Time magazine put Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner – the self-proclaimed communist with the Nazi tattoo – on the cover and sold him as a solution for Democrats. He's a "party crasher" who's "scandal-plagued," but he's a "star." They summed up in tweet: “Even in this antiestablishment political moment, Graham Platner’s rise has been remarkable. His candidacy is forcing the party to come to terms with what it’s willing to risk in exchange for a fighter.” TIME’s new cover: Even in this antiestablishment political moment, Graham Platner’s rise has been remarkable. His candidacy is forcing the party to come to terms with what it’s willing to risk in exchange for a fighter https://t.co/1ExIrgNTaY pic.twitter.com/Yc1uLkzUUk — TIME (@TIME) May 21, 2026 This make-lemonade-out-of-lemons exercise came from Time writer Julia Terruso: Platner’s story feels a lot like a pat movie plot: With Democratic voters yearning for outsiders to shake up the system, along comes a rough-hewn, gravelly voiced Marine Corps veteran from Sullivan, Maine—pop. 1,300—as their new national star. He barnstorms the state with a pugilistic brand of economic populism, building a following so quickly that he forces his central-casting opponent, the two-term Democratic governor, Janet Mills, out of the race before voters can cast a ballot. Even in this antiestablishment, unabashedly ageist political moment, Platner’s rise has been remarkable. Yes, Mills is 78. She’s also a lifelong Mainer who served as a state attorney general and DA, went toe-to-toe with President Donald Trump, and was the handpicked Senate recruit of national Democratic leaders. Platner, 41, is a newcomer carrying enough baggage to sink an oyster boat: a Nazi tattoo, a DUI from a post-military period of heavy drinking, and a trove of Reddit posts that spewed hostility in almost every direction. Working-class candidates are having a moment—but surely, many Democrats lament, the party could have found one who hadn’t, for example, defended peeing on dead Taliban fighters, or joked about the Virgin Mary being a “skank.” Voters gravitated toward Platner anyway. After decades of nominating buttoned-up technocrats with glittering résumés, many Democrats want candidates with flaws, faded ink, and redemption arcs that resemble their own. Platner’s past, in other words, may actually be his path. “Platner’s rise fits a moment where many Democrats feel the traditional playbook hasn’t worked, either politically or personally,” says admaker Jim Margolis, who advised Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. “Democrats are willing to bet on someone who may have a few warts but feels fresh, unscripted, and tuned in. His ‘difference’ may well be his secret sauce.” "His Nazi tattoo may well be his secret sauce." That's some shameless material. Terruso tries to spin Platner around other Republican arguments:  Platner may project the kind of blue collar voice Democrats have rarely nominated of late. But his opponents have sought to highlight his family’s money to discredit this working-class image. His grandfather was a celebrated architect who designed the original Windows on the World restaurant and iconic modernist furniture. His father was a lawyer, and his mother owns a successful restaurant in town. Platner briefly attended the elite Hotchkiss School in Connecticut. “I absolutely hated it, because I was surrounded by, frankly, rich kids,” Platner says. “It was a world I did not understand.”  He wasn't "surrounded by rich kids." He was a rich kid! But now he's in league with Bernie Sanders and AOC and Zohran Mamdani, so he's painted in oily prose as a "pugilistic economic populist" with a "redemption arc."

