WaPo | It is true, as I pointed out in a Post op-ed in October,
that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, after her tarmac meeting with
Bill Clinton, had left a vacuum by neither formally recusing herself nor
exercising supervision over the case. But the remedy for that was for
Comey to present his factual findings to the deputy attorney general,
not to exercise the prosecutorial power himself on a matter of such
grave importance.
Until Comey’s testimony last week,
I had assumed that Lynch had authorized Comey to act unilaterally. It
is now clear that the department’s leadership was sandbagged. I know of
no former senior Justice Department official — Democrat or Republican —
who does not view Comey’s conduct in July to have been a grave
usurpation of authority.
Comey’s
basic misjudgment boxed him in, compelling him to take increasingly
controversial actions giving the impression that the FBI was enmeshed in
politics. Once Comey staked out a position in July, he had no choice on
the near-eve of the election but to reopen the investigation when new
evidence materialized. Regrettably, however, this performance made Comey
himself the issue, placing him on center stage in public political
discourse and causing him to lose credibility on both sides of the
aisle. It was widely recognized that Comey’s job was in jeopardy
regardless of who won the election.
It is not surprising that
Trump would be inclined to make a fresh start at the bureau and would
consult with the leadership of the Justice Department about whether
Comey should remain. Those deliberations could not begin in earnest
until the new deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey
would report, was confirmed and in a position to assess Comey and his
performance. No matter how far along the president was in his own
thinking, Rosenstein’s assessment is cogent and vindicates the
president’s decision.
Rosenstein made clear in his memorandum
that he was concerned not so much with Comey’s past arrogation of
power, as astonishing as it was, but rather with his ongoing refusal to
acknowledge his errors. I do not dispute that Comey sincerely believes
he acted properly in the best interests of the country. But at the same
time, I think it is quite understandable that the administration would
not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his
powers.
It is telling that none of the president’s critics are
challenging the decision on the merits. None argue that Comey’s
performance warranted keeping him on as director. Instead, they are
attacking the president’s motives, claiming the president acted to
neuter the investigation into Russia’s role in the election.
The
notion that the integrity of this investigation depends on Comey’s
presence just does not hold water. Contrary to the critics’ talking
points, Comey was not “in charge” of the investigation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment