Gutless Firing of James Comey Pushes U.S. Into Constitutional Crisis

"You're fired, Comey! But I'm getting my bodyguard to do it for me by letter!"

Let's concede first that Donald Trump is an utter, loser coward. Rather than be man enough to face former FBI Director James Comey directly and explain his real reasons for his firing,  the prick used a surrogate (his bodyguard)  to deliver a signed letter to that effect. Before that, this weak- kneed character with the backbone of a jellyfish had his pawns in the DOJ including 'yes man' Rod Rosenstein (with supposedly "recused" Jeff Sessions' guidance) drafting a joke of a dismissal letter literally laden with diversionary balderdash.

The Trump firing letter read in part:

"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."

The reason, if you can believe it?  The dummies in the White House (including executive Dummy, Trump) claimed it was Comey's handling of Hillary Clinton's emails that caused them to "lose faith" in him, This was abetted by the DOJ letter from another human jellyfish, Rod Rosenstein. Those interested can read his letter in full here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767


MSNBC  legal specialist Ari Melber last night observed the "entire process is clearly suspect" and none of it passes the most basic smell test. We're expected to buy that a greenhorn, deputy AG (Rod Rosenstein)  comes into office and within 13 days is looking for a mid -term firing of the FBI Director? (This happened only once before, in 1993, and only after a full review by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility.)

And then, he conveys this missive - not in the typical DOJ format - e.g. through research memoranda with legal precedents cited, and formal citations but with a series of quotes from op-ed pieces and public remarks. In other words, invoking an amateurish style more apropos to a political campaign, indicating zero legal rigor or objective inquiry. The clumsy, superficial product could almost have been written by Steve Bannon or Jeff Sessions - who was Trump's numero uno cheerleader during the campaign.  In Melber's words, it "makes for concern because of the lack of separation of powers", i.e. as reflected in the modus operandi employed.   I agree. The whole thing smells like a set up, contrived through and through, to facilitate Trump's torpedoing of the FBI investigation into his Russian links.

So if you buy into the tripe that the reasons for Comey's firing truly were as stated by Trump, I have a plot of beach front land in Barbados to GIVE you for a Bajan buck. (Equal to $ 0.50  U.S.)

The reasons for further ultra-skepticism are not difficult to process:

1)  The timing. WHY NOW? Comey's ham-handed handling of HRC's emails has been known since July, then his October 28th fuckup too - which many believe cost Hillary the key votes to prevail - though this is up for some debate.  If Trump, Sessions etc. were so all -fired upset why not fire Comey right after his inauguration?  

The reason is simple: Comey hadn't yet stepped over the line to prove himself a dire threat to Trump. That occurred during Comey's appearance (on March 20) before the House Intelligence Committee.  Therein he dismissed Trump’s claim that he was wiretapped by his predecessor during the campaign.  Not only that, Comey  took the extraordinary step of announcing that the F.B.I. is investigating whether members of Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Make no mistake that Comey’s  acknowledgement had created a treacherous political moment for Trump, who had insisted that “Russia is fake news” that was cooked up by his political opponents to undermine his presidency.   To be succinct then, the March 20 appearance put James Comey in Trump's rifle sights.

2)  The fig leaf DOJ dismissal basis letter and Session's endorsement of it (a violation of his supposed recusing himself from the FBI investigation Comey cited) was not needed in any case because an active Inspector General's investigation was underway. So why not wait for it instead of hitting the chicken switch? Well, because former deputy AG Sally Yates appearance on Monday, along with former DNI James Clapper's referencing of how much foreign intel has been collected (via phone intercepts) on the Trumpies, sent the WH into hair on fire panic mode.

3) The combination of factors alerted Trump's reptilian brain stem it had to act and fast. The easiest response - which killed the most "birds" with one stone-  would be firing Comey. That would amount to an instant act of decapitation, not only of Comey but the FBI's investigation into the Trump-Russkie ties.  Using the ruse of Comey's mishandling of the Hillary email server also would come off - to a dumb media - of casting the Donald as a latter day changeling. Who now would strike down Hillary's tormentor and give Trump "brownie points" in so doing.

The problem, as The Financial Times' Edward Luce has pointed out, is it makes zero sense. In Luce's words:

"Mr. Trump is asking the US public to believe he 'terminated and removed'  the FBI director for having treated Mrs. Clinton unfairly. This was the same opponent whom Mr. Trump said should be locked up for mishandling her emails."

Why on earth then would the guy who incessantly called for Hillary's head during the campaign (via his "Lock her up!" mantra) now suddenly have a change of heart and wish to excavate some kind of personal sanction on her behalf?  Well uh no, any dummy could see it was merely a transparent ploy  to throw the media off with a smoke screen, where the real reason was to squelch Comey's FBI investigation. Trump, like Nixon with his firing of Archibald Cox, wanted the investigation going no further.

As historian Michael Beschloss put it this a.m. on 'Morning Joe', yes, a new FBI director might be up to the task but he'd first have to earn the nation's trust and also the trust of the Bureau itself - many of whom are literally in mourning now in the wake of Trump's cowardly act.

Further, a new FBI director - even if he was a forthright and courageous as Comey - would be hamstrung without a fully independent commission similar to the 9/11 commission (in the opinion of Michael Beschloss). Also, we'd need a special prosecutor, someone like Archibald Cox in the case of Watergate, who Richard Nixon then had fired in the "Saturday Night Massacre".

(On a side note, I have to reprimand the imps - like Bob Woodward-  insisting "this is not the same because Nixon didn't fire an FBI Director".  Whether Archibald Cox was an FBI Director is not the point. The point is that both Trump and Tricky Dick fired the heads of  investigations looking into their respective  nefarious deeds.)

That Saturday Night Massacre tilted toward a Constitutional crisis but it was averted because ultimately, it triggered the release of a series of highly incriminating Watergate tapes (betraying Nixon's scheming with Bob Haldeman et al) and led 11 Republicans to side with House Democrats to move for impeachment. Those Republicans were to be commended for turning against their Republican President because they found his actions indefensible.

The situation is different now because no Republicans seem willing to move forward with a real investigation into the Trump-Russian collusion or Trump's firing of the man leading the investigation into it.  Not enough Republicans are prepared to find Trump's actions indefensible - especially the latest - on top of threatening the press, also threatening the judicial branch.  This means the normal checks and balances that should be operative, i.e. to keep a felonious executive in check, are not functioning.

This bespeaks a full Constitutional crisis for which the only way out will be House Dems and Republicans closing ranks - at least to set up a formal independent commission (following Beschloss' advice) and also enabling a Special Prosecutor.

Let's hope enough Republicans find their backbones soon, and are prepared to find a litany of Trump's actions indefensible, not just this latest acting out. If not, I fear the future of this country will not be secure or sustained.

Blogger Chris Floyd's words here are relevant:

"Trump has actually been pretty open about his desire to be such an autocratic figure, and of course his vizier Bannon is even more candid about his desire to "destroy the administrative state" and build a new, nationalist order. We're not just through the looking glass these days -- we've shattered it to pieces and are rocketing into the unknown at a thousand miles an hour."

That "unknown" marks a total fascist state and our Constitution becoming "just a piece of paper". Will it happen? We will have to do all in our power to ensure it doesn't but that also entails our representatives acting to uphold and defend the Constitution. If my Revolutionary War ancestor Conrad Brumbaugh were alive now, he'd enjoin them to place country over party and he'd implore the agents of the FBI to use James Comey's firing as motivation to push ever more aggressively forward in their ongoing investigation.


Update:

The news tonight that three days before his firing FBI Director James Comey had asked for more resources in his investigation of the Trump -Russia connections, instantly puts the kibosh on the lame BS spouted by Trump that Comey was fired for "not doing a good job".  In addition, well placed sources noted Trump was highly agitated that Comey continued to pursue the collusion aspect as opposed to focusing on leaks.  Like the fool he is Trump never foresaw the firestorm that would erupt by his impetuous action. Now, even his agenda and that of the GOP is derailed, which is a good thing for the rest of us. .

Acting AG Sally Yates Merits Kudos For Defying BLOTUS

Two years ago it was Sen. Jeff Sessions who grilled Sally Yates on her ability to be impartial, asking:

"If the views the President wishes to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or deputy attorney general say 'no'"?

Yates didn't hesitate in answering:  "Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and give their independent legal advice to the President".

This is, in fact, exactly  what Sally Yates did, but it was ignored - after Trump's unlawful "EO" created vast chaos and irreparable harm, leading her to take the action she did.

Millions of us who lived through Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" - when he fired two attorneys general (who refused to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox) - were shocked and horrified when BLOTUS Trump fired Sally Yates last night. What did Ms. Yates do to deserve such ignominious treatment?    According to the Trumpistas, she told justice department lawyers not to defend his executive order banning entry for people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

As I wrote in two previous posts, this was quite correct as none of these so-called "executive orders" has any force of law behind them, having not been properly vetted. Worse, the content clearly is in violation of the Constitution, including equal protection under the law and the establishment of religion clause. Ms Yates saw these violations clearly and acted upon them, as a principled person charged with impartial justice would.

But Trump's gaggle of Nazis, especially Steve Bannon,  didn't see it that way. They  said Sally Yates had “betrayed” the department by refusing to enforce a legal order that was “designed to protect the citizens of the United States”.  Of course this is balderdash, because Trump's scrap sheet decree framed as an "executive order" was unlawful,  carrying no weight, none.  Bannon and the other assholes who drafted it and fired it off didn't even bother to do a modicum of cross- department vetting to ensure it was doable and consistent with existing practices.  Because of this they had to walk back the green card aspect, i.e. initially denying entry to legal green card holders.  Even Iraqis who had helped U.S. troops were included in the insane ban, as well as an Iraqi general fighting ISIS.  As some military experts have put it, this is sheer "insanity" when we need Iraqis to help root out ISIS. 

Nor did Bannon and his fellow reprobates have the sense to alert the affected agencies (e.g. Homeland Security) before releasing it so they could at least get their operations in synch. No, they just dropped the hammer, forcing agencies to cope with the thousands of suddenly affected travelers - including Harvard professors, students, doctors - one from Cleveland Clinic - on the fly. Again, sheer insanity.

Thus, this act of Bannon-Trump's discloses they do not believe in judicial independence and insist the DOJ become their political pet to interject and impose wanton, lawless policy. The very nature of the language used, e.g. "betrayed", indicates this - when Ms, Yates was following the historical and principled position of DOJ independence from political influence.

This is evocative of the Reich Courts which replaced the normal Weimar judiciary during Hitler's reign. Hitler  - like Trump now - insisted and demanded "loyalty" from his judiciary to thereby enact his Reich laws (e.g. which enabled seizing Jewish property)  so well described in many books, such as Konrad Heiden's, 'The Fuhrer'.   My point is that when an independent judiciary is quashed it should be the first sign of impending tyranny to vigilant citizens.

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, on MSNBC last night, offered this view, when asked 'how big a deal it was to fire the acting attorney general over this issue'':

"I think it's historic. It certainly reminded me immediately of the Saturday night massacre. One of the main differences is how quickly this has happened with the Trump presidency. It's like history is being collapsed into a black hole and everything is happening faster than the speed of light. It seems to me that because the Sessions nomination is already controversial, because the executive order really challenges who we are as Americans and violates important parts of the Constitution - including the clause forbidding an establishment of religion  - including the many protests against this president, I think this is an important turning point in our history.

I think tonight is part of that extraordinary moment we are living through. "

When next asked if it was right for Trump to relieve Ms. Yates of her job, and replace her, Prof. Tribe responded:

"The President had a choice. He could have arranged for the appointment of a special counsel to defend his position even when the Justice Department wouldn't. There are certain limited cases in our own recent history where the Department of Justice was unwilling to defend a particular law and congress appointed someone to defend it. In this case, it wasn't a law that was an issue but an executive order, the president might have arranged through the White House counsel's office to have his order defended. But for him to turn the Justice Department - because of this discharge- into part of his fiefdom and compromise its independence suggests that he has no commitment to the institutional integrity of the department we rely on to represent the rule of law. And not simply the rule or whim of the president of the United States,"

Note carefully first Prof. Tribe's distinction of a law (e.g. settled law) from executive order. Note also that as opposed to his reckless and tyrannical act of firing Ms. Yates, he had other options. Namely getting his own counsel to defend his order, and even better, make the full case that it comports with the constitution. But this he did not do! Authoritarian narcissist that he is, he insisted conformity of the DOJ with his personal, unlawful decrees and hence making the DOJ "part of his fiefdom"  to quote Professor Tribe.

If we as a nation can't see anything seriously wrong with this, we are beyond hope. However, I am convinced the spreading protests show that enough citizens are aware and are  not prepared to initiate or allow another version of Hitler's Reich Court.

For perspective here, as the country’s top law enforcement official, Ms. Yates  had control over the justice department’s immigration litigation office, which has handled the federal complaints filed against Trump’s order since his bombshell policy was announced on Friday. As she made clear in a letter to justice department lawyers :

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

The acting AG's action earned praise from immigration activists and Democrats but within three hours Ms Yates was gone. A propaganda statement from press secretary Sean Spicer's  office
said:

“Ms Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.”

Of course, this is nonsense only meant to distract from the political basis for the firing. As I noted in the last post, Mike Morrell - former CIA deputy director- noted the ban is purely for show and didn't  get at the core problem. In his words:

"I think the order is going to make the threat worse. It is going to make us less safe. First of all, the biggest problem we face is home-grown terrorism.  Of the roughly hundred people who've been indicted for Isis -related crimes over the last three years, eighty five percent were American citizens. This doesn't get at that at all.... It doesn't make the danger any less and it's playing right into the Isis narrative that it's a war against Islam. So this is going to be a recruitment boon for Isis."

Morrell also exposed the blatant Trump lie that these nations were on Obama's hit list. In fact not. They were really part of a program to enhance the security of a visa-waiver program for people traveling from European countries. So the Trump bunch effectively enhanced and 'weaponized' a nominal visa waiver program.

After firing Ms. Yates. Bannon-Trump drafted Dana Boente to take her place. What we know is that he is the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, and also an Obama appointee.

A White House statement quoted Boente as saying: “I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected.”

This may well be a more or less accurate statement. The not so sanguine news this  a.m. (CBS) is that Mr. Boente has ordered the DOJ to comply with Bannon-Trump's "order".   Well, there may be limits to adhering to principles and demonstrating courage in these difficult times. Look how the asshole Sean Spicer even threatened over 100 State Dept. employees even after they used the Dissent Channel - which by law makes them immune to political  threats.

In the meantime, after this new insult, the Democrats must go full ballistic on Trump's nominees including Jeff Sessions. Any Dems voting for these nominees, OR who go against a filibuster for Trump's Supreme Court pick, will be listed by name as Vichy Democrats (collaborators) on this blog. Everyone, from every sphere or occupation, must now grasp the seriousness of the national situation. We are approaching a constitutional crisis because of the extremists now running the country and there will be no peace, no relaxation no cessation of dissent until they are neutralized or removed.

See also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/president-bannon.html?_r=0

And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/henry-giroux/70955/democracy-in-exile-and-the-curse-of-totalitarianism