After a nearly eleven year run, the final episode of CBS's The Late Show with Stephen Colbert aired this past Thursday, and despite reports that the show was losing ratings and $40 million per year, and was so far to the left that it had turned into the DNC Show, the left wing media has bought into Colbert's claim that his show was The Joy Machine, and they have blamed the show's demise on Donald Trump and censorship.  Friday on CNN's The Arena, there was no mention of the $40 million yearly loss. First up to give the left wing perspective was CNN's Lulu Garcia-Navarro.   GARCIA-NAVARRO: There's the cultural part of it, and there's the political part of it. And then there's the part that where those two things meet. Culturally.... he kind of entered the pantheon as we know it of these late night hosts that have been the narrators of our culture for a very, very long time. And he oversaw its decline. I think we can be honest about that.... Since Paramount, basically took over this franchise, there was a lot of, conjecture that this was politically motivated.... They deny it, but popular culture is now understood this to have been a political act to appease the President so that he would approve the merger.... We see him as a victim. That is the way that he is now commonly understood in popular culture. Leaving aside partisanship, he is seen as a victim of this administration and of freedom of speech. Leaving aside partisanship? Really? Not a word about CBS losing $40 million a year or about the dwindling ratings, what would she call that?  Next up was CNN's Xochitl Hinojosa, and it was more of the same. HINOJOSA: Part of living in a democracy is you should be able to be a comedian and criticize the federal government and not feel like there's going to be repercussions from your boss. If you crack a joke or two about the leaders in our country, that is part of living in a democracy. ...While they say it was a financial decision, I don't think that the Americans trust that it actually was. Minutes later over on Fox News's The Five, after playing several clips of the leftist media defending Colbert, Co-Host Emily Campagno turned to Gutfeld! regular Tyrus, and lamented that non of those in the clips mentioned the financial aspect of the firing. He had it covered. TYRUS: When Colbert tells a joke on CBS, does anyone hear it? No. The show was terrible and he had horrible ratings. He lost $40 million a year.... His show was repugnant. He was repugnant. The whole thing the President can't take a joke...we make fun of him on a nightly basis on the Gutfeld show. Blame the people, blame the American people who didn't want to watch any more. It's the people's fault. Are you saying the people are in step with the President? Oh the left would never say that, and that includes Jessica Tarlov, who Campagno asked, "Why is Colbert and his legion of fans, why do they continue to blame POTUS for this instead of blaming Colbert for destroying a 30-year legacy?"  Tarlov was armed with multiple leftist talking points. TARLOV: The reason that they are blaming Donald Trump is because Donald Trump and his FCC, Brendan Carr have been coming after networks where they don't like the coverage they are getting. They did this with Jimmy Kimmel and there were Republicans that had to come out and defend Jimmy Kimmel.... and one day the shoe will be on the other foot, hoping soon on that, and you don't want the left coming after the right in this way. CBS paid a settlement of $16 million for, quote unquote, selectively editing an episode. And then, after acknowledging the huge financial losses associated with Colbert's show, she went on to make little sense.  TARLOV: Yes there is a money element, absolutely, you can't lose $40 million per year but when you look at someone like Anderson Cooper who signed off from 60 Minutes, tearful that he was leaving the job, you get the impression of all of his amazing jobs, maybe his most favorite except for New Year's Eve, you know something is rotten within CBS. and journalists who work there feel that they, under Bari Weiss, are doing favors for the administration. You can't lose $40 million dollars a year, but? Someone should ask Tarlov, how much of a loss would it take for her to cancel her podcast? 

The lefty media know that if they can scare commodity traders silly with their energy doom talk, the markets will run amok and they can point their fingers at President Trump and screech, “Orange man bad!” Enter Bloomberg News. Bloomberg News teed off its promotion of its May 21 newsletter by managing editor David Rovella with a nice dose of fearporn on X: “If the Strait of Hormuz doesn’t open by August, there may be a risk of a recession rivaling the great financial crisis.” Despite the ludicrousness of this notion given that the U.S. only imports about 500,000 barrels a day from the Strait (accounting for just 7 percent of crude oil supply), Bloomberg’s end-is-nigh narrative was posted just three hours before news broke that oil prices closed down two percent on the global and U.S. indexes over reports of new negotiations between the U.S. and the Islamist regime in Iran.  If the Strait of Hormuz doesn’t open by August, there may be a risk of a recession rivaling the great financial crisis. https://t.co/aY6yAYm5Ja — Bloomberg (@business) May 21, 2026 In essence, basing a long-term recession call on volatile energy markets and a region supplying just 7 percent of U.S. crude is like a weatherman declaring a Category 5 hurricane in late summer because it drizzled in his backyard in spring. As economist Daniel Lacalle retorted to Bloomberg’s alarmism: “Hardly.” In fact, using Bloomberg’s own data, Lacalle analyzed May 22, “Markets see low risk of recession and certainly very low chances of a permanent inflation burst, but also discount much higher money printing.” Further undercutting Rovella’s point is that Financial derivatives exchange firm Kalshi just reported that the odds of a U.S. recession fell to an all-time low of 16 percent. But reading Rovella’s scare-mongering would make one believe the apocalypse was on the horizon: It’s been almost three months since the start of the Iran war and its concomitant blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. Energy prices have spiked all over the world, and fear is rising about what comes next for the global economy. Well, if the strait doesn’t open by August, markets may find out the hard way. So says Rapidan Energy Group, which warned the continued closure of the waterway through summer raises the risk of a recession that may rival the global financial crisis. Markets strong, bond yields ease despite higher spot oil prices. Markets see low risk of recession and certainly very low chances of a permanent inflation burst, but also discount much higher money printing. via Bloomberg pic.twitter.com/BnLu7g2r7W — Daniel Lacalle (@dlacalle_IA) May 22, 2026 But this comes after a cornucopia of catastrophic crystal ball projections about oil prices that never materialized — such as when CNBC Mad Money host Jim Cramer was hyperventilating over $200 oil prices in March. Newsflash: It didn’t happen. Even NBC News tried to spin falling oil prices in April as somehow also being bad for Trump because of “demand destruction.” This reveals the media’s apparent strategy: No matter which way the markets go, outlets like Bloomberg will keep telling their readers they should prepare for their financial last rites in order to chip away at Trump’s political firewall on the economy. Is it any surprise then that consumer sentiment fell to a record low in May? If Americans’ and commodity traders’ media diets are any indication, the answer should be an emphatic “No!” But there’s another media scheme at play, and it’s underscored by the principle that headlines drive markets. As Fox Business senior correspondent Charles Gasparino posted on X March 8, commodity traders “trade off headlines, totally myopic in short-term thinking and predicting.” He continued: “They always screw up what's actually going down, never seeing around corners. It was the case in the run up to the 2008 where there was more than a few market "rallies" before the whole market blew up.”  And this doesn’t even touch the fact that the U.S. became a net oil exporter precisely to detach itself from the Middle East energy boondoggle, as Heritage economist Peter St. Onge wrote March 24, explaining why the Iran war’s effect on U.S. energy prices has been relatively muted in light of all the naysaying to the contrary: Focusing on Middle East oil, in 2006 we imported around 2.2 million barrels a day—roughly 1 in every 9 barrels we used. Trump slashed that to just 500,000 barrels of net imports from the Middle East today—just over 2% of consumption. Alexa, define “energy independence.” Make no mistake: The media are well aware that they can manipulate markets with their narrative games only to then pin the resulting volatile price fluctuations on Trump and cause consumers to sour on the economy as a result.

And the campaign has begun. Arguably one could say the mid-term elections began the moment the 2024 election was over. But now, at last, the 2026 mid-term campaign is edging into public view.  On Friday evening, there was President Trump campaigning in Suffern, New York for GOP Congressman Mike Lawler. Newsmax (where, full disclosure, I am a contributor) carried the Trump appearance in full on its Newsmax 2 streaming channel. There was the President on live television at a rally, surrounded by thousands of supporters, pitching his cause and making his very serious, occasionally funny, pitch for not just Congressman Lawler but the larger GOP cause and his administration.  The dawning issue for the elitist media now will be: how much of this new Trump campaign will be carried? And when?  While the media is much more attracted to presidential campaigns, mid-term elections are covered as a test of the president's political appeal as the president of the moment races from one state to another campaigning for this, that or another presidential favorite running for Senate, House or a governorship.    The opening shot in all of this, with Trump campaigning for Lawler and, of course, the GOP nominee for New York Governor, one Bruce Blakeman, the Nassau County executive, was the signal that in the Trump camp, the campaign is on. And appearances will not be, as the Rolling Stones used to sing, helter skelter.  Trump is certainly aware that his last two years as president will need support from Congress -- both House and Senate. With back-up from GOP governors. Thus it was no accident that the star of this Trump rally was Congressman Lawler.  It is very safe to say that the media—particularly the liberal, Trump-hating media—is acutely aware of all this. And one can guess that the media coverage from that quarter will be highly selective as the days, weeks, and remaining months of the year in the run-up to the November election present themselves. It is very safe to say that it will be telling from a media standpoint as to just how much and what kind of coverage there will be from the media. Having participated myself in presidential appearances for mid-term elections, the entire spectacle has long become a considerable circus. And it's safe to say that when the president shows up in city that's not as big as New York or Los Angeles, the appearance is quickly the big news in the surrounding area. And it is also very safe to say that the national media is highly aware of all this. After all, they are ones being shuttled on a campaign plane - notably including but not limited to Air Force One. Then they are shuffled off and on to a bus or stashed in a presidential motorcade to make sure the local media is given considerable view of the local Congressman and the campaigning President. Not to mention that in the doing the White House and, in this case, the Republican National Committee, are trying to construct a serious media theme and message that gets across the reason why the President wants candidate X elected to the House or Senate in November. And, while it is often not anticipated, some event X out there can suddenly erupt in the middle of the campaign that can change the political lay of the land completely.  