Facts don’t care about your feelings—and the facts about RussiaGate will make you question everything you thought you knew about our justice system
Well, well, well. Look who’s finally getting indicted. After years of watching Democrats weaponize the justice system against Donald Trump, we’re now witnessing the delicious irony of James Comey—the man who helped launch the Russia collusion hoax—facing his own criminal charges. And if you think this is just about one corrupt FBI director, buckle up, because as Trump himself said just yesterday, “there will be others.”
Let’s talk about the greatest political hoax in American history, shall we? Because that’s exactly what RussiaGate was—a hoax so elaborate, so coordinated, and so successful that it nearly destroyed a presidency, divided the country, and fundamentally altered how Americans view their own government. And the best part? We now have the receipts.
Here are the facts, and yes, facts don’t care about your feelings or your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The Birth of a Hoax: How Hillary’s Dirty Trick Became “National Security”
The Russia collusion narrative didn’t begin in some shadowy Moscow hotel room or in a clandestine meeting between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives. It began exactly where you’d expect a political dirty trick to begin: in the opposition research department of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
In April 2016, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired Fusion GPS, a political opposition research firm, to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, to compile what would become known as the “Steele Dossier”—a collection of salacious and unverified allegations about Trump’s supposed ties to Russia.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting. The Clinton campaign didn’t just commission this opposition research and sit on it. They actively worked to get it into the hands of the FBI, the media, and anyone else who would listen. They turned their campaign’s dirty trick into a “national security concern” through a process so cynical and manipulative that it would make Machiavelli blush.
The dossier was garbage from day one, and everyone involved knew it. Steele’s primary source was Igor Danchenko, a Russian national who later admitted that much of what he told Steele was bar room gossip and speculation. The FBI knew this by early 2017, but they continued to use the dossier to justify their investigation anyway.
But here’s the really insidious part: the Clinton campaign didn’t just pay for the dossier—they actively concealed their role in creating it. When the FBI asked about the source of the information, they were told it came from a “credible” former intelligence officer. They weren’t told that it was paid for by Trump’s political opponent. That’s not an oversight—that’s fraud.
The Federal Election Commission later fined the Clinton campaign and the DNC for failing to properly disclose their payments to Fusion GPS. But by then, the damage was done. The hoax had taken on a life of its own, and the very people who created it were sitting back and watching it destroy their political opponent.
The FBI’s Willing Participation: When Law Enforcement Becomes Political Warfare
Now, you might think that the FBI would have been skeptical of opposition research paid for by a political campaign. You might assume that our premier law enforcement agency would have done some basic due diligence before launching an investigation into a presidential candidate based on unverified allegations from a foreign national.
You would be wrong.
Instead, the FBI embraced the Steele Dossier like a drowning man embraces a life preserver. They used it to obtain FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, a Trump campaign associate. They briefed it to President Obama and other senior officials. They leaked it to the media to generate news coverage that would justify their investigation.
James Comey, who was just indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, played a central role in this charade. He personally briefed President-elect Trump on the dossier in January 2017, ostensibly as a security briefing. But according to his own memos, the real purpose was to create a “news hook” that would allow CNN and other outlets to report on the dossier’s existence.
Think about that for a moment. The FBI director used an official intelligence briefing with the incoming president as a pretext to leak information to the media. That’s not law enforcement—that’s political warfare.
The FISA warrant applications are particularly damning. The FBI told the FISA court that Steele was a “credible” source with a track record of providing reliable information. They didn’t mention that he was being paid by Trump’s political opponent. They didn’t mention that his primary source had contradicted key elements of the dossier. They didn’t mention that Steele himself had told a Justice Department official that his information was “unverified” and that he was “desperate” to prevent Trump from becoming president.
When the FISA warrants came up for renewal, the FBI had even more reason to be skeptical. By then, they had interviewed Danchenko and knew that much of the dossier was unreliable. They had tried and failed to corroborate the dossier’s key allegations. They had every reason to shut down the investigation.
Instead, they doubled down. They renewed the FISA warrants three more times, each time swearing to the court that they had probable cause to believe that Carter Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. The Justice Department’s Inspector General later found that the FBI made 17 significant errors and omissions in the FISA applications, all of which favored the government’s case.
Seventeen errors, all in the same direction. What are the odds?
The Mueller Investigation: Two Years and $32 Million to Prove a Negative
When Trump fired Comey in May 2017—which, by the way, was entirely within his constitutional authority as president—the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and any potential coordination with the Trump campaign.
Mueller assembled a team of prosecutors that read like a who’s who of Democratic donors and Clinton supporters. Andrew Weissmann, who attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party, was brought on as the lead prosecutor. Jeannie Rhee, who had represented the Clinton Foundation, was tasked with investigating Trump’s finances. Aaron Zebley, who had represented Clinton’s IT specialist, was named Mueller’s chief of staff.
This wasn’t a team of impartial investigators—it was a team of political operatives with law degrees.
For two years, Mueller’s team turned over every stone, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, and issued thousands of subpoenas. They indicted 34 people and three entities, most of whom were Russian nationals who will never see the inside of an American courtroom. They secured guilty pleas from several Trump associates, mostly for process crimes like lying to investigators or failing to register as foreign agents.
But here’s what they didn’t find: any evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. After two years and $32 million, Mueller’s team couldn’t prove the central allegation that had justified the entire investigation.
The Mueller Report was a masterpiece of prosecutorial spin. Volume I concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. Volume II declined to make a determination on whether Trump obstructed justice, instead laying out a series of incidents that Democrats could use to argue for impeachment.
In other words, Mueller couldn’t prove the crime, so he tried to prove the cover-up of a crime that didn’t happen. It’s like investigating someone for bank robbery, finding no evidence that they robbed a bank, and then arguing that they obstructed justice by denying that they robbed a bank.
The media, of course, treated the Mueller Report like the Pentagon Papers. They spent weeks analyzing every footnote and parsing every sentence for evidence that Trump was guilty of something, anything. When Mueller testified before Congress and came across as confused and unprepared, they quietly moved on to the next Trump “scandal.”
The Durham Investigation: Finally, Some Actual Justice
While the media was busy chasing Russian ghosts, John Durham was conducting a real investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax. Durham, a respected prosecutor with decades of experience, was appointed by Attorney General William Barr to investigate how the FBI’s investigation began and whether any laws were broken in the process.
Durham’s investigation took four years and resulted in three indictments: Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering an email used in a FISA application; Michael Sussmann, a Clinton campaign lawyer who was acquitted of lying to the FBI; and Igor Danchenko, Steele’s primary source, who was acquitted of lying to the FBI.
The acquittals were disappointing but not surprising. It’s notoriously difficult to prove that someone lied to the FBI, especially when the FBI agents who interviewed them didn’t think they were lying at the time. But the real value of Durham’s investigation wasn’t in the criminal cases—it was in the facts he uncovered.
Durham’s final report, released in May 2023, was a devastating indictment of the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation. He found that the FBI had no predicate to open a full investigation into the Trump campaign. He found that the FBI ignored exculpatory evidence and failed to follow standard procedures. He found that the FBI treated the Trump campaign differently than it treated the Clinton campaign, which was facing its own allegations of foreign interference.
Most importantly, Durham confirmed what many of us had suspected all along: the Russia collusion narrative was a political dirty trick that was weaponized by partisan actors within the FBI and the Justice Department.
But Durham’s investigation was just the beginning. The recent indictment of James Comey suggests that the Trump administration is serious about holding accountable those who participated in this hoax. And if Trump’s recent comments are any indication, Comey won’t be the last.
The Latest Developments: Justice Finally Being Served
Just this week, we witnessed what many conservatives have been waiting for since 2016: James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The charges stem from his 2020 Senate testimony about the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign and its ties to Russia.
The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife. The man who spent years investigating Trump for allegedly obstructing justice is now facing his own obstruction charges. The man who lectured the country about the importance of truth and integrity is now accused of lying under oath.
The indictment alleges that Comey made false statements to Congress about his knowledge of the Steele Dossier and his role in the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign. Specifically, prosecutors allege that Comey lied when he testified that he didn’t know the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and that he didn’t authorize the leak of information about the dossier to the media.
If these allegations are true—and the grand jury apparently found probable cause to believe they are—then Comey didn’t just make mistakes or exercise poor judgment. He committed crimes. He lied under oath to Congress and obstructed a criminal investigation.
Trump’s reaction was predictably triumphant. “James Comey is a disgrace to the FBI and to our Country,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “He leaked classified information, lied to Congress, and tried to overthrow a duly elected President. Justice is finally being served!”
Democrats, meanwhile, are crying foul. They’re claiming that the indictment is politically motivated and that Trump is weaponizing the justice system against his political enemies. The lack of self-awareness is stunning. These are the same people who spent four years cheering on every investigation, every indictment, and every legal challenge against Trump.
Senator Dick Durbin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a statement calling the indictment “nothing more than a blatant weaponization of DOJ.” Apparently, it’s only weaponization when it happens to Democrats.
But here’s the thing: if Comey committed crimes, he should be prosecuted, regardless of his political affiliation or his role in investigating Trump. The rule of law applies to everyone, including former FBI directors who think they’re above the law.
And according to Trump, this is just the beginning. “There will be others,” he told reporters yesterday. “Many others. The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened, and those who broke the law will be held accountable.”
The question isn’t whether Trump should prosecute his political enemies—the question is whether he should prosecute people who committed crimes. And if the evidence shows that former government officials lied under oath, obstructed justice, or violated their oaths of office, then yes, they should be prosecuted.
The Media’s Role: Propaganda Masquerading as Journalism
No discussion of the Russia hoax would be complete without acknowledging the media’s central role in perpetuating it. For four years, major news outlets treated every leak, every rumor, and every unverified allegation as if it were gospel truth.
CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post didn’t just report on the Russia investigation—they became active participants in it. They amplified unverified claims, ignored exculpatory evidence, and attacked anyone who questioned the narrative as a conspiracy theorist or a Russian asset.
The coverage was so biased and so one-sided that it would have made Pravda blush. Rachel Maddow built her entire show around Russia conspiracy theories. CNN hired former intelligence officials who had signed a letter claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop story had “all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.” The New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting that was later debunked by the Mueller Report.
When the Mueller Report failed to establish collusion, the media didn’t apologize or acknowledge their errors. They simply moved on to the next Trump “scandal.” When the Durham Report confirmed that the FBI had no predicate to investigate Trump, the media largely ignored it.
The media’s coverage of the Russia hoax wasn’t journalism—it was propaganda. It was a coordinated effort to delegitimize a duly elected president and to convince the American people that their democracy had been compromised by a foreign power.
The damage to the media’s credibility has been enormous and lasting. According to Gallup, trust in the media has fallen to historic lows, with only 32% of Americans saying they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers and only 16% expressing confidence in television news.
This isn’t an accident—it’s the inevitable result of abandoning journalistic standards in favor of political activism. When news outlets become indistinguishable from campaign organizations, people stop trusting them to provide accurate information.
The Intelligence Community’s Disgrace: When Spies Become Political Operatives
The intelligence community’s role in the Russia hoax is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the entire affair. These are the agencies that are supposed to protect America from foreign threats, not manufacture domestic political scandals.
The CIA, under John Brennan, played a key role in promoting the Russia collusion narrative. Brennan briefed congressional leaders on the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia was interfering in the election to help Trump. He later admitted that the intelligence community had relied heavily on the Steele Dossier in reaching this conclusion.
The problem is that the intelligence community knew the dossier was unreliable. They knew it was paid for by the Clinton campaign. They knew that Steele’s sources were questionable and that many of his claims couldn’t be verified. But they used it anyway because it supported their preferred narrative.
Brennan himself became one of the most vocal proponents of the Russia collusion theory. After leaving the CIA, he joined MSNBC as a contributor and spent years promoting conspiracy theories about Trump’s ties to Russia. He accused Trump of “treason” and suggested that he was being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin.
When the Mueller Report failed to establish collusion, Brennan didn’t apologize. When the Durham Report revealed the FBI’s misconduct, he didn’t acknowledge his role in promoting false information. Instead, he doubled down, claiming that the investigation was still justified and that Trump was still a threat to national security.
The FBI’s role was even more egregious. As the Durham Report makes clear, the FBI opened a full investigation into a presidential campaign based on thin evidence and political bias. They ignored exculpatory evidence, violated their own procedures, and misled the FISA court.
But perhaps most damaging was the FBI’s decision to brief the media on their investigation. By leaking information about the Russia investigation to friendly reporters, the FBI created a feedback loop where media reports based on FBI leaks were then used to justify further investigation.
This wasn’t intelligence work—it was political warfare. And the fact that it was conducted by agencies that are supposed to be above politics makes it even more dangerous to our democracy.
The Legal Weaponization: How Democrats Turned Law Enforcement Into a Political Tool
The Russia hoax didn’t happen in a vacuum. It was part of a broader effort by Democrats and their allies in the deep state to weaponize the legal system against their political opponents.
This weaponization took many forms. There were the FISA warrants based on opposition research. There were the leaks to friendly media outlets. There were the congressional investigations designed to generate negative headlines rather than uncover facts.
But perhaps most importantly, there was the normalization of using law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate political opponents. Before 2016, it would have been unthinkable for the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into a presidential campaign based on opposition research paid for by the opposing campaign.
After 2016, it became standard operating procedure.
The precedent set by the Russia investigation has had lasting consequences. It paved the way for the two impeachments of Trump, both of which were based on similarly thin evidence and partisan motivations. It justified the appointment of special counsels to investigate everything from classified documents to business records.
Most dangerously, it established the principle that law enforcement agencies can be used as weapons in political warfare. If you can’t beat your opponent at the ballot box, you can try to beat them in the courtroom.
This is not how democracy is supposed to work. In a healthy democracy, elections are decided by voters, not prosecutors. Political disputes are resolved through debate and compromise, not indictments and investigations.
The weaponization of the legal system is a threat to the rule of law and to democratic governance itself. When law enforcement becomes a tool of political warfare, it loses its legitimacy and its ability to maintain order and justice.
The Constitutional Crisis: When Checks and Balances Become Partisan Weapons
The Russia hoax also revealed fundamental weaknesses in our constitutional system of checks and balances. The founders designed our government with the assumption that different branches and agencies would jealously guard their own prerogatives and resist encroachment by others.
What they didn’t anticipate was that partisan loyalty would override institutional loyalty. They didn’t foresee a situation where the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department, and Congress would all work together to undermine a president from the opposing party.
The FISA court, which was designed to provide judicial oversight of intelligence gathering, rubber-stamped warrant applications based on opposition research. Congressional oversight committees, which were supposed to hold the executive branch accountable, instead became cheerleaders for the investigation.
The media, which was supposed to serve as a watchdog on government power, became a megaphone for intelligence agencies and law enforcement. Instead of questioning the government’s claims, they amplified them.
This breakdown of checks and balances created a situation where a small group of unelected officials could effectively nullify the results of a presidential election. They couldn’t remove Trump from office, but they could cripple his presidency and make it impossible for him to govern effectively.
The fact that they nearly succeeded should terrify every American, regardless of their political affiliation. If it can happen to Trump, it can happen to any president who threatens the established order.
The International Implications: How the Russia Hoax Damaged American Credibility
The Russia hoax didn’t just damage American democracy—it damaged America’s credibility on the world stage. For decades, the United States has lectured other countries about the importance of democratic norms, the rule of law, and peaceful transitions of power.
How can we credibly make those arguments when our own intelligence agencies were caught spying on a presidential campaign based on opposition research? How can we criticize authoritarian regimes for using law enforcement to harass their political opponents when we did the same thing?
