Holy Shit, Guys. Holy Shit.
This week is all about Comey. I had intended to write about other things, like James Clapper and Sally Yates’ pretty big deal congressional testimony, but this story just ballooned and is enormous. Also, I started writing this on Wednesday; it is unbelievable how much had to be changed in the last 24 hours. Below, I try to sort out exactly what happened, and tell the story of the shifting narratives behind what happened. I also tried to highlight some of the best commentary I’ve seen. I end with non-Comey-related endorsements, and they are good. And fun. For reals. You really should click those links. Please. For me. I like to know that this newsletter brings some laughs/smiles and not only second-hand terror and despair.
Also, sorry it's so long.
THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED JUSTIFICATION: On Tuesday at 5:30pm, news broke that Trump had summarily fired FBI Director James Comey. Soon, the White House had released the purported basis for Trump’s decision: a three-page letter (dated Tuesday as well) from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein saying that he “cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails.” The letter said that Comey “usurp[ed] the Attorney General's authority” in July when he held the unprecedented press conference releasing “derogatory information” about Clinton and essentially indicting her in the public eye, all while announcing that no criminal charges would be brought. “The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial,” Rosenstein wrote. “It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.” Next, the letter states that Comey should not have announced, just days before the election, that the investigation into the emails was re-opened after they found emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, noting that longstanding DOJ procedure is to remain quiet about investigations. Then he quoted a long line of commentators who had publicly previously criticized the July press conference and/or the October announcement. He concluded: “The FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them.” He did not explicitly recommend that the President fire Comey. Importantly, 100% of the letter was based on Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions attached his own letter to Rosenstein’s, declaring that the FBI needed “a fresh start” for “the reasons expressed by the Deputy Attorney General.” Finally, Trump’s own letter officially canning Comey said that he agreed with the two other letters.
THE ALLEGED JUSTIFICATION IS UTTER BULLSHIT: First, and this should go without saying, Rosenstein’s letter is, of course, completely right! Comey totally mishandled the Clinton investigation, in ways that were and remain shocking and disturbing. I silently read in a “Damn straight!” at the conclusion of every sentence in that letter. But just as clearly, the letter was not the basis for Comey’s firing. Of course Trump didn’t fire Comey because he thought Comey was too unfair to Clinton in July and October. We know that because Trump was alive last year, and had a mouth, and said exactly what he thought of Comey at the time: “It took guts for Director Comey to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had where they’re trying to protect her from criminal prosecution . . . It took a lot of guts. . . . What he did, he brought back his reputation. He brought it back.” It’s equally insane to think Sessions was upset over Comey’s handling of the Clinton saga. “In a late October interview on the Fox Business network, Sessions said Comey ‘had an absolute duty … to come forward with the new information.’ Just before the election, he said on Fox News Channel that Comey ‘did the right thing … He had no choice.’” And of course, it’s May. If Trump was so disturbed by Comey’s behavior (notwithstanding his praise of Comey), he could have and should have fired him right away, leading uber-conservative Charles Krauthammer to call the timing of the firing “inexplicable." As Julian Sanchez writes, “The stated reasons for Comey’s dismissal are pretextual. They are so transparently, ludicrously pretextual that we should all feel at least a little bit insulted.”
THE WHITE HOUSE GIVES AWAY THE GAME: The outrage over the firing was not because Comey was particularly beloved by anyone, least of all Democrats. It’s because he is heading a crucial probe into Russia’s interference in our election and, specifically, whether Trump or his associates played any role in that Russian scheme, and the FBI is supposed to be free of all political interference. In March, Comey acknowledged in an open congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating “whether members of President Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.” So it is natural to wonder whether the White House fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. The answer is yes. Of course. Here’s why we can be pretty sure of that that:
First, Trump’s letter to Comey raised Russia -- thanking him for purportedly assuring him on three separate occasions that he (Trump) was not under FBI investigation -- even as the letter allegedly framed the firing as a response to Comey’s handling of the Clinton emails.