Not to—ahem!—date myself, but back in my literal childhood in 1962 when my geeky self was following the 1962 mid-terms exactly something like that happened. Suddenly, in the mist of the GOP campaigns to win congressional seats - and in California to elect former Vice President Richard Nixon as Governor of California - of a sudden there was Democrat President John F. Kennedy on the nation's television screens to announce that he had discovered the Russians were in the process of installing long range nuclear missiles in Cuba, a mere 90 miles from America. Suffice to say the focus suddenly shifted to what became a seriously serious showdown with the Russians, known now to history as "the Cuban Missile Crisis."  After several tense days and JFK's promise that if any missile were launched on the U.S. there would be a full retaliatory attack from the U.S. on the Russian homeland, the world saw itself teetering on the brink of nuclear war. Everything stopped - and, blessedly, the Russians removed their missiles.  Americans, instantly overwhelmed by a combination of patriotism and fear, rallied to JFK and his Democrats in the mid-term elections. And oh yes, out there in California where JFK's famous 1960 foe Richard Nixon was running for governor, Nixon's candidacy abruptly went down in flames. In 1986 the reverse occurred, as the Iran-Contra scandal exploded on the political scene during the fall campaign. And, as I can attest as a White House staffer at the time, GOP hopes of any GOP congressional gain went down the tubes as a result of all the seriously negative media coverage. All of which is to say? The midterm election campaign, as seen this last week with a Trump campaign stop in New York, has begun. And without doubt, the media - the liberal media - will be there to inspect every presidential word, thought and grimace while on the mid-term campaign trail. And as is occasionally noted in this quarter: buckle in. The media deluge is stirring.

Former FBI Director James Comey was granted a 10-minute-long interview on the PBS News Hour Monday, ostensibly to discuss his new fiction thriller, but mostly to let host Geoff Bennett elicit condemnation of President Trump, in response to Comey’s indictment by the Department of Justice for his infamous, since-deleted 2025 Instagram post composed of seashells on the beach spelling out "86 47", which could be interpreted as an assassination reference. Bennett: On the DOJ case against you, the acting U.S. attorney general, Todd Blanche, as you well know, he says this case goes far beyond a single Instagram post of a section of seashells on the beach. Here's what he said on "Meet the Press" two weeks ago. Todd Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General: This is not just about a single Instagram post. This is about a body of evidence that the grand jury collected over the series of about 11 months. That evidence was presented to the grand jury. And it's not the government, it's not the Department of Justice, it's not Todd Blanche that returned an indictment against James Comey. It's a grand jury. …. Bennett: Well, on that point, do you think the administration and President Trump, particularly, are they focused on securing a conviction or is the process itself a form of punishment? Comey: The last case, it struck me that the process was the punishment…. The PBS anchor cannot consider that this spin can be applied to Trump: that all the lawfare was a punishment for winning the White House -- and then for aiming to win it again. Bennett wondered why former attorney generals Merrick Garland (under Biden) and Bill Barr (under Trump) weren't standing up for Comey, asking "What do you make of their silence?" Comey replied that it was "dangerous to use the Department of Justice in the way they used it in charging me or in going after John Brennan." Former CIA Director John Brennan is hardly a Resistance hero; he allegedly lied to Congress regarding the debunked Steele Dossier, used to lay the groundwork for the phony accusation of Trump-Russia collusion. Brennan insisted on including the then-dubious, now wholly discredited document in the intelligence community’s official assessment, despite its scurrilous claims. Bennett got moralistic. Bennett: Do you think, is -- silence itself these days is a form of complicity? Comey: Well, it depends upon the reason the person is silent.... Bennett: How much damage under President Trump do you think has been done to the Justice Department? And is it irreparable? The host prodded Comey from the left about his decision as FBI director to reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation right before the 2016 election, which many Democrats claim handed the election to Trump. Bennett wondered if he was ridden with guilt over that decision. Bennett: ….Do you ever sit with the possibility that everything that you're going through now is an extension of that decision? After Comey defended his decision, Bennett continued to relitigate a 10-year-old election. PBS's Geoff Bennett: "At the same time the Clinton investigation was announced, the FBI...was also investigating the Trump campaign for ties to Russia...Voters went in knowing that Hillary Clinton was under scrutiny, not knowing about Trump. How is that not a thumb on the scale?" pic.twitter.com/nOy1y8hJvB — Clay Waters (@claywaters44) May 22, 2026 Bennett: At the same time the Clinton investigation was announced, the FBI, we later learned, was also investigating the Trump campaign for ties to Russia. You said nothing about that. Voters went in knowing that Hillary Clinton was under scrutiny, not knowing about Donald Trump. How is that not a thumb on the scale? A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 5/18/26 Geoff Bennett: Former FBI Director James Comey faces trial later this summer on charges he threatened President Trump's life. The case stems from this Instagram post a year ago, a photo of shell spelling out 8647. Prosecutors say the slang term 86 meant intent to do harm to Mr. Trump, the 47th president. It is the second indictment against the former FBI director in one of several investigations and lawsuits involving people President Trump sees as his political enemies. Comey also has a new crime novel out, "Red Verdict." It's a legal thriller centered on Russian espionage. I spoke with him earlier today. Former FBI Director James Comey, welcome to the "News Hour." James Comey, Former FBI Director: Great to be with you. Geoff Bennett: Yes. I want to start with your reaction to this DOJ announcement today. The department says it's creating a nearly $1.8 billion fund, taxpayer money, to compensate Trump allies who say they were unfairly targeted by the previous administration. What kind of precedent does this set? James Comey: I have never heard of it. And I first thought it was an Onion piece when I read about it. I don't know how it will work and how it will be administered. I kiddingly, want to know, do I get to apply? Do all victims of weaponization get to ask for attorney's fees? We will have to see. Geoff Bennett: Would you submit a claim? James Comey: I might, maybe just to be humorous about the whole thing. But if it's for people who've been targeted for reasons other than the normal standards of the Department of Justice, I'm ready to get in line. Geoff Bennett: On the DOJ case against you, the acting U.S. attorney general, Todd Blanche, as you well know, he says this case goes far beyond a single Instagram post of a section of seashells on the beach. Here's what he said on "Meet the Press" two weeks ago. Todd Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General: This is not just about a single Instagram post. This is about a body of evidence that the grand jury collected over the series of about 11 months. That evidence was presented to the grand jury. And it's not the government, it's not the Department of Justice, it's not Todd Blanche that returned an indictment against James Comey. It's a grand jury. Geoff Bennett: So, you know how grand juries work. Without discussing your defense, what do you think the government is trying to prove here? James Comey: Yes, I don't know what he means. It would be great if he would bone up on the rules that govern out-of-court statements. I can't talk about the case. He shouldn't be talking about the case. We'll find out as the case goes forward. Geoff Bennett: Were you aware that you've been under investigation for nearly a year? James Comey: I can't answer that one. I'm tempted to, but I really can't. Geoff Bennett: Your lawyers, as I understand it, they're arguing selective and vindictive prosecution. There's a fairly high bar for that. Are you confident that a judge will dismiss this case or do you think it goes to trial? James Comey: Well, we'll see how this case plays out. In the last case that was thrown out, we made a vindictive and selective prosecution motion that I think was very strong. It didn't get a chance to be granted because of the other problems with the case. We'll have to see how this one goes. Geoff Bennett: Right. That case was thrown out on a technicality, not the merits. Are you concerned that the government in this go-round is being more careful and more intentional about how they prosecute this case? James Comey: Yes, I don't want to comment on how they're doing this case. Whether it's this case or something else, they're going to come after me as long as Donald Trump is obsessing about it and John Brennan and other people, his so-called enemies list. That'll go on until he leaves office. Geoff Bennett: Well, on that point, do you think the administration and President Trump, particularly, are they focused on securing a conviction or is the process itself a form of punishment? James Comey: The last case, it struck me that the process was the punishment. It didn't matter to them how it turned out. They sacrificed the careers of lots of good people who resigned, rather than be part of it, or got fired, and they still pressed on. So I think it feels more to me like it's about punishing. Geoff Bennett: President Trump has been publicly fixated on you for nearly a decade, since 2017. Do you have a sense of why? Does it extend beyond what has been publicly established about your role in the Russia investigation? James Comey: Yes, I don't know. But there's no doubt there's an obsession there. I'm kind of a relationship he can't get over it. It doesn't go both ways. I don't wake up at 3:00 a.m. thinking about him and needing to talk about him on social media. But I don't know what it is. People have said it's you're too tall or it's something else. I really don't know. Geoff Bennett: You've said that people with credibility and institutional standing should be speaking out. And yet we've heard nothing from Merrick Garland, from Lisa Monaco, from Chris Wray, from Bill Barr of late. What do you make of their silence? James Comey: I don't know, because I don't -- I'm not in their shoes. I don't know what the limitations their career or their family circumstances present to them. Everybody who can -- and I'm not saying they can, but everybody who can ought to be speaking, because