have concern with — and, you know, I'm not a partisan but in looking at the volleying back and forth, the left and right, and, you know, some of these attacks on the system, the attacks on law enforcement, I think that when you attack everything, you lose credibility in making those arguments. So here we see, you know, the President and his allies going after the system, but again, when you attack everything it's hard to parse and make sense of what's actually righteous and what's just noise.
CHRIS CUOMO: And look, just for you guys at home, some of you have asked why I don't call it a raid because it wasn't a raid. By Michael Cohen's own recording, they didn't break down his door and take things. I think it suggests an aggression that is used to imply that this was somehow wrong —
CAMPBELL: That’s right.
CUOMO: — or motivated by animists. That's why I don't say it. Alright, so now let's talk about something where I think you guys will not agree. James Comey is part of the rationale for his actions and his justification for the same to NPR in an interview and said this. “Comey asserted that the reputation of his agency, which operates under near-daily siege from the President and his allies, ‘would be worse today had we not picked the least bad alternatives.’” Okay, Jimmy, the reference is to his unprecedented/controversial moves of saying that there was an investigation into Hillary Clinton but not saying that there was one into Donald Trump and then saying, once again, supposedly on a promise to Congress that they were looking at the situation and reopening it once again just days away from the election, which does breach the tradition of the FBI to stay out of any election that close to the actual election day. Do you believe that Comey helped the FBI by what he did?
JAMES GAGLIANO: Let's make an important distinction here and this is where I disagree vehemently with Josh. Criticism of this former FBI director's decisions, which I have said and I continue to maintain there was a period of time in the Bureau where he made feckless leadership decisions. That's not a character assassination. I will give you the reasons why. That's definitely different than talking about his character. I think he's a good and decent man. I've listened to Josh's warm anecdotes about the personal life of the man. I've watched him, I've listened to him. He seems to have a compelling story. The timing of the book — which The Washington Post, by the way — their book review critic said it is an author who doesn't just quote Shakespeare, he quotes himself quoting Shakespeare — is a bad look and I also believe that of recent, you've got a number of folks — an assistant director — two or three of them actually — an executive assistant director — folks that worked for Comey in that seventh-floor circle that have come out and said he's damaged the brand. Now, I'm not here to protect the FBI, I'm here to call it as I see it. I spent 25 years in it. I bleed FBI blue and gold, but here's the problem. The two things that you point out — the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation — Josh has taken issue with the term that I use called “punting it back across the street.” It's not an abdication of duty when your responsibility is not as an FBI director to step out in front of cameras and talk about the closing of a case. To basically dirty somebody up, which is what happened — not purposely, but maybe ham-handed. You should have said to Loretta Lynch, who did some things that were questionable and politicized things, this belongs on the desk of the Deputy Attorney General, a career prosecutor who had to go through the Congressional vetting system before she was appointed. To the Russia collusion piece that you just mentioned, I believe that he made the right decision there. I don't think he should have mentioned that. Why? He said Donald Trump was not a target. They were concerned about a small group of people — a coterie that might have been working — might have been — with the Russians and to mention that at that time might have sent those folks scurrying elsewhere. So I disagree with the decision-making. I disagree also with the look of the book tour. I think it's vainglorious and self-serving, and I think it further tarnishes the FBI. Having said that, I don't believe James Comey is a bad man. I think he was the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong position.
CUOMO: Josh?
CAMPBELL: Well, there's a lot there — like five or six things. But let me just start if I can with leadership because that's what this book is about and that's something that was very important to Jim Comey. I know it is to Jimmy Gagliano, as well. I think you fundamentally have two different leadership styles here. If you put yourself in the — in the position of Jim Comey and go back to — you know, obviously with the distance of hindsight, we can look and — you know, look at all different decisions and determine what was done well and what was done maybe differently. I think we can distinguish between the decisions that Jim Comey made and the person Jim Comey is and so when I talk about a character assassination, I'm not saying that when you question Jim — when you question James Comey's decision that you're attacking his character. I think that would be an easy way out. What I'm talking are when you have the people at the highest levels of government calling him a liar, calling him slimeball, calling him disgraceful, you tell me that's not character assassination, so let's set that side.
CUOMO: Well first, that's the President of the United States and that's who's saying it.
CAMPBELL: That's right and that's what I'm referring to.
CUOMO: Let's — you know, there's no reason for us to cloak any of this, but let's talk about why he's doing that. Comey did him a favor, okay? Trump likes to go low. He likes to keep it personal. He likes to make it a battle of ego? Why? Because it makes sense to people and it allows him to ignore the facts and subtleties and complexities of situations. James Comey did help him out in this one regard, Josh, by talking about his orange face and the white circles and his hands and his hair. He's making it a little tawdry, and by doing that, he reduced himself to a position of potential vulnerability to make this a battle of egos opinions about the other guy, did he not?
CAMPBELL: No, I disagree with that. I mean, if you look at the book, I think that's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what's in the book, actually and that's obviously the salacious part that's going to get the headlines. So I set that aside. What I think what we see is when someone is being criticized, and I know this from personal experience, unfortunately very recent personal experience, that when someone is trying to discredit you and doesn't even know you or is, you know, presenting a set of fact, when is it your time to tell your side of the story? Look at James Comey and all that he's gone through, you know, since June of 2017 since that hearing when he's essentially been silent, you know, writing this book, working on this piece. So now is his time to speak out, number one and number two, look what we tell our kids. You know, you treat everyone with kindness, you treat everyone with respect, but you don't let the bully get away with those actions. Sometimes, you have to stand up to the bully, and I think what he's doing here, he's looking at someone he considers a bully, someone he considers that lied about him, and he's standing up to him and let me say just one more thing if I can. If you look at what Jim Comey is doing right now, this book isn't the typical, standard Washington, look how great I am book, if you look at it. It's not that. What he's doing is sounding the alarm. He's saying that our system right now, we are in a situation where things are dangerous, where we have norms that are being destroyed, these important foundations that, you know, on which our country sits and stands and if we don't go to the ballot box, if we don't speak out in the public square, these things are going to take root and we're going to become numb to them. So you tell me, when is the best time to do that? When is the next best time to do this, after the next election?
GAGLIANO: I — I can answer that.
CAMPBELL: Hold on, Jimmy, I’m not finished. When is the next best time to do this, after the next election? You tell me.
CUOMO: Alright, we're short on time. Keep it tight and we’ll take it up on Twitter.
CAMPBELL: In two years from now? You tell me.
GAGLIANO: So I can answer that. It's not during a current, ongoing investigation of which he's not just a peripheral witness, he's the central witness too. Second of all this, James Comey had nine interactions with the former — with the President. In none of those meetings did he push back, and that's why I go to the feckless leadership part. He didn't go back and say I'm sounding the alarm. I'm going to the Attorney General and sounding it. He waited now. It's helping him sell books. It's not a good look, Josh.
CAMPBELL: Yeah, I disagree.
CUOMO: Jimmy and Josh, let's take it up on Twitter. We'll keep the conversation going.
CAMPBELL: Oh, that's never a great place to have a good debate.
GAGLIANO: I agree with Josh there.
CUOMO: It is as long as it's you three guys. How people respond to it is something different and we'll have you back here as well. Josh, James, well argued, thank you.