Second, the timing of the firing also points to nefarious motives. The New York Times reported that, just last week, Comey “asked the Justice Department” -- specifically, Rod Rosenstein -- “for more prosecutors and other personnel to accelerate the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election.” (Note: It was reported that he was seeking more money for the investigation -- which Rosenstein denied today -- but in fact he wanted more prosecutors.) And then word leaked that, in recent weeks, the DOJ has issued several grand jury subpoenas to former business associates of Michael Flynn -- someone Trump continues to insist is a good man who did nothing wrong and is being unfairly targeted by investigators (including, of course, the FBI), and with whom he still tries to communicate.
Third, numerous reports on Tuesday night and into Wednesday said that Trump has been “stewing over Mr. Comey’s testimony to Congress last week in which he provided a few new details about the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s efforts to sway the 2016 election.” The Washington Post: “Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.” Politico: He [Trump] had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said.”
Then we have the rapidly shifting account of its reasoning coming from the White House itself. On Tuesday night, when the reasoning was still the Clinton investigation, Sean Spicer told the press that the idea to review Comey’s performance and recommend termination started with the DOJ and Rosenstein. Rosenstein, Spicer said, “independently took on this issue so the president was not aware of the probe until he received a memo from Rosenstein on Tuesday.” Sarah Sanders, another spokesman,said the reason for the firing was “real simple ... The deputy attorney general made a very strong recommendation.” On Wednesday morning, Mike Pence affirmed that Trump “was acting upon the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,” a statement he repeated 7 times. Yeah -- all of that was a lie. “By [later] Wednesday, [the White House] had amended the timeline to say that the president had actually been thinking about getting rid of the F.B.I. director as far back as November, after he won the election, and then became ‘strongly inclined’ after Mr. Comey testified before Congress last week.” It was such a lie that Rosenstein called the White House counsel to demand that his role in this be clarified, after seeing the numerous reports stating that he had recommended firing Comey (which he had not done) and that Trump had followed that recommendation. All of which is to say -- Comey’s firing had nothing at all to do with his handling of Clinton’s emails, and the White House is admitting that.
But all this tea-leaf reading is not really necessary: Today, Trump just came out and said it, in an interview with NBC News: “I was going to fire Comey. My decision. . . . I was going to fire Comey [before his Monday meeting with Sessions and Rosenstein]. . . . I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.” From the White House podium today, Sarah Sanders seemed to dare Congress to launch impeachment proceedings, flat-out saying that the White House hoped that firing Comey would help bring the Russia investigation to a close: “We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity . . . And we think that we've actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen." And then tonight, the Times published a bombshell story saying that, seven days into his administration, Trump summoned Comey to dinner and repeatedly demanded that Comey pledge his loyalty to Trump. Comey apparently refused. GUYS, WHAT THE HELL?
So all this means that Trump’s letter was a lie. It means that the entire White House explanation on Tuesday was a lie. The Vice President’s statements on Wednesday were lies. The firing had nothign to do with the reasons in Rosenstein’s letter. The firing was because Trump was pissed that Comey wouldn’t do his bidding. (More on that below.)
THE UPSHOT -- TRUMP HAS JUST ENDED PROSECUTORIAL INDEPENDENCE: The firing is a huge deal in and of itself, whether or not the underlying Russia investigation was on the brink of discovering anything relevant. As former DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller explains, “But one principle must take precedence over every other Justice Department rule or regulation: Prosecutors and agents must be free to make decisions without interference from the White House. Without that, everything else fails.” This independence is what led Republicans to literally lose their minds over AG Loretta Lynch saying hello to Bill Clinton during the investigation of Clinton’s email practices. Here, the violation of that sacred separation is clear and indisputable. In fact, in Trump’s bananas interview today, he admitted that he personally called FBI director multiple times to ask about status of criminal investigation against him. Indeed, it was Comey’s assertion of independence that drove Trump’s decision:Reuters reports that Trump’s anger at Comey hit a turning point last week “when Comey refused to preview for top Trump aides his planned testimony to a Senate panel,” which “Trump and his aides considered that an act of insubordination.” And Trump’s interview confirmed that he fired Comey because he didn't like the way Comey was running investigations, regarding Russia, “wiretapping,” and the leaks. The bigger question is whether eliminating FBI independence, including with regards to an investigation of the White House itself, constitutes obstruction of justice. “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?” writes Helen Klein Murillo at Lawfareblog. “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.” It has only taken 48 hours for his true motives to come to light, and those motives make an inference of obstruction impossible to avoid.
ROUNDUP OF GOOD COMMENTARY: Each of these links is worth reading in full. But here are some good excerpts.
John Cassidy: “At a time like this, it is important to express things plainly. On Tuesday evening, Donald Trump acted like a despot. Without warning or provocation, he summarily fired the independent-minded director of the F.B.I., James Comey. Comey had been overseeing an investigation into whether there was any collusion between Trump’s Presidential campaign and the government of Russia. With Comey out of the way, Trump can now pick his own man (or woman) to run the Bureau, and this person will have the authority to close down that investigation. That is what has happened. It amounts to a premeditated and terrifying attack on the American system of government. Quite possibly, it will usher in a constitutional crisis.”
Lawfare:“It is a profoundly dangerous thing—a move that puts the Trump-Russia investigation in immediate jeopardy and removes from the investigative hierarchy the one senior official whom President Trump did not appoint and one who is known to stand up to power.”
Kevin Drum: “Trump's astronomical narcissism has caught up with him too. He has so little insight into other humans that he simply couldn't conceive of anyone hating Comey but still defending his right to serve out his term. In Trump's world, you reward your friends and punish your enemies and that's that.”
Brian Buetler: “If Trump gets away with firing Comey—if Republicans let him nominate any director he wants; if they resist the pressure to insist on appointing a special prosecutor, or to convene an investigative body; if they squash inquiries into the firing itself—he will read it as permission to run amok. . . . Absent consequences, Trump will rightly feel liberated to appoint whomever he wants to run the IRS when the current commissioner’s term expires later this year. More alarmingly, he will know that he can get away with ordering a crackdown on voting rights or investigations of his political enemies.”
David Frum: “Now comes the hour of testing. Will the American system resist? Or will it be suborned? The question has to be asked searchingly of the Republican members of Congress: Will you allow a president of your party to attack the integrity of the FBI? You impeached Bill Clinton for lying about sex. Will you now condone and protect a Republican administration lying about espionage? Where are you? Who are you?”
WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: The Washington Post very helpfully laid out the three options for an independent investigation of Russian interference in our election and/or the Comey firing. As we make calls demanding that Trump be held accountable, it’s good to be clear on what exactly the options are and what we should be asking for:
- Special counsel/prosecutor: A special prosecutor is appointed by DOJ (here, Rosenstein himself). The prosecutor has the authority to bring criminal charges, and the president has authority to fire the prosecutor. This was the position Archibald Cox had before being fired by Nixon in the Saturday Night Massacre.
- Independent counsel: The law allowing Congress to appoint an independent counsel expired in 1999, after anger at Ken Starr’s behavior, so there is currently no way for Congress to appoint a special prosecutor (without passing a new law). So right now this isn’t really an option.
- Special or select committee: Congress can form a special/select committee, which could issue subpoenas but cannot bring criminal charges. This is where political pressure has its best chance of exerting itself. One idea that has been floated is that there should be no hearings or vote on a new FBI director until a select committee has been formed. (McConnell and Ryan have already rejected calls for a select committee or a special prosecutor, because they are literally the scum of the earth.)
Endorsements
- The Washington Post story from Tuesday night about Sean Spicer’s literally and figuratively in-the-dark press briefing. It is amazing in every way (especially now that we know that everything Spicer was saying was patently untrue).
- Chait’s commentary on the above very real, very hilarious exchange: “Telling The Economist you invented the phrase ‘priming the pump,’ to describe a plan that does not prime the pump, is a bit like sitting down with Car and Driver, pointing to the steering wheel on your car and asking if they have ever heard of a little word you just came up with called ‘hubcap.’”
- This tweet, which made me belly laugh for a solid 15 seconds (in equal parts sadness and hilarity).
- This opening sentence, by Charlie Pierce: “The highlight of the now daily arse-showing at the White House Thursday morning probably was the president*'s disquisition on economics in which he invited The Economist to join him in an impromptu séance after which the bloody-toothed shade of John Maynard Keynes arose from the grave and stalked Pennsylvania Avenue, howling for gin and a good lawyer.”
- New York Magazine’s rundown of 23 of the craziest things about the Comey firing, including oft-overlooked details (White Hosue and DOJ staff having no idea this was coming until seeing it on TV; Trump sending his personal bodyguard to deliver the letter to the FBI, etc.)
No comments:
Post a Comment