Politics Trump fires Comey

Only seven days after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as president, James B. Comey has told associates, the F.B.I. director was summoned to the White House for a one-on-one dinner with the new commander in chief.

The conversation that night in January, Mr. Comey now believes, was a harbinger of his downfall this week as head of the F.B.I., according to two people who have heard his account of the dinner.

As they ate, the president and Mr. Comey made small talk about the election and the crowd sizes at Mr. Trump’s rallies. The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him.

Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense.



The White House says this account is not correct. And Mr. Trump, in an interview on Thursday with NBC, described a far different dinner conversation with Mr. Comey in which the director asked to have the meeting and the question of loyalty never came up. It was not clear whether he was talking about the same meal, but they are believed to have had only one dinner together.

By Mr. Comey’s account, his answer to Mr. Trump’s initial question apparently did not satisfy the president, the associates said. Later in the dinner, Mr. Trump again said to Mr. Comey that he needed his loyalty.

Mr. Comey again replied that he would give him “honesty” and did not pledge his loyalty, according to the account of the conversation.

But Mr. Trump pressed him on whether it would be “honest loyalty.”

“You will have that,” Mr. Comey told his associates he responded.

Throughout his career, Mr. Trump has made loyalty from the people who work for him a key priority, often discharging employees he considers insufficiently reliable.

As described by the two people, the dinner offers a window into Mr. Trump’s approach to the presidency, through Mr. Comey’s eyes. A businessman and reality television star who never served in public office, Mr. Trump may not have understood that by tradition, F.B.I. directors are not supposed to be political loyalists, which is why Congress in the 1970s passed a law giving them 10-year terms to make them independent of the president.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html

 

Comey infuriated Trump with refusal to preview Senate testimony: aides

The anger behind Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday had been building for months, but a turning point came when Comey refused to preview for top Trump aides his planned testimony to a Senate panel, White House officials said.

Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had wanted a heads-up from Comey about what he would say at a May 3 hearing about his handling of an investigation into former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

When Comey refused, Trump and his aides considered that an act of insubordination and it was one of the catalysts to Trump’s decision this week to fire the FBI director, the officials said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-decision-idUSKBN1862WP?il=0

 

It looked to me like Trump is taking the heat and not pinning anything on his subordinates.

This pretty much sums it up (Vox is a very left leaning site):

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...constitutional-crisis-liberals-hyperventilate

 

I'd add that Comey basically doomed himself with his testimony last week.

He outright said he would end around the Attorney General and DoJ, which is downright scary.

This article sums that up:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-james-comey-had-to-go-1494542297

Testifying last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, James Comey recalled a moment that should have held more significance for him than it did. At the height of the presidential campaign, President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, had chosen to meet with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac. That, said the now-former FBI director, “was the capper for me.” Hillary Clinton’s emails were being probed, but Ms. Lynch was too conflicted to “credibly complete the investigation.” So Mr. Comey stepped in.

Donald Trump and senior Justice Department leaders might appreciate the impulse. According to Democrats and the media, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is too conflicted to recommend sacking Mr. Comey; the Trump administration is too conflicted to name a successor; the entire Justice Department and the Republican Congress are too conflicted to conduct true oversight.

Entirely missing from this narrative is the man who was perhaps the most conflicted of all: James Comey. The FBI head was so good at portraying himself as Washington’s last Boy Scout—the only person who ever did the right thing—that few noticed his repeated refusal to do the right thing. Mr. Comey might still have a job if, on any number of occasions, he’d acknowledged his own conflicts and stepped back.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memo to Mr. Sessions expertly excoriated Mr. Comey’s decision to “usurp” Ms. Lynch’s authority and his “gratuitously” fulsome July press conference. But Mr. Comey’s dereliction of duty preceded that—by his own admission. Remember, he testified that the Lynch-Clinton meeting was but the “capper.” Before that, he told lawmakers, “a number of things had gone on which I can’t talk about yet that made me worry the department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation.”
​

It's also worth reading Rosenstein's actual memo. It's not being portrayed accurately in the media. The way it reads to me is not about some hypocritical reversal on the handling of the Clinton emails, but more of he should have said nothing and she should have been prosecuted. Specifically, the "no prosecutor would bring charges" bit.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/rod-r...ing-public-confidence-in-the-fbi-letter-text/

The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.​

Not only did Comey "usurp the Attorney General's authority" on July 5, he announced he'd continue to do so in his testimony last Thursday. He effectively said, "fuck Jeff Sessions and the rest of the DoJ" as he did to Lynch and her DoJ (which included Sally Yates).

 

Trump did call him a loose cannon, no?

His Thursday testimony proved that to be a fair assessment. And it also seems to be what caused Trump to pull the trigger.

Plus, there's been: a) no evidence whatsoever of any illegal acts regarding any collusion between Trump and/or his associates and Russia, b) Trump did nothing to alter any investigations.

The 150 FBI agents (or however many) are still investigating.

The new acting FBI director can easily be painted as a Democratic Party operative, so Trump knowingly made the situation worse for himself.

The senate has to approve a replacement and as long as they don't, this Democratic Party operative is in charge. We have yet to see who Trump appoints - what if he nominates Merrick Garland? That'll put the lefties' panties in a real bind.

And Trump isn't altering any congressional investigations.

The Vox article I linked is spot on.

So if you were president and the FBI director announced he would take the DoJ's responsibilities into his own hands, bypassing your DoJ, what would you do?

Here's more of Trump talking about the Russia investigation in that same interview, to provide a bit more context.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ey-whether-he-was-under-investigation-n757821

Holt asked Trump if he was "angry with Mr. Comey because of his Russia investigation."

"I just want somebody that's competent," Trump responded. "I am a big fan of the FBI, I love the FBI."

Trump said he never tried to pressure Comey into dropping the FBI probe of the Trump campaign and insisted, "I want to find out if there was a problem in the election having to do with Russia."

"As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," Trump said. "Maybe I'll expand that, you know, lengthen the time (of the Russia probe) because it should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over with a long time ago. 'Cause all it is, is an excuse but I said to myself, I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people."

Trump added of the investigation, "I want that to be so strong and so good. And I want it to happen."

Asked by Holt if by firing Comey he was trying to send a "lay off" message to his successor, Trump said, "I'm not."

"If Russia did anything, I want to know that," he said.

But Trump also insisted there was no "collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians."

"Also, the Russians did not affect the vote," he said.​

 

The obstruction of justice thing.

In Nixon's case, there was an outright crime - the burglary. That wasn't some alleged event.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/was-firing-james-comey-obstruction-justice

First, the criminal offense is itself difficult to prove in this context. The statutory language is broad: it covers any attempt, even unsuccessful, to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the administration of the law in a pending proceeding. As the Department of Justice U.S. Attorneys’ Manual explains, the crime is found on proof of three elements: “(1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States; (2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and (3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending.”

As applied to the President and his staff, the first two elements appear to be a slam dunk. First, courts have given “proceeding” a broad definition. As the DOJ Manual notes, “the Sixth Circuit held that the term ‘proceeding’ is ‘of broad scope, encompassing both the investigative and adjudicative functions of a department or agency.’” The Russia investigation pretty clearly counts. Second, Comey himself hadrecently confirmed that the investigation was ongoing—in extremely public and publicized congressional hearings. So no relevant actor could claim he did not know or “have a reasonably founded belief” that the investigation was ongoing.

The questions here surround the third element. One must not merely “influent, obstruct, or impede” but also do so corruptly. Under § 1515(b), a corrupt state of mind requires intent: “acting with an improper purpose.” While the President routinely influences federal law enforcement at a high level—including prioritizing certain categories of crimes or appointing officials based on certain expertise that is bound to influence the Bureau’s work—those contacts would not be considered obstruction because in those scenarios, the President is acting with a proper purpose, his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Ultimately the answer goes to the motives: Did the President or Attorney General intend for Comey’s firing to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the Russia investigation? Even if they had other reasons or goals—including perfectly lawful ones, such as concerns about the public’s perception of the FBI and the Director—if obstructing or impeding the Russia investigation was a goal, that would constitute obstruction of justice. Therefore, inquiries as to whether Trump’s conduct amount to obstruction will center on his motives.

However, the statutory bar is exceedingly high. Multiple circuit courts have concluded that under §§ 1503 and 1505, “although the defendant need not succeed in his attempt to obstruct justice, his conduct must be such ‘that its natural and probable effect would be the interference with the due administration of justice.’” This requires specific intent to obstruct or impede an investigation. In the context of any criminal proceeding, where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, the possible existence of other motives would likely make obstruction of justice difficult to prove.

 

And even the NYTimes weighs in on Obstruction of Justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/obstruction-of-justice-fbi.html

Would there be impediments to charging Mr. Trump?

Yes, and not just that the Justice Department reports to Mr. Trump and is therefore unlikely to prosecute him for anything.

Obstruction of justice cases often come down to whether prosecutors can prove what a defendant’s mental state was when he or she committed the act, legal specialists said. It is not enough to show that a defendant knew the act would have a side consequence of impeding an investigation; achieving that obstruction has to have been the specific intention.

Mr. Trump told NBC he had been thinking about the Russia investigation, which he called a “made-up story” that “should have been over with a long time ago,” when he decided to fire Mr. Comey. But he also said he wanted the investigation to be “done properly” and suggested the firing might prolong it.

Defense lawyers could raise arguments in an attempt to create reasonable doubt about Mr. Trump’s motivation for firing Mr. Comey. For one thing, they could point to the alternative stories or purported motives the White House has described. Mr. Trump, for example, has said he acted because he thought the bureau was in “turmoil” under Mr. Comey, whom he called a “grandstander.” The White House also initially put forward a memo by the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, who criticized Mr. Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation — although Mr. Trump said on Thursday that he had already decided to fire Mr. Comey before consulting Mr. Rosenstein.

“To prove that he did it not because Comey was grandstanding or showboating or all the other excuses he has given, but because he wanted to impede the investigation, that would be awfully hard to prove,” said Alex Whiting, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at Harvard Law School.