Diary, Politics

Good Summary of the Week:  Trump fired director of the FBI who investigated the Trump campaign

No Comments 13 May 2017

Good Summary of the Week:  Trump fired director of the FBI who investigated  the Trump campaign

Not surprisingly but still disappointingly, the WSJ editorial pages wholeheartedly supported the firing of the FBI. The left-leaning predictably compared the firing to Watergate. Below are the two most interesting articles from this week. First the Guardian’s take on the week and then an opinion piece in the WSJ that argues that not FBI but congress should investigate whether Trump’s Russian connections constitute an impeachable offense.

Guardian 13 May 2017

Comey, chaos … crisis? Trump enters new territory after most explosive week yet
Trump’s decision to fire James Comey stunned Washington, upset the bureau, and brought Russia back into focus. How much more can Republicans take?

ll met by moonlight, a dozen reporters and cameramen peered into the darkness. Where was Sean Spicer? The press secretary had given a TV interview at 9pm then disappeared behind an awning, apparently conferring with colleagues. Journalists waited on the drive. The White House glowed behind them. “This is so weird,” one said. “It’s like hunting a dog and then killing it.”

A couple of minutes later Spicer emerged on a path running along a fence and hedgerow. He was caught in a blinding light and asked the cameramen to turn it off. “Relax, enjoy the night, have a glass of wine,” he said jocularly. Spicer then spent 12 minutes trying to explain why Donald Trump had taken the most explosive decision of his young presidency: axing the director of the FBI.

But the rationale that Spicer presented – that Trump had been acting on the recommendation of the attorney general and his deputy – was shredded by the president himself two days later. He had already decided that James Comey must go regardless of the recommendation, Trump said, because he was a “grandstander” and a “showboat”.

The man who sealed his fame by telling reality TV show contestants “You’re fired!” had now done it to America’s top law enforcement official, creating a public relations catastrophe. Comey was only the second FBI director to be dismissed. Not since Richard Nixon had a US president fired the person leading an investigation bearing on himself.

That investigation is examining Russian interference in last year’s election with potential Trump campaign collusion. The removal of Comey prompted accusations of a cover-up, warnings of a constitutional crisis, and comparisons with the Watergate scandal that brought Nixon down. The president fuelled the fire by suggesting he had “tapes” of his conversations with the FBI director.

Even for Trump, the inveterate rule-breaker, it was outrageous new territory. It prompted anew the question: just how much is the Republican party able and willing to tolerate? “With an approval rating of 35%, he’s a liability in the 2018 elections, not an asset,” said Rick Tyler, the former communications director for Senator Ted Cruz, a rival of Trump in the party primaries. “At some point they’re going to have to tell the president: shape up or ship out.”

Less than a week earlier, Trump had welcomed dozens of Republican House members to the Rose Garden at the White House to celebrate the passage of a healthcare bill. It seemed to be a moment of respite, of getting on track, of making peace with the party. “Hey, I’m president!” Trump said. “Can you believe it?”

There was no hint of what was to come. Contrary to Spicer’s explanation, Trump had decided Comey’s fate long ago. He was, according to multiple US media reports, angered by the FBI’s director’s dogged pursuit of the Russia investigation, ease in the media limelight (FBI directors are supposed to keep a low profile), insouciance when it came to White House leaks and failure to back the president’s allegation of wiretapping against Barack Obama.

Last weekend, it seems, Trump decided to pull the trigger. The Washington Post reported: “At his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, Trump groused over Comey’s latest congressional testimony, which he thought was ‘strange,’ and grew impatient with what he viewed as his sanctimony, according to White House officials. Comey, Trump figured, was using the Russia probe to become a martyr.”

When he returned to the Oval Office on Monday, Trump summoned attorney general Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein and told them to make the case against Comey in writing. With Sessions having recused himself from the Russia investigation over his contacts with the Russian ambassador, it was left to Rosenstein to do the heavy lifting in a memo that cited the FBI director’s mishandling of last year’s Hillary Clinton email investigation.

On Tuesday afternoon, Trump called senior members of both parties to inform them of his decision. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, told him: “You are making a big mistake.” But the president went ahead anyway. There have been many political earthquakes since Trump was sworn in on 20 January but this hit a new spike on the Richter scale.

The crude method of dismissal also caused disquiet. Shortly before Spicer’s manoeuvres in the dark on Tuesday night, the FBI director had been addressing staff in Los Angeles when news of his termination flashed up on TV screens. At first he laughed, thinking it was a prank, the New York Times reported, but then his staff intervened, he stopped speaking and, in a side office, learned it was no joke.

