Norms, Retaliation and Lawfare in US Politics

A controversial New York Post op-ed argues that Democrats damaged long-standing political norms by pursuing charges against former FBI Director James Comey and, more broadly, by turning the Justice Department into a partisan instrument. The column contends that the current dispute over Comey is not about one case but about a larger pattern of ‘lawfare’ in American politics, in which investigations and prosecutions are used to target political opponents. It frames the developing dynamic as an equal-and-opposite reaction: the more one side seeks to shield itself from accountability, the more the other side responds with aggressive probes and arrests. The piece positions Comey as a central figure in a broader, years-long effort that began during the Obama era and accelerated after Trump’s 2016 victory.

It traces the arc from the early days of Russiagate, when Obama administration insiders are accused of using intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice to smear Trump as a Russian agent. It notes that the investigation into Michael Flynn and the circulation of leaked information to media aided a narrative designed to cripple the new president. The column argues that highly placed officials leaked classified material and press-shopped a dossier and related narratives to stoke public fear and sway opinion, sometimes in ways that bypassed standard checks and balances. It points to the Steele dossier as a cornerstone of the pursuit, and to what the author says were misrepresentations in court filings tied to surveillance of Trump associates. The piece also alleges that the Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed or discredited by a coordinated effort among media and tech companies ahead of the 2020 election, preventing readers from seeing corroborating material.

After Trump left office, the op-ed says Democrats carried the campaign into multiple jurisdictions, labeling protests and a Capitol riot as a 'seditious' threat and arresting advisers linked to Trump. The piece asserts that President Joe Biden publicly criticized Attorney General Merrick Garland for not charging Trump, a message it says echoed through to federal raids seeking classified materials. It also claims that prosecutors pursued charges tied to how Trump reported private payments, not to any direct harm to individuals or institutions, and that a parallel case with New York's attorney general alleged mortgage fraud that was seen as politically motivated. In this framing, the political narrative extended to the 2020 election, with allegations of vote-counting irregularities used to allege a stolen election.

Supporters of Trump are described as arguing that the prosecutions and investigations represent a response to the 'deplorable' movement, and that Comey’s defenders acknowledge possible perjury in 2020 about leaks while insisting the leaks occurred within a broader anti-Trump project. The column contends that Comey’s actions and subsequent leaks were carried out in service to this broader objective, a claim critics elsewhere would call controversial. Nevertheless, the article maintains that Trump’s call for accountability is simply a mirror of the standards Democrats set when they pursued him.

It closes by suggesting that the United States should reject 'lawfare' and the notion of politics as revenge, warning that the country cannot tolerate a system in which accountability is applied unevenly to favor allies. The op-ed argues that the party that prepared this poisoned feast cannot reasonably complain when it is forced to eat the consequences.