George Stephanopoulos interviewing James Comey: A study in partisan reportage.

I find it interesting that George Stephanopoulos interviewed former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by Donald Trump and now is shilling his latest book. He was a political operative for the Clinton regime and Senior Advisor to the President in the 1990s. That is pure partisanship on ABC's part, and deliberately so. This isn't done for information sake, but to pander to the Left.

The atmosphere is interesting. The New York Times' sniffed in their book review that Comey's book was "very persuasive." The review is pure propaganda, but this is about Comey.

The FBI does go through a vigorous screening process; so I do not believe Comey is a stupid man. He would have to be cunning to make it that far only to be checkmated by a more cunning man. Comey played a game of chess, but his opponent was playing Go. I do believe he is spinning a yarn to justified his firing -- which I don't blame him -- but the vindictive and very careful spinning with hints is beneath him. He is playing in the gutter, obviously, and now it is akin to two bratty and spoiled brothers having a perpetual slap fight with each other.

The press is more than just salivating over it: they are being downright patronizing, with The Daily Beast instructing the little people how to watch and stream it, though they are not the only ones. The New York Times also has little faith in their readers' intelligence, proving crib notes of the interview.

Vox, ever falling for basic stunts, are babbling about Trump's tweets on it, even though those are nothing more than misdirections that really should have been ignored over a year ago.

As for the interview itself, it is not actually newsworthy. It is not explosive, but typical of what I would expect someone who isn't used to be scrutinized getting flayed in public: justifications of his actions, wallowing with self-pity, calling his former boss all sorts of dirty names as he gossips, and trying to retain some dignity in a sordid and unprecedented affair as he is assuring the legacy media that he and his family are Hillary Clinton supporters. Everyone else is wrong, and he is holier-than-thou, and he is full of excuses.

He does parse his words as he chooses them very carefully. When I worked as a journalist, that was always a huge red flag that the indirect approach was used to paint a narrative without direct proof; otherwise, the person would give you actual proof. I never liked slippery sources whose every word must be put on a scale and examined under a high-powered microscope.

The only difference between Comey and Trump is that Comey uses verbal sleight of hand to fight dirty, while Trump blusters on Twitter to achieve the same ends. I do not have confidence in either man's account. At all.

People are watching, hoping Comey can offer some new dirt so they can lose their minds, but ABC is pushing this as an "exclusive event", when it is an advertorial interview promoting a book. I see two huge alpha male egos clashing, and the loser of that territorial skirmish reduced to melodrama.

But I can understand why the Beltway had a meltdown with Trump's victory: they are all broken in, and used to go through the motions as they memorized the scripts -- and with a spoiler blustering in, all their old routines and rules have been thrown out the window, and now that they can no longer rely on rote hacks, their façade of superiority has been exposed as such.

Comey was a bit player in this sucker circus, and one of the earliest acts to get the boot: the interview ran too long, and was pure theatre -- and a very boring one at that...