Seeing excerpts of the James Comey interview in advance of his book release on ABC’s 20/20 program drives home the astonishing dichotomy of the Hobson’s Choice the American electorate was handed on November 8, 2016. That is, choose between two despicable candidates, both of whom are sullied by the specter of investigation, and somehow, fifteen months down the road, not be lamenting aloud that we have a despicable president!

James Comey’s well-articulated but wholly subjective, one might say self-serving, criticisms of Donald Trump are unequivocally embraced in many quarters of the populace. And for good reason. Yet I cannot point to a single fault that Comey lays out which is not embodied, in some cases to an even greater degree, by Hillary Clinton.

The takeaway headline in Comey’s interview, that Trump is “morally unfit to be president” suggests that the voters somehow turned their collective backs on a candidate that was morally fit. Hillary Clinton no more demonstrates her moral compass is in any way superior to that of the current president than she can resist putting any interests above her own. Both she and Trump are unquestionably deeply flawed in the character department, yet we bemoan that our president is not a pillar of morality. How could it be otherwise? That was a given on November 9th regardless of the outcome. It’s what Donald Rumsfeld would call a “known known”

Comey goes on to cite Trump’s insensitive commentary on Charlottesville, his shameful treatment of women, and his serial prevarication in matters in big and small as evidence that Trump is not fit to serve. Equally insensitive, was Hillary’s embrace of BLM and lending it moral equivalence to the civil rights movement. Equally egregious, was Hillary’s vile treatment of the women who bravely stood to accuse her husband of sexual assault. And as for lying in matters large and small, Hillary’s aversion to the truth runs the gamut from fleeing sniper fire in Bosnia to the Benghazi cover up to her painfully reconstructed excuses for her email server travails. Bottom line: exactly how were we supposed to emerge on November 9th without a president who was “unfit” in Comey’s mind?

Trump’s presidency is besieged with contentious litigation on multiple fronts, unrelenting congressional inquiry, legislative inertia from deeply polarized lawmakers, and media acrimony on a biblical scale. Most people find the whole spectacle exhausting, worrisome, and debilitating for our nation. Had Hillary won the election, can anyone imagine it would be any different? Regardless of the victor, November 9th was harvest time for the fruits of the poisonous tree.

So with all the critics, all the hand-wringing about how awful it is to have a person like this in the White House, what other scenario was possible? Our time would be better spent looking at the process that yielded these two (dare I say?) deplorable candidates. Why were sober, accomplished, ethically superior candidates tossed aside in the run up to 2016? With each party’s standard bearer setting the bar this low, surely there was someone around whom the nation could rally and spare us from choosing between two craven people.

Granted, neither party produced a charismatic visionary that captivated the nation, although Bernie Sanders genuinely connected with much of the electorate. But he was after all a socialist, and was ultimately derailed by his own Party because they thought he couldn’t win. The mercurial John Kasich surely would have been a more stabilizing influence for the volatile GOP caucuses, but the public craved pizzazz. As for the rest of the bloated Republican field, the few who seemed capable of pushing back hard on Hillary would likely go down in defeat, as they did not appear to have the populist sentiment needed to flip enough blue states.

So between the self-immolating Republican field, and the rigged Democratic primary, there should be no wistful looking back as though somehow a better choice eluded us; there wasn’t. If I put my left hand in water, and I put my right hand in water, I cannot complain that my hands are wet. Let’s not bestow all the vitriol upon Trump. It is very much a shared legacy of Decision ’16.

So Mr. Comey can spare us his considered judgment. He should instead contemplate on all the missteps he took in contributing to this detrimental condition. His self-righteous assessment is not what’s needed. He would do well to reflect upon his own culpability in the enabling of the Clinton candidacy and the subversion of the Trump presidency. Sadly, Mr. Comey personifies how the government appears to function in this Deep State era: personal interests may now be placed above those of the nation and, in many cases, above the law.