Reading this, you want to like the guy. His message is that the he had no political agenda and everything he did was forced upon him. Though he admits, others could have made principled choices different from his, he says he would make the same choices again, which, though he admits were not ideal, were the only way to keep the FBI from appearing biased. Here's why I was not convinced.

The FBI already appeared biased. He fully admits that individual agents (and law enforcement in general) tends to be conservative but insists they could do their job despite this. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, when he announced the reopening of the Clinton email case so close to the election, it gave the impression of bias anyway. It was well known (and discussed by the media) that the FBI was, in the words of one agent who spoke to The Guardian, Trumplandia. His announcement was going to be seen in that context. He would appear biased. He argues, what if he didn't announce it and it was leaked instead? That would actually have looked better, especially when it was followed by an announcement that there was nothing of substance found by the investigation. And he should have made heroic efforts to prevent any leak. He doesn't tell us of any such efforts at all. In the end, he appears to be defending himself. Still, I want to like the guy.

Earlier in the book, he condemns the use of torture by the CIA, says it was unnecessary despite what they claimed and tells of his efforts to prevent the justice department from giving it legal cover. He tells it in the context of he and John Ashcroft outmaneuvering Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales. If you weren't careful you would think that was the whole story. In fact, he actually signed off on the legality waterboarding (as long as it wasn't done mixed in with other "enhanced interrogation techniques.") I wonder how many readers of the book know this. I wouldn't have had I not read about it on line. If he told the whole truth, admitting that he couldn't declare it illegal on the technicality of how torture was defined by law, it would have looked better for him. (One's downfall is always the coverup.)

Still, he tells some good stories and writes well so he gets 3 stars. You want to like the guy.