Shit just got realer.
President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey is a shocking and fast-moving story; it’s less than a day old at this point. So, first, a general observation, in the name of orienting ourselves, and providing a dose of context (if not necessarily reassuring context): it’s almost uncanny how the Trump administration is proceeding along the lines of incompetence and authoritarian threat that his opponents during the election warned about. Who would have thought that Trump would fire the FBI director months into office, on grounds that are obviously a lie, positioning himself to appoint an ally into this extremely powerful law enforcement role? As shocking as it is, it’s also not surprising for many people, given what we observed about the man during the endless 2016 campaign.
The most salient fact is that Comey was in charge of an investigation into whether Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to support Trump’s election as president of the United States; in firing Comey, Trump has directly interfered with this investigation. The Trump administration, not surprisingly, does not want us to see the bigger context, and instead is focusing on a specific, narrow storyline about Comey’s firing. A big part of the pushback is to defer to the memos Trump’s termination letter to Comey cited in support of the firing: these memos, written by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, essentially make the case for why Comey should not be the FBI Director. But as is being furiously unpacked here and elsewhere, the reasons they provide don’t make sense.
The incoherence starts with the fact that the stated reasons contradict Trump’s own prior praise for Comey. The memo from Rosenstein criticizes Comey’s disparagement of Clinton when announcing that no charges would be brought against her in the email investigation, as well as Comey’s announcement of re-opening the Clinton investigation days before the election. As we can all recall, both of these actions by Comey were wildly celebrated and amplified by Trump, who used them to further his argument that Hilary Clinton was a criminal who should be locked up. The idea that these are now firing offenses for a Donald Trump concerned with the FBI’s image and objectivity requires us all to forget recent history.
Then there’s Trump’s actual letter to Comey, which contains a remarkable non sequitur that may turn out to be something of a smoking gun. Apropos of nothing, Trump writes, “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau” [emphasis added]. This feels very much like Trump trying to lodge into the public record what Comey allegedly told him, as a way of asserting his innocence regarding such investigations, as well as trying to provide cover against suspicions that personal animus led Trump to fire Comey — after all, Trump is grateful to Comey!
But the lack of context is eye-catching, and decisively so when the investigation of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign is the number one suspect for why Trump fired Comey. Trump’s line becomes more significant still when basic logic says that the ongoing investigation might still implicate Donald Trump, even if he is not currently under investigation. This adds to the overall circumstantial sense that Trump is attempting to freeze the Russia investigation while he still can, before anything leads back to him. Finally, the logic of its inclusion falters under the fact that Trump is essentially firing Comey for his incompetence: if Comey can’t be trusted to lead the FBI, how can Trump trust his comments about the president not being under investigation?
There have been reports that Donald Trump decided on firing Comey a week ago, at which point he set his team at finding a rationale to fire him. This is another way of saying that Trump has a reason to fire Comey that he does not want to share publicly. The Russia investigation is the most probable one: but even if it’s not, the fact that Donald Trump doesn’t want to disclose his real motivation for firing Comey, and is covering it with a lie, is very disturbing. At any rate, this story from Politico provides more circumstantial evidence that Trump’s concerns about the Russia investigation were the prime motivator.
Trump is acting like a cornered animal; he has something to hide, and he’s not afraid to aggrandize his own power in order to protect himself. As we are reminded here, Trump sees the government as an extension of himself — he even sent his long-time personal bodyguard to hand-deliver Comey’s termination letter, a touch that is both creepy and telling of how Trump conceived of this firing in deeply personal terms. The Republican Party has so far acted as his co-conspirator, and it is naive to think that they will suddenly back down, when that means opening up the president to even greater scrutiny, with impeachment or resignation as possible outcomes. But if Trump thinks he can get away with this transparently self-serving firing, what’s to stop him from setting his sights even higher, such as appointing a dedicated ally in the traditionally non-partisan role of FBI director?
And breaking just now — a story from the New York Times that only days ago, Comey asked for an expansion of the Russia investigation. Who did he ask, you wonder? Rod Rosenstein, the deputy AG who just helped fire him.