The Russia hoax made America look like a banana republic. It showed the world that our vaunted democratic institutions could be weaponized for partisan purposes. It demonstrated that our intelligence agencies and law enforcement could be just as corrupt and politicized as those in any third-world dictatorship.
This damage to American credibility has real consequences. When we try to promote democracy abroad, other countries can point to the Russia hoax as evidence of American hypocrisy. When we try to build coalitions against authoritarian regimes, our allies question whether we can be trusted to uphold democratic values.
The Russia hoax didn’t just undermine Trump—it undermined America itself.
The Psychological Warfare: How the Hoax Divided America
Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the Russia hoax was its psychological impact on the American people. For four years, millions of Americans were told that their president was a Russian asset, that their democracy had been compromised, and that their country was under attack.
This wasn’t just political spin—it was psychological warfare designed to delegitimize Trump’s presidency and divide the American people. The constant drumbeat of Russia stories created a climate of fear and paranoia that made rational political discourse nearly impossible.
The effect was to create two separate realities. In one reality, Trump was a Russian puppet who had stolen the election with Putin’s help. In the other reality, Trump was the victim of a deep state conspiracy designed to overturn the results of a legitimate election.
These competing narratives made it impossible for Americans to have productive conversations about policy or governance. How can you debate tax policy with someone who believes the president is a foreign agent? How can you discuss healthcare reform with someone who thinks the entire government has been compromised?
The Russia hoax didn’t just divide Republicans and Democrats—it divided families, friendships, and communities. It created a level of political polarization that hadn’t been seen since the Civil War.
This polarization was not an accidental byproduct of the Russia investigation—it was a deliberate strategy. By convincing Americans that their democracy was under attack, the hoax’s perpetrators hoped to justify extraordinary measures to resist Trump’s presidency.
The “Resistance” wasn’t just a political movement—it was a psychological operation designed to convince Americans that normal democratic processes had been suspended and that extraordinary measures were justified to save the country.
The Economic Cost: What the Hoax Cost America
The Russia hoax didn’t just cost America politically and socially—it cost us economically as well. The constant investigations, the political uncertainty, and the international embarrassment all had real economic consequences.
The Mueller investigation alone cost taxpayers over $32 million. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The broader Russia investigation involved dozens of congressional hearings, thousands of hours of FBI and Justice Department resources, and countless hours of White House staff time that could have been spent on productive activities.
More importantly, the political uncertainty created by the Russia hoax made it difficult for the Trump administration to pursue its policy agenda. Instead of focusing on economic growth, infrastructure, or other priorities, the administration was constantly responding to investigations and defending itself against new allegations.
The international implications also had economic costs. The Russia hoax made it more difficult for the United States to negotiate trade deals, build international coalitions, and project strength abroad. When other countries question your political stability, they’re less likely to make long-term commitments or investments.
The stock market, which generally performed well during Trump’s presidency, was periodically roiled by Russia-related news. Every new indictment, every new revelation, every new twist in the investigation created uncertainty that affected investor confidence.
While it’s impossible to quantify the exact economic cost of the Russia hoax, it’s clear that it diverted resources, created uncertainty, and damaged America’s economic interests both domestically and internationally.
The Lessons Learned: How to Prevent Future Hoaxes
The Russia hoax offers several important lessons about how to protect our democracy from future attempts at political weaponization.
First, we need stronger oversight of intelligence agencies and law enforcement. The FISA court needs real reform, not cosmetic changes. Congressional oversight needs to be more robust and less partisan. The media needs to return to basic journalistic standards rather than serving as stenographers for intelligence agencies.
Second, we need accountability for those who participated in the hoax. The recent indictment of James Comey is a good start, but it can’t be the end. Everyone who knowingly participated in this fraud should face consequences, regardless of their political affiliation or their position in government.
Third, we need to restore the principle that law enforcement and intelligence agencies should be above politics. This means hiring based on merit rather than ideology, enforcing strict ethical standards, and creating real consequences for political bias.
Fourth, we need to rebuild trust in our institutions. This won’t happen overnight, and it won’t happen without acknowledging what went wrong and taking concrete steps to fix it.
