America needs James Comey. At this moment. We don’t necessarily need James Comey as FBI Director, though for almost all of his tenure, Comey was an excellent Director. No, we need James Comey as a witness in an open hearing answering insightful, probing, apolitical questions about Russian interference in our election, Russian communication with Trump officials, and Presidential obstruction of these investigations.

Up until now, the public has been teased with news reports about nefarious actions by Russian intelligence and questionable dealings by Trump campaign and administration staff. The room is getting a little smoky. Recently, though, the reports are becoming more damning. Two of the most alarming are of a Russian-authored fake email ostensibly from Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DNC Chair at the time) claiming that US Attorney General Lynch was stopping the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of her email server and reports of the President of the United States asking the FBI Director to drop an investigation of Russian influence in connection with this former National Security Adviser. Understand, there has always been a wide, bright line between the White House and Justice Department investigations. It is a line that has historically not been crossed and the one time when a President did interfere in a criminal investigation continues to live in infamy (Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre) and led to his resignation.

When Comey does testify in an open hearing, I would like the questions to zero in on these incidents:

Comey’s press conference to announce no charges against Clinton for the use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Why did the FBI Director hold this press conference? His interference in the political process really began with this decision. The decision whether to press charges at the end of an investigation does not rest with the FBI. That decision is made by US Attorneys or, in this case, by the Attorney General. US Attorneys have a long tradition of never discussing the results of any investigations (unless announcing indictments) or whether anyone is even under investigation. Why did Comey, without informing the Attorney General, announce the end of an investigation that did not result in indictments? Further, during the press conference, the FBI Director went far beyond discussing criminal activity and ended up chastising the Democratic nominee for  being “extremely careless in her handling” of classified email. What?

Comey has justly been vilified for his subsequent announcement of the re-opening of the Clinton investigation because some Clinton emails had been found on the computer of the deviant husband of one of her staffers. Comey sent letters to the House and the Senate announcing this reopening just 2 weeks before the election. The resulting frenzy threw the election to Trump. Comey’s explanation for his blatant interference was that he felt he had to tell the Congress that the investigation was once again open because he had previously announced that it had been closed. Which, of course, he never should have done.

Comey’s meeting with Trump when Trump asked him to close the investigation of Michael Flynn.

Immediately after this meeting with Trump, Comey felt so shaken by what had transpired that he wrote a memo to the file detailing the conversation. This type of documentation is common practice among law enforcement and has been upheld repeatedly in the courts (Writing memos to the file to document important incidents is common practice throughout government. I have written dozens during my career.) Comey supposedly also discussed the meeting with a friend.

This news is a bombshell. It may or may not be impeachable, but it is certainly edifying concerning the character of our President and his opinion on the rule of law. Comey needs to testify about this meeting and his other interactions with Trump and bring this memo to the light of day.

Comey’s actions around the Russia-authored fake email concerning Clinton’s private server investigation.

At this point, the information about this email is garbled and Comey’s actions are unclear. We know that Russian intelligence created the fake email described above and the Comey knew that the email was Russian disinformation. No one else knew that little fact, however. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees, although briefed by Comey on this subject, were not told that this critical piece of information that implied that the US Attorney General was compromised was, in fact, false. He also told the members that this intelligence was his reason for announcing the termination of the Clinton email investigation.

All of this is too confusing and much too important to receive through third party sources. This much is clear – Russian intelligence created specious documents and inserted them where they could sow doubt and damage in the US Presidential election. In addition, one or more of these documents influenced the actions of the nation’s top lawman and caused him to eventually interfere in the election results. How can this information not cause an uproar among our elected officials, the press, and the American electorate? One of the major reasons is sitting in the White House and surrounded by his flying monkeys with them all calling every revelation “fake news”. Another is our polarized political system which ensures that the ruling Republican party will be less than thorough in conducting any investigations.

One thing is certain. We need to hear from James Comey. Soon. There is much to talk about.