A Saturday exposé in The New York Times contains some interesting claims and insight on the extent to which FBI Director James Comey felt that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was duplicitous in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email. The article speaks of Comey’s “distrust of senior officials at the Justice Department, who he and other F.B.I. officials felt had provided Mrs. Clinton with political cover. The distrust extended to his boss, Loretta E. Lynch, the attorney general, who Mr. Comey believed had subtly helped play down the Clinton investigation.” Come now, it’s not like she secretly met with Bill Clinton on the airport tarmac during the investigation. Oh, right…

Two revelations in particular aptly demonstrate Comey’s dilemma. First, the Times relays the events of a 2015 meeting in which “everyone agreed that Mr. Comey should not reveal details about the Clinton investigation. But Ms. Lynch told him to be even more circumspect: Do not even call it an investigation, she said, according to three people who attended the meeting. Call it a ‘matter.’ Ms. Lynch reasoned that the word ‘investigation’ would raise other questions: What charges were being investigated? Who was the target?” Many words come to mind, but “impartiality” isn’t one of them.

Second, the Times continues, “Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention. The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.” This document, which was intercepted by Russian hackers, appears to be yet another self-inflicted wound for the Clinton campaign.

What’s interesting is how the Times early on appears to takes a shot at Comey because, in conjunction with last fall’s pre-election lay-up for Clinton, “[H]e did not say … that the F.B.I. was also investigating the campaign of Donald J. Trump. Just weeks before, Mr. Comey had declined to answer a question from Congress about whether there was such an investigation. Only in March, long after the election, did Mr. Comey confirm that there was one.” There’s just one glaring issue with this line of reasoning: Evidence. The evidence is overwhelming regarding Clinton and Co.‘s coverup and corruption, while nearly a year later the facts have failed to establish a grand Trump-Russia scheme.

On Saturday, the March for Science was held in Washington, DC, where demonstrators lambasted conservatives for ostensibly ignoring facts and science. Yet everywhere you look it’s increasingly obvious that leftists conjure up narratives where no proof exists and ignore overwhelming evidence when it’s an inconvenient stumbling block to their crusade. Case in point: The 2016 election. Whatever their goal is, it’s based on twisting facts and evidence.