For those unfamiliar with the term, it means that someone has fallen on his heinie. And you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who has ever taken a more embarrassing pratfall than the FBI’s top dog when he delivered what surely sounded like an indictment of Hillary Clinton before letting us know that he was just kidding. Then, lest we attributed it to temporary insanity, he went before a congressional committee and doubled-down.

Having heard from various usually reliable sources that Mr. Comey was one of Washington’s few square shooters, I was particularly disheartened. The fact is, if they ever decided to remake “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” they could do a lot worse than cast him in the leading role. He certainly looks and sounds as idealistic as young Jimmy Stewart and, at 6'8" is even taller. But having met and spoken with Jimmy Stewart, I can’t picture him reading off that bill of particulars and then letting Hillary Clinton scoot.

I was so angry about it, I sat down and wrote the man the following letter:

“Dear Director Comey: Frankly, I’m disappointed in you. I didn’t have the chance to watch your entire session with the congressional committee, but I don’t see how anyone can avoid concluding that you oversaw a year-long investigation that ate up tens of thousands of man-hours that might better have been devoted to digging a little bit deeper into the terrorist ties of one Omar Mateen. At least that might have prevented the killing of 49 Americans at an Orlando nightclub.

"Unless I may have missed something, the basic reason you suggested that Secretary Clinton should not be indicted was because you couldn’t find proof of criminal intent. That is an odd conclusion because, one, the statute involving classified documents never mentions intent; and, two, no reasonable prosecutor, to use your own words, could possibly ignore the obvious fact that her private server proved it was her intention from day one to fly under the government radar.

"During your testimony, you said that there was no favoritism shown to Mrs. Clinton, and that even if a ‘John or Jane Doe’ had been guilty of the same crimes, but was no longer employed at the State Department, he or she would not have faced any disciplinary action. Let’s say, merely for the sake of argument, that’s true. But inasmuch as Mrs. Clinton had left the State Department two years prior to your investigation, why then did you launch it in the first place?

"Even you must admit that your statement was entirely absurd. Would you actually have us believe that if a minor bureaucrat was found to have been so reckless with top security documents that foreign governments, including Russia, China and North Korea, had easy access to state secrets, they would not have been indicted and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, even if two years prior Mr. or Ms. Doe had resigned, retired or — who knows? — let’s say decided to make a run for the presidency?

"You may doubt it, but if the parties had been reversed and if a Republican had done all the things that Mrs. Clinton has done, and you had advised against an indictment, I would be equally frustrated with you and the system. You have, as so many others have done over the years, shown that there is one set of rules and laws for most people, and an entirely different set for Bill and Hillary Clinton.

"Speaking of which, what possessed you to second-guess what a "reasonable prosecutor” would or wouldn’t do? Why did you feel it was required of you to make a recommendation to Attorney General Lynch? Why didn’t you simply provide her with the same facts you provided to the American people, and leave the decision up to her? At least then, when she decided not to prosecute, her own partisanship — especially after her secret meeting in Phoenix with Bill Clinton — would have been fully exposed.

“On the very day that you went on TV with a laundry list of items proving Mrs. Clinton’s malfeasance in office and her multitude of lies to Congress and the American electorate, she was flying on Air Force One and appearing at a campaign rally with Barack Obama. It certainly suggests that you had reported the "glad tidings” to those two very interested parties before you made your findings and recommendations public.

“It simply doesn’t pass the smell test that President Obama would have risked appearing at her side if the Director of the FBI was about to recommend a federal indictment on live television.

"I confess I had high hopes for you, although perhaps not as high as your former boss and mentor, Rudy Giuliani, had before you caused him to lose faith in your competence and your integrity.

"Clearly, the job calls for an older, wiser and, perhaps, shorter man. So if you would do the right thing and step down, Director Comey, rest assured I am ready to pick up the reins. Sincerely, Burt Prelutsky.”

In a not entirely unrelated matter, I decided to find out what is happening with the traitor, Beau Bergdahl. It seems that his court martial trial is set to begin in February, 2017, even though Gen. Robert Abrams called for a trial in December, 2015.

We have all heard that justice delayed is justice denied, but even two years after Barack Obama broke the law by trading five Gitmo prisoners for this bag of crap in 2014 without even allowing Congress to have its legal say in the matter, Bergdahl remains a free man. I believe it is safe to assume that if Hillary Clinton is in the Oval Office in 2017, even if the military tribunal finds Bergdahl guilty of desertion, a presidential pardon would guarantee that he would never see the inside of Leavenworth.

I simply can’t imagine she would allow his guilt to highlight the fact that her predecessor was so pathologically committed to shutting down Gitmo that he actually exchanged five high-profile terrorists for one reprehensible traitor.

Call me a cynic, but I suspect she would even be able to get FBI Director Comey to go on TV and assure us that justice had been served.