it's dangerous to use the Department of Justice in the way they used it in charging me or in going after John Brennan. So everybody who has a voice and the ability to speak ought to. Geoff Bennett: Do you think, is -- silence itself these days is a form of complicity? James Comey: Well, it depends upon the reason the person is silent. But if you have the ability to speak and you're not speaking up and you know enough about how the rule of law matters, then it gets you into a zone of complicity. I've said, look, I need to someday tell my grandchildren when they're teenagers, what did pop do during this time? And I don't want to say he was afraid or he thought they would come after him. That's not something you can look your grandchildren in the eye and tell them. Geoff Bennett: How much damage under President Trump do you think has been done to the Justice Department? And is it irreparable? James Comey: Tremendous damage in the loss of talented people, in the demoralization of lots of people who are hanging on, in the reputation by taking off the blindfold that we like to use to depict Lady Justice and instead going after people for reasons that a Department of Justice never should. All of those things have damaged the Department of Justice. It's easily fixed. Once these characters are gone, hundreds of people, including some I'm related to, I expect will flow back in and it can be rebuilt, because we've done it before. It was done by Gerald Ford when he appointed Edward Levi, the president of the University of Chicago, to take over and become attorney general after one of the prior attorney generals went to jail. So we've done it before 50 years ago. We can do it again. Geoff Bennett: Easily fixed? James Comey: I think it is easily fixed, because it's all about the character of the people. Get a great leader in there, pick strong people, and show your work to the American people. That's what they did during Ed Levi's two years after Watergate, and it changed how people thought about the department. Geoff Bennett: You have become something of a symbol of resistance to some on the anti-Trump left, but there are lots of Democrats who believe that your decision to announce the reopening of the Clinton e-mail investigation 11 days before the 2016 election, that that decision ultimately handed the presidency to Donald Trump. You have said that you would make that same call again. Do you ever sit with the possibility that everything that you're going through now is an extension of that decision? James Comey: Yes, I have thought about it. Someone asked me, what -- did I create a Frankenstein that then consumed me or something? I don't think in that lyrical way, but it was -- yes, I mean, it's a decision that I would make today. Would give anything not to have been involved and make it at all. And I kind of doubt, after seeing 2020 and then 2024, that we had an impact on the election, but we went into it assuming that it could. And it was just less bad than the other option. Geoff Bennett: At the same time the Clinton investigation was announced, the FBI, we later learned, was also investigating the Trump campaign for ties to Russia. You said nothing about that. Voters went in knowing that Hillary Clinton was under scrutiny, not knowing about Donald Trump. How is that not a thumb on the scale? James Comey: That's actually us being consistent in the way we're treating these things. The Clinton investigation was a criminal investigation that was not only public. It was closed by us publicly. And then I and the attorney general defended the work all summer. The Trump-related investigation was a counterintelligence investigation that had just begun in the summer of 2016, where the candidate was not the subject of the investigation. And so, actually, I don't remember any conversation about whether we ought to be publicizing a classified early investigation. So they're just very different things. Geoff Bennett: Let's talk about this book. This new book, "Red Verdict," it centers on Russian counterintelligence, institutional vulnerability. How much of it is fiction and how much is rooted in genuine concern about the country's ability to defend itself right now? James Comey: Well, the work is a work of fiction. So the stories I tell are made up. What it is real in capturing is the nature of the people involved, sort of the zeitgeist of the counterintelligence work that they do, and the continuing threat from Russia. And our adversaries in the counterintelligence space overwhelmingly were and are China, Russia and Iran. And so here I have chosen to write about a fictional, but all too real threat from Russia. Geoff Bennett: You know, in speaking with you prior to this interview and watching some of your other interviews, there is an optimism that you have. I wonder what accounts for it, despite the firing, the indictments, your own family's sacrifice. What gives you confidence that any of this comes back? James Comey: Because I believe in the people who make up these institutions. I just came from talking to a room full of college students who are burning to get involved and to make a difference. And I know a little bit about our history, how screwed up America has been in my lifetime and before, and I believe America's line is a jagged line. We make progress, we retreat, we make progress. Our progress always exceeds the last retreat. And so we're about to see a U-turn in this country that will make Hungary look like a pimple. We are going to have a tremendous releasing of energy and progress. And then, probably while I'm still alive, we will have another retreat, and then it will go on and on. That's the American story. Geoff Bennett: Former FBI Director James Comey, his new book, a crime novel, is called "Red Verdict." Thank you so much for speaking with me. James Comey: Thanks for having me.