Finally, we need to remember that democracy depends on the consent of the governed. When government agencies lie to the people, when the media abandons its watchdog role, and when political opponents are treated as enemies rather than fellow citizens, democracy itself is at risk.
The Current Reckoning: Justice Delayed But Not Denied
The indictment of James Comey represents more than just accountability for one corrupt official—it represents a turning point in the long struggle for justice in the Russia hoax.
For years, conservatives have watched in frustration as the perpetrators of this fraud not only escaped consequences but were rewarded with book deals, television contracts, and speaking fees. They’ve watched as the media that promoted the hoax refused to acknowledge their errors or apologize for their role in dividing the country.
But the tide is finally turning. The Durham Report provided the factual foundation for accountability. The 2024 election gave Trump the mandate to pursue justice. And the recent indictment shows that the new administration is serious about holding people accountable.
Trump’s promise that “there will be others” suggests that Comey is just the beginning. Other former officials who participated in the hoax—including John Brennan, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Andrew McCabe—should be looking over their shoulders.
The question isn’t whether they should be prosecuted—the question is whether they committed crimes. And if the evidence shows that they lied under oath, leaked classified information, or violated their oaths of office, then they should face the same justice system they tried to weaponize against Trump.
This isn’t about revenge—it’s about the rule of law. It’s about ensuring that no one is above the law, regardless of their political connections or their position in government. It’s about deterring future attempts to weaponize our institutions for partisan purposes.
The Broader Implications: What This Means for American Democracy
The Russia hoax and its aftermath have implications that extend far beyond the specific individuals involved. They represent a fundamental test of whether American democracy can survive the weaponization of its institutions.
If the perpetrators of the Russia hoax face no consequences, it will send a clear message that political weaponization is acceptable as long as you’re targeting the right people. It will encourage future attempts to use law enforcement and intelligence agencies as tools of political warfare.
But if justice is served—if those who participated in this fraud are held accountable—it will send an equally clear message that our institutions cannot be weaponized without consequences. It will help restore faith in the rule of law and deter future attempts at political persecution.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. The Russia hoax wasn’t just an attack on Donald Trump—it was an attack on the principle that elections have consequences and that the American people have the right to choose their leaders without interference from unelected bureaucrats.
If we don’t hold the perpetrators accountable, we’re essentially saying that this kind of behavior is acceptable. We’re giving future deep state actors a blueprint for how to undermine presidents they don’t like.
But if we do hold them accountable, we’re reaffirming the principle that no one is above the law and that our democratic institutions belong to the American people, not to the bureaucrats who temporarily occupy them.
Conclusion: The Truth Will Set Us Free
The Russia hoax was the greatest political scandal in American history. It was a coordinated effort by partisan actors in the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department, and the media to delegitimize a duly elected president and overturn the results of a democratic election.
For four years, the American people were told that their president was a Russian asset, that their democracy had been compromised, and that their country was under attack. None of it was true. It was all based on opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and promoted by partisan actors who couldn’t accept the results of the 2016 election.
The damage to American democracy has been enormous. Trust in institutions has collapsed. Political polarization has reached dangerous levels. The rule of law has been weaponized for partisan purposes.
But the truth is finally coming out. The Durham Report exposed the FBI’s misconduct. The indictment of James Comey shows that accountability is possible. And Trump’s promise that “there will be others” suggests that justice is finally being served.
The Russia hoax may have been the greatest political scandal in American history, but it’s also provided the greatest opportunity to reform our institutions and restore faith in the rule of law.
The question is whether we’ll take advantage of that opportunity or whether we’ll allow the perpetrators to escape justice and continue their assault on American democracy.
Facts don’t care about your feelings, and the facts about the Russia hoax are clear: it was a fraud from beginning to end, perpetrated by partisan actors who put their political interests above the good of the country.
The only question now is whether they’ll finally be held accountable for what they’ve done.
Justice delayed is not justice denied—and for James Comey and his co-conspirators, justice is finally coming.