Comey's testimony

I won't give you a key-takeaways-type rundown here, as many others have already provided as much.

Guy Benson at Townhall helpfully classifies them into two categories: hurts-Trump and helps-Trump. He also has a few observations he classifies as odds and ends.

Shane Savitsky at Axios has another nice classification system: a few items that qualify as "big things," and then short answers to a series of questions, such as why Comey wanted to testify, why Comey wrote his memos, why Comey was concerned about Trumps' behavior, and Comey's reaction to the idea that Trump may have tapes.

It seems to me that at this point, Comey remains as much an enigma as ever. I think it is cartoonishly broad-brush to characterize him as a shady figure. For one thing, Andrew McCarthy, who is as respect-worthy as any public intellectual with a law-enforcement background on the scene, counts Comey as a personal friend whom he continues to deeply admire.

No, Comey looks more to me like a figure that both the Clinton and Trump machines deemed, due to the confluence of Comey's position (FBI director) and his personality, easy to lean on when the scent of scandal began to spread.

That's about the long and short of it for now.

There was something for everyone with confirmation bias at yesterday's hearing. It strikes LITD a prudent to hold off on finality-laden assessments, other than to say that it pointed up once again why last year's final two choices for president were so hurl-inducing.