Let’s get a few things straight off the top. It’s not unconstitutional for the president to fire the Director of the FBI. It’s not at all the same as firing Sally Yates and Preet Bharara. There are parallels to the Saturday Night Massacre, when Nixon caused the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, but there are significant differences as well.
While Jim Comey allowed, if not caused, himself to be thrust into a politically untenable position, no one who knows him thinks he was anything other than a stand-up guy. While he may have done wrong, it was not with malevolent intent.
But these things provide no cover for Trump’s firing of Jim Comey, a project in the works awaiting the confirmation of deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to lend a veneer of respectability. The letters sought to rationalize it on two levels, that it was due to his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and that Comey had thrice informed the president that he was not under investigation for any connection to Russia.
The former is so astoundingly disingenuous as to be laughable. The latter is a blatant attempt to deflect criticism that this action is not an effort to undermine an investigation of connections to Russia, phrased in Trump’s trademark bizarre and narcissistic fashion. In the scheme of high-level political machinations, Trump’s letter could have been written in crayon, it was so inept.
When trying to understand the intersection of the bizarre and inexplicably laughable malevolent actions, best to turn to the expert, someone who lives there. Bill Otis, with whom I share a belief in Comey’s integrity despite all else, explains:
Last, all-in-all, I regretfully join the conclusion that a fresh start is the better path for the FBI. Comey had become mired in a swamp from which there was no realistic escape. Part of this was his own misjudgment; part was the swamp itself, which the decades-long decline in trust in government has now put in our path.
This tepid, generic and shallow attempt at rationalization for who shall rid Trump of this meddlesome FBI director fails to pass the sniff, laugh, snort, or any other, test. But it’s been done, much to the shame of Republicans pressed to explain a health care bill that takes a bad law and makes it worse, and tax cuts on the horizon. the question remaining is whether anyone outside of the hardest-core Trump supporters will forgive this assault on the last bastion of independence in the Executive Branch.
In a Daily News op-ed, Josh Blackman made a valuable point:
Are we really going through this ridiculous exercise, attempting to figure out what a characteristically incoherent President meant in ambiguous off-the-cuff remarks?
Regardless of where you stand on Trump, his words range from unintelligible to incomprehensible, at least at the level expected of someone holding the office of president. They might appeal to the great unwashed, who share his lack of grasp, but trying to make sense of what he says on a deeper level is facially impossible. Trump has gotten a free pass by dint of his incapacity, the lowered expectations of someone who doesn’t possess the knowledge or skills to do better. But this wasn’t an off-the-cuff remark.
This wasn’t a reflection of Trump’s inability to utter comprehensible thoughts or explain himself in a cogent way. This was an act of aggression against the independence of the FBI which, even if Comey was generically tainted as Otis argues, doesn’t begin to explain why now? Why this way?
The only possible way to weasel out of this one is to nominate a replacement of such pristine universal virtue that no one will question the new director’s rectitude. Merrick Garland, perhaps, though I can’t imagine why he would want the job. In fact, I can’t imagine why anyone would want the job at this point.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m not applying for this temp job.
You should really reconsider. It’s a very short list and you have an excellent chance.
David Clarke has already been on Twitter campaigning for the job.
Now comes the real drama: Can Trump set aside his feelings and appoint a black man to run the FBI? Will J. Beauregard Sessions allow him to do that?
Tune in next week, folks! Same Trump Time, same Trump Channel!
No doubt America would universally welcome Clarke with open arms, skin color aside.
The biggest reason for getting rid of Comey is that the FBI had become increasing “meta” about Comey himself rather than about its statutory mission. Good leadership isn’t about the leader; if it’s too much about the leader, it’s something but it’s not leadership.
This post isn’t about whether there could be a reason to fire Comey. That seemed incredibly clear. Almost to the point of being impossible to miss.
Three shall be the number of times thou shalt tell the president he is not under investigation, and the number of the tellings shall be three. Four times thou shalt not tell, neither two times, excepting that thou shalt then proceed to tell him a third time. Five is right out.
We second the motion. You herd it hear first and foremost, without discussion aforethought or unmentionability. All in favor, say
“AYe!” Opposed: Nooo. The Eyes have it,… the eyes of perception that is. [The Doors of Perception having failed to achieve a quorum, whatever or wherever that is or might possibly be?] Those with eyes to see! Chamber(s) will adjourn now for rest and recuperation, for those of you who may be giddy in the wake of the above formal retrogravitas proceedings, ad nauseam interminablissimo horribilis.
Barleycorn: the FBI Director that America^^^^^^^SJ needs.
I have just the suit too.
http://api.theweek.com/sites/default/files/sbr050417dAPR.jpg?resize=700×700
Why assume Trump needed to undermine the FBI investigation? Clapper and Feinstein recently said there’s no incriminating evidence.
Well, two credible sources should cover it.
It’s like the Night of the Long Knives. De rigueur.
I’m having a pretty good time with this. Trump has already stopped Crone, and now he’s working on stopping himself. This whole thing could still work out alright.
How far down the chain do we have to go before we get someone normal?
Well, “normal” may be unrealistic, but we might get to “functional.”
“This was an act of aggression against the independence of the FBI which, even if Comey was generically tainted as Otis argues, doesn’t begin to explain why now? Why this way?”
Because Comey would have been roasted by the Dems when the FBI announces, as it soon will, that the Russia investigation came up short. A new Director would do better at this.
Had you left out the “as it soon will” part, your comment would have made a decent point. By including it, you mark yourself in perpetuity as a flaming nutjob engaging in the same baseless speculation as the other team’s flaming nutjobs. You seem like a nice enough guy, Frank. Why destroy any credibility you might have with such pointless nonsense?
Pingback: The Death of the Presumption of Regularity | Simple Justice
“Donald J Trump is calling for for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States…” I’d take issue with Mr. Blackman’s contention that that statement is incoherent and ambiguous. Putting aside whether or not campaign statements from Mr. Trump should be considered by the courts regarding the order, I think it is pretty clear that Mr. Trump’s statements about wanting to stop Muslims from migrating to the US is fairly coherent and non-ambiguous, even if he talks about it in the way a 5th grader would.
Poor choice of quote since it wasn’t said by Trump, but about Trump. If you’re going to contend that something Trump said is coherent, than you really need to use something Trump said. But even then, the issue is far more problematic than your view of a campaign statement precluding, in perpetuity, a president from the exercise of his authority. This isn’t to say he gets a free pass on campaign statements, but that your argument is grossly simplistic.
That’s not the statement he is referring to as ambisguous nor is it the statement the Fourth Circuit panel is focusing on. Your quoted statement is about as relevant as saying “‘grab um by the p—-‘ I’d take issue with Mr. Blackman’s contention that that statement is incoherent and ambiguous”
The “p—–“? Such a prude.
Put it this way. Based on 28 years as a federal law enforcement executive in DC and the field, working hand in glove with the FBI (they were always looking to “borrow” my resources), I say the results of the Russia investigation will be announced by August 1. If not, count on me to have “flaming nutjob” tattooed on my fore…, no, on my rump. Wouldn’t want to advertise it–especially unbecoming for an old guy.
August 1st? Way to go out on a limb there. And still, it says nothing. It will be when, and what, it is. When it happens, it happens. Unless you have magic powers, what utility is there is predicting the future? Plenty of people here think they’re absolutely certain what the future holds, despite knowing absolutely nothing except that they believe what they believe. Why would your prediction seem any less nuts than the person who predicts he’ll be impeached by August 1st? It’s all just idiot wind.