The why and wherefore of the Comey firing
My title was a teaser. Obviously, I’m not privy to the real story of Trump’s motives in firing Comey now. But no one is, except Trump and those closest to him—and maybe not even them.
But I do have some observations, of course. The first is that Trump’s a guy who’s used to firing people, and to doing it with great fanfare and the spotlight shining fully on him. So the Comey firing is a sort of business-as-usual for Trump, although it certainly doesn’t appear that way to an awful lot of outside observers.
The reaction from much of the right has been joy at Comey’s departure. The reaction of the left and the Democrats has been predictable shock and outrage, as well as cries for a special prosecutor. The assumption there—or at least, the suggestion there—is that Trump is covering up something and trying to impede Comey’s investigation of his Russian connection. Here’s a good example of the genre from Politico, painting a believable picture of a fuming, stewing, enraged, frustrated, screaming Trump and a blindsided victim Comey—and this despite the fact that it has long been the left and the Clinton camp who have been bitterly criticizing Comey and blaming him for Trump’s win and Hillary loss. So there’s no small bit of irony here.
To me, Comey’s press conference last summer—the one in which he explained his reasons for not indicting Hillary—made no legal sense, and was a departure from the FBI’s usual commitment to silence in cases where it chooses not to indict. I wrote several posts at the time about Comey’s behavior (see this, for example). Andrew C. McCarthy’s summary from a few days ago is a recap of Comey’s actions back then, and what was wrong with them:
…[I]t is not possible to square [Comeys’ July 2016] press conference and the claim that politics did not influence the FBI’s decision-making. Ordinarily, the FBI does not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation and does not publicize the evidence uncovered in investigations that do not result in charges. In this instance, Comey decided not to follow those strictures. Why? As he put it during the press conference, he was making his “unusual statement” because “the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.” Put aside that a lot of investigations are of intense public interest and yet the usual no-comment rules are followed. What made this investigation of intense public interest was politics, pure and simple.
…[H]ad the protocols been followed, the FBI and Justice Department would have made no statements about the investigation, including no statement that it had been closed. Mrs. Clinton had no right to a clean bill of health from the FBI. She should have had to content herself with being able to note that she had not been charged with a crime and to urge that this meant she was not guilty of one. But she had no right to have voters advised, before going to the polls, that there was no active investigation into her misconduct. Fourth, there is an important reason why the FBI does not make a formal announcement when an investigation is closed without charges: It frequently happens that new information surfaces, justifying the reopening of the file.
McCarthy wrote that almost a week ago, before Comey was dismissed, but it dovetails with the reasons the Trump administration gave yesterday to explain the firing. It is certainly a valid set of reasons. Most people on the right (and some on the left, secretly) are happy to see Comey go, for a host of reasons. But the fact that the firing happened now, when the Trump/Flynn/Russia investigation is still moving forward (albeit slowly), gives Trump’s action at the very least the appearance of suspiciousness/impropriety, an appearance that can and will be fully exploited by the left. The Nixon comparisons abound, however dissimilar the situations may be.
Andrew McCarthy wrote the following yesterday:
The memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to explain Comey’s dismissal Tuesday is well crafted and will make it very difficult for Democrats to attack President Trump’s decision. Rosenstein bases the decision not merely on Comey’s much discussed missteps in the Clinton e-mails investigation ”” viz., usurping the authority of the attorney general to close the case without prosecution; failing to avail himself of the normal procedures for raising concerns about Attorney General Lynch’s conflict of interest. He goes on specifically to rebuke Comey’s “gratuitous” release of “derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal prosecution.” That “subject,” of course, would be Mrs. Clinton.