When the Guardian asked Spicer why the dismissal had not been done in person or by phone, as is customary in most walks of life, he said only that a message had been sent by hand to FBI headquarters and electronically. Some commentators felt the rushed nature of the deed and basic lack of courtesy spoke volumes.

A political novice governing by gut instinct, Trump appeared to have made arguably his biggest misjudgment yet. He seemed to think that Comey’s unpopularity on both sides of the aisle (Clinton has blamed him for her loss) would make it a win-win for him; instead it was a spectacular lose-lose. He told Justice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News: “I guess I was a little bit surprised, because all of the Democrats, I mean, they hated Jim Comey. They didn’t like him. They wanted him fired or whatever. And then all of a sudden, they come out with these glowing reports. Look, it’s politics.”

Charlie Sykes, a conservative author and broadcaster, said: “It’s stunning they didn’t think it would be this controversial. It’s an example of his ignorance of American political history and the norms and traditions of the system.”

What he failed to consider was the Russia question. Reports emerged that Comey had been accelerating the investigation and seeking more resources as he became increasingly concerned about evidence of collusion. Democratic senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said: “I think the Comey operation was breathing down the neck of the Trump campaign and their operatives, and this was an effort to slow down the investigation.”

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told HBO: “If there was no ‘there there’, James Comey would still have a job.”

On Tuesday night, Democrat after Democrat lined up to use the word Nixonian and draw parallels with the so-called Saturday Night Massacre when, in 1973, Nixon sought to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor leading the Watergate investigation, triggering resignations and then Cox’s dismissal. Many demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into Russiagate.

Republican elders were also dismayed. Bill Brock, a former labour secretary under President Ronald Reagan, said: “It was either way too late or way too early. The FBI as an organisation is sacrosanct in this country: non-political, non-partisan, with brilliant people working for it, and I hate to see it being dragged into this mess.”


The following morning, Trump lived up to his reputation for spectacle beyond the likes of Scandal or Veep. Of all the days, he hosted Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and ambassador to the US Sergei Kislyak. American media did not have access to the meeting but photos taken by a Russian state news media photographer were posted online. A White House official was quoted by CNN: “They tricked us. That’s the problem with the Russians – they lie.”

And then, when US media did gain access to the Oval Office, they found not Lavrov but a surprise visitor: 93-year-old Henry Kissinger, who was secretary of state under Nixon. It was either coincidence, or evidence of a particularly dark sense of humour.

The White House stuck to its line until Thursday: that Trump had fired Comey based on Rosenstein’s recommendation and because he had lost the confidence of FBI colleagues (many FBI members disputed this). But then the president gave an interview to NBC News that blew this out of the water. “Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey,” he said.

Startlingly, Trump also revealed that Russia was a factor in his thinking. “When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”

And, Trump told NBC News, he had asked Comey – over dinner and in two phone calls – whether he was personally under investigation, and was told not. During the dinner, according to an associate quoted by the New York Times and Associated Press, Trump asked for Comey’s loyalty, implying a possible obstruction of justice. Trump has denied this.

As the story dominated the news cycle of what was supposed to be a quiet week, Trump reached for Twitter. He posted on Friday morning: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” The White House refused to deny that Trump had made secret recordings.

The Democratic response to the week’s events was predictable; that of the Republicans less so. Trump was, after all, an outsider who staged a hostile takeover of the party in last year’s election. His relationship with Republicans on Capitol Hill remains fractious. It could have been a moment to emulate Howard Baker, a Republican senator from Tennessee who, during the Watergate investigation, took a stand and asked: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”

Indeed, in the first few hours, some critical voices emerged. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the timing and reasoning did not make sense. Senator John McCain called for a select committee to investigate and told security experts: “This scandal is going to go on. This is a centipede. I guarantee you there will be more shoes to drop.” Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona tweeted that he has spent several hours trying to find an acceptable rationale for the timing of Comey’s firing and could not do it.

But the centre held, at least for now. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, who have already swallowed numerous indignities for the sake of their legislative agenda, batted away calls for a special prosecutor and accused the Democrats of double standards.

Cabinet veteran Brock, 86, agrees. “I don’t think there’s any comparable situation with what President Nixon did,” he said. “The Democrats are clearly overstating the case. They said James Comey has lost all credibility. That is the height of hypocrisy and I find it totally repugnant. Let’s agree how we can move this process forward without playing the political card. I would welcome it if the president called for a special prosecutor.”

Conservative author Sykes described the Republican reaction as “a mixed bag”. He said: “It is significant the number of Republicans who are willing to distance themselves from the decision. There are some signs of cracks in the support.

“I’m personally disappointed in Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and I also think they’re making a mistake. This is going to be a distraction from the agenda and makes all their legislative programmes harder to get through. This has been the pattern: they’ve been willing to roll over because they think they’ll get their programme through but the price tag keeps going up. If it begins to dawn on them there’ll be a high cost next year [in the mid-term elections], that could change the calculation.”

