Blog See all Articles

The cognitive dissonance of Maxine Waters

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) put on an impressive show of cognitive dissonance during an NBC News interview with Peter Alexander.

“I do not necessarily support the president’s decision,” she said of President Trump’s decision this week to fire FBI Director James Comey, but if Hillary Clinton had become president she should have fired Comey in Waters’s view.

According to a transcript:

WATERS: If the president had not gone all over the country praising him about the way he handled Hillary and the e-mails, if the president had not said he had confidence in him, if the president had not said he was a part of his team —

ALEXANDER: But Congresswoman, I understand in the past he was praising him. But if you said that FBI Director James Comey had no credibility, wouldn’t you support the fact that the president, then-candidate Trump, now President Trump, made the decision to get rid of him?

WATERS: No, not necessarily.


WATERS: You have an investigation going on where the president is implicated. And this is a serious investigation. I’ve been trying on get people to focus this connection with the Kremlin and with Putin. I have a resolution that I introduced in February. I think there’s enough there that we know about the Kremlin and about Putin to be concerned about whether or not there was collusion. I believe there was —

ALEXANDER: So to be clear —

WATERS: And that I believe they should have to connect the dots and get the facts because I think it will lead to the impeachment of this president.

ALEXANDER: So, Congresswoman, respecting that be to be clear, you believe it would have been better to keep in place an FBI Director who you said had no credibility to oversee this investigation than to find someone who you think would be a better choice.

WATERS: No. But I believe the president thought that. Don’t forget. You’re talking about what some Democrats said, what I said, but don’t forget. He was the president. The president supported him. He had confidence in him. It was within his power.

ALEXANDER: But you said he had no credibility so it would make sense that he get rid of him.

WATERS: No, no, no. Under investigation. This president basically has interfered with an investigation where he may be implicated. That’s outrageous. And that’s why we’re having so much of a conversation about it today. Everybody is talking about it because this is highly unusual.

ALEXANDER: The bottom line is you think an FBI director without credibility would have been best served in this position to try to pursue this investigation.

WATERS: I think that if the president had fired him when he first came in, he would not have to be in a position now where he is trying to make up a story about why. It does not meet the smell test.


ALEXANDER: Understood. So if Hillary Clinton had won the White House, would you have recommended that she fire FBI Director James Comey?

WATERS: Well, let me tell you something. If she had won the White House, I believe that given what he did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him. Yes.

ALEXANDER: So she should have fired him but had he shouldn’t fire him. This is why I’m confused.

WATERS: No, you’re not confused. If the president is implicated in an investigation —

ALEXANDER: I am confused.

WATERS: — the president of the United States who has a history of firing people who get close to, you know, him and his allies like [former National Security Advisor Mike] Flynn, and like [former Acting Attorney General Sally] Yates, he will fire them if he believes somehow they’re getting too close to him in these investigations. I believe that the president of the United States should not have done this in the middle of an investigation. That’s it.

Good gawd.

In This Story:

The Author

Matthew Vadum

The author of Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers (WND Books, 2011), Vadum writes and speaks widely on ACORN and other…