This (as I noted in a recent column) is exactly the line of attack Democrats have adopted since Clinton lost the election…
I disagree strongly with McCarthy’s statement that the reasoning in Rosentein’s memorandum “will make it very difficult for Democrats to attack President Trump’s decision.” On the contrary, they will find no problem whatsoever in doing so. It doesn’t matter how well-crafted Rosenstein’s enumeration of Comey’s errors is, and it doesn’t matter how many Democrats Rosenstein manages to quote who were in agreement months ago with what he’s saying now about Comey. Those Democrats are on another side of the political divide, and will act accordingly—as McCarthy himself seems to acknowledge towards the end of his piece when he writes:
Or at least it should be tough [for Democrats to criticize]. Trump being Trump, he could not resist saying, in his letter to Comey, “I greatly appreciate you [sic] informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.” On the off chance that the former director’s memory does not jibe with the president’s, Trump’s statement invites Comey to respond that this is not what happened. If Comey seizes on the invitation, the press angle would write itself: Comey, it would be said, was fired because he was trying to conduct the investigation of Trump-Russia ties about which he recently testified, not because of the bipartisan consensus that is described in Rosenstein’s memorandum.
And that, in a nutshell, is what many people say and/or believe—and, although they didn’t really need Trump’s “invitation” or assistance to make them think along those lines, they got it. But the press angle already wrote itself, because it makes sense, whether it’s actually true or not. And with the release of the news on the same day that prosecutors had issued subpoenas in connection with the Flynn investigation, the plot has thickened:
Federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas seeking business records from people who worked with former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn when he was a private citizen, CNN reported on Tuesday.
Citing people familiar with the matter, CNN said the subpoenas were issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alexandria, Virginia. They targeted people who worked with Flynn on contracts after he was pushed out of his job as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, it reported.
I don’t know about you, but I agree with Republican Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who said that “Comey’s firing and…dismissal ‘further confuses an already difficult investigation by the committee.'” Indeed. Burr’s statement does not seem to emanate from any particular Trump animus, either; he was a supporter of Trump and an advisor during his campaign.
Will the Comey firing and the reaction to it matter in the political sense? Or will it be another tempest in a teapot that dies down as the next crisis rears up? That will depend in part on who Trump chooses to replaces Comey, and whether that person is perceived to be proceeding with all the investigations in an objective manner, or whether he/she is seen as being too Trump-friendly and essentially a Trump stooge.
And about that, I have to say this: well see.
“Will the Comey firing and the reaction to it matter in the political sense? Or will it be another tempest in a teapot that dies down as the next crisis rears up?”
Well considering that the Russian thing is still around despite a not having a shred of creditable evidence, I think its safe to say, like the phantom menace of global warming, this non-issue is here to stay and will shortly be written in the stone of “truths” liberals fervently believe in.
In about a year from now when all of this Russia stuff pans out to nothing, the MSM and Dems will look very foolish. It never made any sense that Trump colluded with the Russians. We don’t even know if he owes any Russian banks money and that fact will be of public record.
My husband had CNN International on today, and in addition to all the other BS their people and pundits were saying, they tried to turn the Lavrov meeting into a discussion about Comey. As if the Syrian safety zones where we aren’t supposed to fly, the Iran nuclear problem, and North Korea are less important topics. The media is a huge problem for us, especially CNN Int because so many people around the world see it as a valid source of info about the US.
Re the investigation into Hillary’s emails: All we needed to know is that she was too dumbe and arrogant to run the country. Re Russian interference in the election: What they did was nothing compared to the things they have done in Georgia, Ukraine and Eastern Europe. At least Trump’s security people are smart enough to see through Putin and can hopefully keep Trump under some sort of control. As to the Dems, the only things they care about are abortion, gays, and trannies. They love stomping their feet.
Every Democrat in existence: The FBI director has unfairly influenced the election with his actions regarding the Clinton investigation and he must go!!!
President Trump: I agree so therefore I have fired the FBI director.
Every Democrat in existence: I can’t believe you would fire the FBI director!!!!
I want to believe that the media’s never ending hysterical paroxysms of outrageous outrage will be seen through in the end but I wonder sometimes if it will.
“We don’t even know if he owes any Russian banks money and that fact will be of public record.”
I’m not sure I understand this statement.
I agree with the first part. I’ve never understood why everyone’s OK with us not knowing who the President of the US owes money to. He should open up his books. Now.
It would help clear this up.
I don’t understand the second part – Trump’s finances will be part of the public record in a year? Did I miss something?
It would be nice. But I’m not holding my breath.
Cornhead: “In about a year from now when all of this Russia stuff pans out to nothing, the MSM and Dems will look very foolish.”
Im afraid liberal conspiracy theories not panning out is fairly irrelevant today. Actual evidence has ceased to matter for quite some time now.
Back down in the real world: the rank and file FBI agents were in an uproar over Comey… the political hack.
His assistant also needs to go.
The top ranks of the FBI had been totally politized by Barry Soetoro.
Clintonistas were all over the joint.
Bill, Trump’s borrowings routed through GERMANY.
And it’s no secret that many of his projects were of a General Partner// Limited Partner structure… with the Limited Partners ponying up the funds.
His creditors have no ability to constrain his actions.
Indeed, he’s a ‘debtor’ that they dare not mess with.
If corruption is the subject: the Clinton Crime Family and the Soetoro Syndicate stand front and center.
Comey was off the reservation last July 5 and again on October 28. The FBI does not indict anyone. The FBI investigates. The AG indicts, the FBI simply refers their case to the AG who decides to indict or not. Trump should have fired Comey and Koskinen on day one. If one wants to drain the ‘swamp’ one does not hesitate. 100 plus days and the draining is a tiny trickle.
Trump did not hit the ground running. I suspect he does not have that ability yet. He has made a few excellent appointments, but he loses traction when he lets Jared and Ivanka influence him.
In my opinion it’s the right decision, but the execution could have been more dignified. I was inspired on my walk to work this morning to write the following:
The former director James Comey,
Said, “Donald, you really don’t know me,
My blundered inspections,
Don’t change the elections,
But still, don’t you think that you owe me?”
NEO: I’m not privy to the real story of Trump’s motives in firing Comey now. But no one is, except Trump and those closest to him–and maybe not even them.
you wouldnt know that from all the others writing who write in an agressive certainty that THEY know more about Trumps thoughts than even trump does.
this is the SAME way that the feminists write about men, and things, as they argue both sides in their things, and so, one side never talks and then they tell women what men think, which men, if you ask, say “no one thinks like that”
its a style of the left, a kind of writing pretending knowing. and its happening above and around the things you read having little to do with the subject, it has more to do with the READER
i was trying to find a more neutral area to show the example, but its pretty easy to see how its done…
just search “Trump thinks” and you will get a flood of left leaning things in which they know what he thinks.
oh, and regardless of whether its feminsits, Trumps thinking, peeing, bathrooms, racism, black lives they have ALL the shaming responses needed to neueter you where you stand!!
the funny thing is that this is a methodology and its easier to see it if its shown outside the point in discussion, but it can be applied to anything the left wants you to do or not do.
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) — The Crybaby Charge
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) — The Peter Pan Charge
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) — The Elevated Threat Charge
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) — The Sour Grapes Charge
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) — The Brown Shirts Charge
Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)
Charge of Instability (Code White) — The White Padded Room Charge
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) — The All-That-Glitters Charge
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) — The Ugly Tan Charge
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) — The Pink Whip
we all know them but the guys at MGTOW put them up, however they are applicable to the left..
there are a few more…
but these are the things or styles in these articles that tend to tell you what to think, rather than let you think what you want
cause that is too dangerous
or as Stalin put it (paraphrased), we would not let our opposition have guns, why would we allow them ideas…
Cornhead, 3:25 pm — “In about a year from now when all of this Russia stuff pans out to nothing, the MSM and Dems will look very foolish.”
Dunno ’bout that. They will not look foolish to you or to me — with the caveat that they are not necessarily looking foolish, when they are secure in the fact that the enemedia will reinforce their pronouncements, and will bend over backwards to assure that they do not look foolish.
Therefore I suggest the following amendment to Cornhead’s statement: they will not look foolish to you or to me, and they will not look foolish to their base for the above reason. The remaining question will be to what extent they look foolish to the undecideds/swayables (if any).
MJR: The false outrage also raises campaign funds from the faithful.
It seemed fairly clear to me what the July 5 press conference was about, at the time. Comey had likely found out that the DOJ fix was in, in that an indictment of Hillary was not going to be allowed. So rather than having a Comey associate leak much of the investigation to the media, he just went public directly.
Within the last 24 hours there have been two statements on FoxBiz that illuminate some of this. James Kalstrom stated that people inside the FBI told him that investigators tried to get subpoenas for Hillary and associates but could not get the DOJ to empanel a grand jury. He said that you can’t get a subpoena without a grand jury.
Even more amazing was Judge Napolitano who stated the following: Hillary’s excuse for violating all of the national security laws that she should have known about, was that she had a serious head injury.
The investigators asked for her medical records and she refused. They asked Comey for a subpoena and he refused. Then the investigators when to the NSA to get the digital copy of her med. records, since her docs. use electronic medical records. Finally, Comey went public on July 5 to halt the investigation before the NSA could cough up the med. records.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/27/andrew-napolitano-hillary-clinton-and-fbi-again.html
The two stories don’t seem exactly consistent. Was Comey trying to expose her in the face of a cover-up (my thought and Kalstrom’s perhaps), or was he integral to the cover-up (Napolitano)?
Great post, great insights.
“Those Democrats are on another side of the political divide..”
Excellent. Yep … the Dems will never let this die down. Unless something with more Drama pops up 🙂
The ‘Russia hacked the election’ obsession reminds me of the Valerie Plame scandal, where DC insiders and the press knew it was Richard Armitage who leaked the CIA deskjockey’s name, but insisted in was some evil scheme cooked up by Darth Cheney and Libby to punish her husband. Naturally, the entertainment media reinforced the story with Vanity Fair spreads of Plame, a book deal for her, and several movies. The truth didn’t matter, only that Bush and his staff were completely tarred, Libby was in jail, and Bush’s administration exhausted from dealing with all that fighting the smears entailed.
Come to think of it, the whole Abu Garib scandal was similar as well. While this was a legitimate crime, it was nowhere close to the nefarious Bush-directed torture scheme depicted by the press, Democrats, and the various movies and tv episodes it inspired.
This Russia narrative is not going away. They will ride this until people are in jail and/or resign, until Trump’s legacy is permanently stained with this ridiculous accusation. We’ll be seeing movies about this soon, our children and grandchildren will be taught that this is what happened as a fact, not an accusation. This is how the Left works. They have a roadmap/script that has worked in the past, so they will do it again and again with each subsequent Republican administration.
“Comey’s firing and…dismissal ‘further confuses an already difficult investigation by the committee.’”
And that alone is a good thing. A very good thing.
Harry the Extremist Says:
May 10th, 2017 at 4:07 pm
Cornhead: “In about a year from now when all of this Russia stuff pans out to nothing, the MSM and Dems will look very foolish.”
Im afraid liberal conspiracy theories not panning out is fairly irrelevant today. Actual evidence has ceased to matter for quite some time now.
* * *
I’m afraid you are very correct. Far too many instances abound to list, but some were mentioned above (Plame and Abu Ghraib scandals), and they still act as if “hands up” was true, etc. A related malady is the epidemic of faux hate crimes on campuses (threats issued by the victims or their groupies) to “start a conversation” – which proceeds with no recognition that the conversation-starter was a rigged LIE.
* *
And this of course:
Harry the Extremist Says:
May 10th, 2017 at 6:46 pm
MJR: The false outrage also raises campaign funds from the faithful.
* * *
One PowerLine author used to routinely post the emails he got from the Dem fund-raisers just to laugh at their hysterical ranting over the latest “majorly major evil thing” the GOP had done.
Llwddythlw Says:
May 10th, 2017 at 4:30 pm
In my opinion it’s the right decision, but the execution could have been more dignified. I was inspired on my walk to work this morning to write the following:
The former director James Comey,
Said, “Donald, you really don’t know me,
My blundered inspections,
Don’t change the elections,
But still, don’t you think that you owe me?”
* **
LOL.
But can you do it in cynghanedd??
Neo says Comey’s “was a departure from the FBI’s usual commitment to silence in cases where it chooses not to indict.”
parker caught that: The FBI NEVER INDICTS.
It is worth repeating.
Grand juries indict (or not), in response to a prosecutor’s presentation.
This is what my gut told me on October 27, 2016 and part of what I vented at a libertarian website at the time: (Given the months of dialogue here and the fact that many had reluctantly come to the decision to support Trump, I decided not to stir the pot with unsupported hunches.)
The man is dirty, big time. He’s in debt to the Russian mob at the very least. If it isn’t obvious to you yet, it will be should he get elected.
… the Russians are no strangers to the big lie. They are going full bore trying to influence this election. Here is just one article posted at zerohedge from part of their subversive propaganda machine. The Strategic Culture Foundation is a Russian front group.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/26/america-after-election-2016-gullible-and-shattered-i.html
Wikileaks is also a front for them, as is the traitor Snowden. I was completely taken in by him, because of my libertarian bent. He should be returned, tried, and if found guilty (as he most certainly is) executed.
The so-called alt-right that has wormed its way into the Trump campaign, has set up front websites like Conservative Treehouse (aka The Last Refuge) that are most likely being funded from Moscow. They are also heavily influencing Breitbart…
Assume that what I felt on October 27 is wrong, that Trump isn’t in partnership with Russian oligarchs, and that neither he nor any of his campaign support staff colluded with the Putin government. And then further assume that the investigations by congress will continue to search for evidence that doesn’t exist – yet.
to continue…
Do you see the terrible position that Trump is in? Because of the appearance of wrongdoing, he is wide open to Russian blackmail.
Vlad: My friend Donald, it would be unwise to continue provoking problems in Syria, and N. Korea, so unwise. What if documents surface that show you owe money to some of my friends? What if other documents appear at Wikileaks that purport to be conversations between Paul Manafort and me on how we can work together to defeat Ms. Clinton?
DJT: Yes, I see what you mean.
Trump has the right to ask for Director Comey’s resignation. He is an idiot to do it with so little respect and class. This kind of thing counts in government since people who may work for you are very attuned to your respect for them even if they are to be let go. Again DJT’s lack of experience in large organizations or in successful partnerships shows. One could say that if he had been less of an idiot he would not have lost the trust of the finance community and had to turn to Russian oligarchs.
Comey is a pathetic Drama Queen. Whatever his other virtues or faults, he deserved to be cast into the outer darkness for that alone.
AesopFan says:
But can you do it in cynghanedd??
***
I regret that my knowledge of the Welsh language is “Llareggub”. Writing limericks is therapeutic, and I’ve written quite a few about people who annoy me (Eric Holder, Obama, Barney Frank, Bashar Assad and sundry Iranians, to name a few).
The Other Chuck. – after nearly a year of three separate investigations, plus the three-year frantic effort by the MSM to discover some of that Russian dirt on Trump, nothing has been found. Occam’s Razor would suggest that there is nothing.
Trump’s financial statements are set forth in multi-hundred page detail on the Federal Election Commission website, so the media, the Congressional committees, and the FBI have all the information they need to track down who his investors and lenders are. But still nothing.
Trump’s actions in Syria, China, and elsewhere show that no such conversations ever had or will ever take place. I still have yet to hear a plausible reason that the Russians would prefer an unknown and probably truculent Trump to known pushover Hillary. Have you?
Besides, Chuck, there’s an old expression in business you obviously don’t know — “When you owe the bank $100 thousand, they own you. When you owe the bank $100 million, you own them.”
How much more so when it’s billions you owe!
Trump’s actions in Syria, China, and elsewhere show that no such conversations ever had or will ever take place.
Yes, actions totally at odds with Trump’s campaign positions. It’s almost as if he was forced to send those 59 Tomahawk missels into Syria to prove something. Ditto his sudden pivot to the now imminent danger of North Korea.
By their fruits you shall know them. I tend to look at that in generational outcomes, rather than election outcomes. Then again, I’m not like most other humans in evaluating perspectives.
Trum’s connections to Russia, if such exist, would go through his allies, the Alt Right, more than it would go through Trum’s business connections. His family was running most of his empire at one time, also.
This is similar to Eric’s hypothesis, but for intel analysis I tend not to jump to conclusions, because jumping to conclusions is an easy way to fall for Soviet disinformation.
“Comey is a pathetic Drama Queen. Whatever his other virtues or faults, he deserved to be cast into the outer darkness for that alone.” – DNW
If this is the standard, what does that mean for trump?