The Comey firing led to renewed soul-searching in the conservative movement, which has ostensibly embraced Trump despite his uncertain values. Sykes added: “From the moment he was nominated, he posed an existential threat to conservatism. There was a time when conservatives would have been horrified at having a president who has so much contempt for the norms and traditions of government, or the separation of powers, or the rule of law. The fact they’re rolling over on this is defining test of conservatism.”

With a single, ill-considered and poorly executed act, Trump stunned Washington, sowed discontent at the FBI and inadvertently gave fresh impetus to two congressional investigations into Russia’s election meddling. It was a sobering reminder to Republicans about who they must wake up next to every day. They must live with the savaging of norms, the outlandish tweets, the profound unpredictability.

Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said: “Their destiny is something they embraced when they nominated him because Donald Trump is not a conservative.”

In a simple message to Republicans, he added: “You clearly made an assessment his brand of politics, or whatever you want to call it, was worth the risk, and now you have to account for it.”

Voters are unleashing their anger at Republicans on issues such as healthcare at town hall events. A Quinnipiac University poll, conducted before Comey was fired, found Trump’s favorability rating at an all-time low of 35%. And by a record 54%-38% margin, voters said they would prefer the Democrats rather than Republicans to control the House.

Paradoxically, the healthcare bill that was cause for euphoria in the Rose Garden could, through its effects in stripping health insurance from millions of people, cost the party more votes than the Comey saga. Trump may then find himself running out of friends fast. Principles are one thing; popularity another.

Watergate Lessons for Trump’s Era
If Comey was investigating the president, it would be cause for dismissal. That’s the duty of the House.

By Seth Lipsky, WSJ

With all the calls for an independent prosecutor for President Trump after his firing of the FBI’s James Comey, why not move the investigation to the House Judiciary Committee? It could get right down to whether the president has done anything worthy of impeachment.

It’s not that I think the president is guilty. It’s just the only properly constitutional way to investigate this, or any, president. No one has adduced any evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Trump. I’d like to see him cleared. But if he is to be investigated for crimes or misdemeanors, the House, with its impeachment authority, is the venue.

The Democrats are outraged at the thought that Mr. Trump, though he denies it, may have fired the director because the FBI boss was investigating the president. But if Mr. Comey was investigating the president, that would be grounds to take the investigation away from him (or simply to fire him). If the president is the target, the matter belongs to the House.

Like others in my generation, I came to this view through the experience of Watergate, when President Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and Whitewater, when President Clinton was pursued by independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Cox was brought in after Attorney General Elliot Richardson —ignoring the separation of powers—made a deal with Congress to diminish the president’s authority. The deal was that Cox would be dismissed only for cause. Cox subpoenaed Nixon and refused a compromise. The president then ordered the attorney general to fire him. An insubordinate Richardson and his deputy refused. It took Solicitor General Robert Bork to do the constitutional deed.

Eventually, the Judiciary Committee hired staff and went after Nixon, voting out three articles of impeachment (obstruction, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress). Before the House could decide whether to press the charges, Nixon quit.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 enabled the unleashing of a prosecutor almost completely beyond the reach of the executive branch. It was used to harry the Reagan administration. The Supreme Court, in Morrison v. Olson (1988), rejected a constitutional challenge. In a lone dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that an independent prosecutor could affect the “boldness of the president.” While issues often come before the court “clad in sheep’s clothing,” he wrote, “this wolf comes as a wolf.”

Democrats finally recognized the wolf in the form of Mr. Starr, who was put up against President Clinton. He sent his findings to the Judiciary Committee, which recommended four counts of impeachment, of which the full House affirmed two (perjury and obstruction). Mr. Clinton was acquitted by a Republican Senate. The GOP would have needed help from the Democrats to reach the constitutionally required supermajority of 67 votes for guilty.

It was a bitter disappointment to those who’d fought for an investigation. The one salve was the almost universal bipartisan conclusion that independent counsels led to abuse. Within months, Congress allowed the independent-counsel law to expire.

The dangers Scalia warned about in 1988 have rarely loomed larger than today, when a new president confronts a global terrorist war. In the middle of this existential struggle, who would benefit were Mr. Trump to be “dragged from pillar to post”?

That’s a phrase Thomas Jefferson used when warning against subjecting presidents to the common courts, as Mr. Trump’s aides, cabinet officials, family, and onetime business associates will be if the current calls for an “independent” investigation are heeded.

The right adjective for what is needed is “constitutional.” Moving the probe to the House Judiciary Committee certainly has risks. But no one could say it lacks the power to put this controversy to bed, one way or another, under the quilt of the Constitution.

