On Tuesday, very suddenly, the president fired the FBI director. Because James Comey - a very highly regarded former prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General, and Republican - was in charge of the investigation into untoward contact between members of Trump's campaign and Russian officials, there is predictable outrage. Not only has the president fired someone who was investigating people close to him, but he will also appoint Comey's replacement, who will presumably head the contintuing investigation. One needn't be a conspiracy theorist to see an obvious conflict of interest.
Two aspects of the situation in particular stand out. The first one is the truly extraordinary cynicism in the justification the administration has provided for the move. It was said that Comey was fired because of his refusal to acknowledge the "nearly universal judgment" that his handling of the Clinton email investigation was flawed, and that he could not inspire the confidence of public or administration.
Notice the shiftiness of the wording. Hardcore Trump supporters will see Comey being punished for what they view as an inexcusable failure to prosecute Clinton. In public, the administration can shield itself behind criticism of the unusual press conference Comey held to announce the results of his investigation (at which he thoroughly criticised Clinton). Democrats have repeatedly castigated his handling of the investigation and subsequent two-day reopening of it just before the election. The administration will now point to those complaints and pretend to be defending the institutional integrity of the FBI.
The second striking aspect of the whole situation is that Comey himself found out by reading a television monitor while giving a speech in Los Angeles. The Director of the FBI found out that he had been fired from cable news. That betrays an utter contempt for the organs of goverment outside of the White House on the part of this administration, and makes their protestations about defending the FBI as an institution laughable. As a rule, if you hold a position of sufficient importance to be fired personally by the President of the United States, you are yourself important enough to be informed about that decision before CNN.
As Comey himself said, it is true that the president has the right to fire the director of the FBI for any reason at any time. Yet reports coming out about Trump's thinking on the issue are disturbing. Trump was upset about "leaks" coming from the bureau, and angry at Comey's "disoyalty" in flatly contradicting his demonstrably false assertion that President Obama had ordered personal surveillance on him. We have a president who says obviously untrue things and is furious when the head of the country's most prestigious law enforcement organization refuses to share his delusion.
The use of terms is illustrative. If Trump was alarmed at a breach of his constitutional rights and an unconscionable abuse of power by the previous administration and he saw the FBI refusing to take it seriously, he might have used words like "negligence" or "dereliction of duty." Instead he chose "disloyalty." Comey's cardinal sin for Trump wasn't a breach of principle or inability to function in his post. It was not agreeing with the president. Instead of appreciating someone willing to speak truth to him, Trump revels in sycophancy and regards contradiction as betrayal. The emperor doesn't want to know he's naked.
Beyond that, the disrespect shown to the public in the propaganda war over the firing would be depressing if it hadn't become so commonplace already. The administration has pretended that the Clinton investigation was the rationale for firing Comey (it wasn't) and that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recommended the decision (he didn't, he was brought in to provide a justification for a decision that had already been made). In fact, Rosenstein has already threatened to resign over having his name pushed as part of a false narrative to deflect blame from Trump himself.
The Democrats, in my view, have already made a number of political mistakes in their handling of the situation. Their first instinct was to call unanimously for a special prosecutor appointed by the congress to deal with the Russia investigation, because of the obvious conflicts with Trump appointing someone who will do so. With a few exceptions, Republicans have yet again clung to Trump and defended him. The Democrats' intemperate criticism of Comey during the election exposes them to the charges of hypocrisy levelled by the White House.
By focusing on Russia, they are allowing this to become yet one more partisan issue where it is easy for people to walk to their respective corners and shout at each other. Every time this happens, the stakes of the partisan warfare are raised and the prospects for healing some of our national divides diminish. As important as the Russia investigation is, the misuse of the Presidency is for me far more immediate and alarming. If the director of the FBI can go down for calling out one of Trump's many falsehoods, it's hard to imagine an executive branch official who would be immune from such treatment.
This all points directly to an executive branch that is increasingly ruled by compliance. Career accomplishments, ability, and tenure are of secondary importance to an individual who prizes loyalty and agreement above all else. Not only is this a recipe for very bad government, it directly enhances the already excessive personal authority of the president. It is up to Congress and the courts to limit that authority, and thus far only the courts have shown a willingness to do so.
Whether a breaking point will come where Congress finally sees the need to check a president of the same party I do not pretend to know. With each fresh provocation it seems less likely that anything could shake their complacency. What we can count on is that until and unless he is checked by something Trump will continue to regard the executive branch of government as his personal despotism. To anyone who respects and values the separation of powers and representative government, that should be cause for concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment