Fired former FBI director James Comey is at it again. Last week, Comey testified before members of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In a single appearance, Comey, on 245 separate occasions, while under oath, stonewalled questions with “I don’t know,” “I don’t remember” or “I don’t recall,” according to a congressional interrogator, Rep. Jim Jordan. (R-Ohio).

We close our series on the new Roberts Court and restoration of the Constitution’s original understanding with the issue most distant from the Framing: the rise of a new high-tech world. We now hold the equivalent of yesterday’s supercomputers in our pockets. Communications occur instantly, from encrypted messages to Twitter blasts that reach millions. Entrepreneurs make fortunes by analyzing and harvesting the 2.5 quintillion bytes of data produced each day.

“From Hiroshima to a Nuke-Free World” (editorial, April 13) underscored the need for “bolder action” than the Obama administration has been able to take in recent years to move toward its long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons, a vision that we share.

As Daphna Renan and David Pozen note, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memorandum to Attorney General Sessions on Comey’s action last summer, which was the ostensible basis for firing FBI Director James Comey, circumvented the ongoing investigation into Comey’s actions by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. That investigation, and Horowitz himself, are now about to assume center stage in the Comey firing drama.

James Comey is a legend in his own mind. He expressed part of the legend to Donald Trump when, according to one his memos, he told the president on January 27, 2017: He could count on me to always tell him the truth. I said I don’t do sneaky things, I don’t leak, I don’t do weasel moves.

The Justice Department's inspector general on Thursday will release the results of its investigation into claims that the FBI failed to follow department protocols when investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, which could give Trump more ammo in his nonstop public fight against former FBI Director James Comey.

In his efforts to refute Charles Cooke’s recent exposé of Jennifer Rubin, I was surprised to see David Frum, in passing, attack my Hoover colleague, legal scholar Peter Berkowitz (a “Sean Hannity–style character assassination of James Comey and Special Counsel Robert Mueller”), for suggesting, in a prescient October WSJ opinion column, that the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion may well be ethically compromised (in its zeal to go after those not accused of collusion)—in even greater fashion than was the Comey investigation of Hillary Clinton (in its absence of zeal to indict for clear violations of U.S. intelligence law).

Commentary and coverage focus on the Supreme Court’s decision last week to review New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, in which the justices will consider whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside city limits violates the Constitution. In an op-ed for Los Angeles Times, James Phillips and John Yoo argue that “[t]o ensure the equal treatment of constitutional rights, the court should establish a test fully rooted in the original understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

Richard Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, member of Hoover's Property Rights, Freedom, and Prosperity Task Force, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University, and the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, will debate Pamela Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor, on Tuesday, January 11, 2011.