Mr. Lipsky is editor of the New York Sun.


A bit later I discovered this good article by Kristof in NYT MAY 13, 2017.

Is President Trump Obstructing Justice?

When George Washington was preparing to take office, everybody wondered what to call him. Senators proposed lofty titles like “Illustrious Highness” and “Sacred Majesty.”
But Washington expressed irritation at such fawning, so today we are led by a modest “Mr. President.” Later, Washington surrendered office after two terms, underscoring that institutions prevail over personalities and that, in the words of the biographer Ron Chernow, “the president was merely the servant of the people.”
That primacy of our country’s institutions over even the greatest of leaders has been a decisive thread in American history, and it’s one reason President Trump is so unnerving. His firing of James Comey can be seen as simply one element of a systematic campaign to undermine the rule of law and democratic norms.
The paradox is that Trump purports to be (like Richard Nixon) a law-and-order president. His administration has ordered a harsh crackdown on drug offenders, when we should be scaling up addiction treatment instead. Trump is focusing on chimerical fraud by noncitizen voters, even as he impinges on an investigation into what could be a monumental electoral fraud by Vladimir Putin. He favors tough law and order for the little guy.

Comey took the investigation into possible collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign seriously enough that for his last three weeks leading the F.B.I. he was getting daily updates, according to The Wall Street Journal. The new acting director of the F.B.I. confirms that the inquiry is “highly significant.”
For months, as I’ve reported on the multiple investigations into Trump-Russia connections, I’ve heard that the F.B.I. investigation is by far the most important one, incomparably ahead of the congressional inquiries. I then usually asked: So will Trump fire Comey? And the response would be: Hard to imagine. The uproar would be staggering. Even Republicans would never stand for that.
Alas, my contacts underestimated the myopic partisanship of too many Republicans. Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, spoke for many of his colleagues when he scoffed at the furor by saying, “Suck it up and move on.”
This goes way beyond Comey. When judges block presidential orders, Trump denounces the courts. When the opposition criticizes him, Trump savages individual Democrats. When journalists embarrass him, Trump threatens to tighten libel laws and describes the press as “the enemy of the people.”
Trump has also challenged and evaded the ethics rules that traditionally constrain administration officials. He has breached the four-decade norm that presidential candidates release their taxes. And — how else to put this? — he has waged war on truth. These days, any relationship between White House statements and accuracy seems coincidental.
Patterns emerge. Trump also ousted Preet Bharara, a U.S. attorney who infuriated Moscow and investigated Tom Price, Trump’s secretary of health and human services. Likewise, Trump fired Sally Yates, the acting attorney general, after she warned the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed over his lies about Russian contacts.
In short, Trump challenges the legitimacy of checks on his governance, bullies critics and obfuscates everything. Trump reminds me less of past American presidents than of the “big men” rulers I covered in Asia and Africa, who saw laws simply as instruments with which to punish rivals.
It’s reported that Trump sought a pledge of loyalty from Comey. That is what kings seek; the failure to provide one got Thomas More beheaded. But in a nation of laws, we must be loyal to laws, norms and institutions, not to a passing autocrat.

Trump acknowledges that he was frustrated by the Russia investigation and that it was a factor in firing Comey. This may not meet the legal test for obstruction of justice, but step back and you see that Trump’s entire pattern of behavior is obstruction of the rule of law and democratic norms.
Earlier this year I quoted a presidential historian as saying that “there’s a smell of treason in the air,” and it’s essential that we have a thorough investigation to find out what happened. With Senate Republicans blocking an independent commission, that means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein must choose an independent special counsel to probe Russian interference in our election.
George Washington warned that we need checks on leaders because of the “love of power and the proneness to abuse it.” This prophecy was tested during Watergate, and as a teenager then I watched Republicans like Howard Baker, Lowell Weicker, Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus heroically stand up for their country rather than for a corrupt president of their own party. Partly because of them, our institutions triumphed.
The passion for truth over politics was then periodically expressed in a Latin phrase: fiat justitia, ruat caelum. Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

Now that principle is tested again, and so are we, all of us — politicians, journalists, judges and citizens.
In particular, this is the moment of truth for G.O.P. moderates like Senators Susan Collins, Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, who may hold decisive power. Will they align with George Washington’s vision of presidents as servants of the people or with Trump’s specter of His Sacred Majesty, the Big Man of America? Will they stand for justice, or for obstruction of it?





This entry has been viewed 160 times.

Your Comments

0 Responses. Comments closed for this entry.

© 2019 Peter Murmann. Powered by ExpressionEngine.

Daily Edition Theme by WooThemes - Premium ExpressionEngine Themes