I have no doubt that if the tapes exists, it will contain Comey saying something like, “We are not focusing solely on you; we are examining the whole Russian situation”, which Trump will think means, “You are an angelic creature, free from sin. The Russian thing is just a Democratic hoax because they are jealous of your manhood.”
Man, if Republican faces didn’t melt when they heard Trump refer to tapes, I don’t think there’s any hope for them. That was your Warning Sign, guys. Start looking for your exit strategy, now.
This may be a bit of a drive-by comment on my part, but the Rosenstein memo ends with: “As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.”
I’ve seen that spun elsewhere as not actually a recommendation that Comey be replaced, but really? It’s about as explicit as you can be. (Unless you think Rosenstein is suggesting that it would be acceptable for the FBI to lack public and congressional trust).
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb), someone who I have a moderate amount of respect for, was on NPR this morning. He said that if Trump was hoping to derail the Russia investigation, replacing Comey with an FBI lifer, who happens to be a Democrat, was a really bad way to do it.
The problem is: I think Trump is just that stupid, that he thinks removing Comey was a smart and effective move.
Once again - the current acting FBI director is only there for a short time. He will be replaced by a Trump-appointed interim FBI director (for which there is no Senate confirmation requirement) and then, when Senate confirms, by a new confirmed FBI director.
Just because something is true doesn’t mean that it’s recommended. “The world will not be safe until all our nation’s give up all arms and right to warfare.” It’s a true statement, but it doesn’t mean that I think the US should, today, take such an action.
Rosenstein makes a statement of fact, but leaves it in a vacuum. He does not discuss the cons. He does not say wether now is the time. He simply makes an observation that floats softly in the air, unconnected to anything in the real world. It is, to be sure, an argument for firing Comey. But it is not a policy statement by any means.
I’ll grant that in every day, conversational usage of English there’s no such distinction. But for a lawyer, there’s several miles of wiggle room between what he wrote and a recommendation.
This argument about whether it’s technically a recommendation or not seems like a meaningless one, to me. Rosenstein was ordered by Trump to write up a memo justifying firing the guy. He wrote the memo. In that context, he wasn’t producing an independent memo, saying that the opinion of Rosenstein is that Comey should be fired. He was just saying that if Trump wanted to fire Comey, these were the grounds that he could use.
It’s just a lawyer producing a post facto legal justification for a client.
**Mr. Comey did brief Ranking Member Feinstein and me on who the targets of the various investigations are. ** It would not be appropriate for me to reveal those details before the professionals conducting the investigations are ready. So, I will not answer any questions about who are targets of the ongoing Russia investigations. But I will say this: Shortly after Director Comey briefed us, I tweeted that he should be transparent. I said he should tell the public what he told Senator Feinstein and me about whether the FBI is or is not investigating the President.
On Tuesday, the President’s letter said that Director Comey told him he was not under investigation. Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s statement. Now Mr. Comey is no longer the FBI director. But the FBI should still follow my advice. It should confirm to the public whether it is or is not investigating the President. Because it has failed to make this clear, speculation has run rampant.
…and for Comey to comment on that briefing, by confirming who was or was not a target of investigation, would be a violation of FBI practice and standards.
Besides: perhaps Trump’s statement is literally true – that the FBI investigation is focused on Paul Manfort, Roger Stone and Carter Page; that they don’t think Trump personally got on the phone and said “hack the DNC, dump the results to Wikileaks, and I’ll lift the sanctions.” But his minions did just that.
The President has said exactly what I and others have posited as an alternate to the idea that he wanted to derail the investigation. He doesn’t believe that there is anything to the story, he’s unhappy that it’s taking time to show that (he thinks the Director was incompetent in part because that’s not been done yet), and his comment “And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, …” is not an indication to the contrary.
Deputy AG gets confirmed, and settles in to office around May 1.
Shortly thereafter, he talks with Director Comey.
Within a week, he develops the opinion that the Director’s actions last year were bad, and have impacted morale at the department. The Director’s continued refusal to see what he did as wrong (see last week’s testimony) shows that things aren’t going to change.
Deputy AG mentions this while visiting the White House on Monday with the AG.
Unbeknownst to him, the President has spent the weekend deciding to fire Comey. Someone who is in the know hears what the Deputy AG has said about Comey, and gets him to meet with the President.
The Deputy AG tells the President his opinions about what Comey has done and is doing. The President says, “Great, do me a favor, write that up in a memo, please.”
The Deputy AG does that, and forwards same to the AG, who passes it on to the WH with his own commentary.
The President attaches the memo to the letter firing Comey.
Now, the memo does not make an actual recommendation about firing Comey (the AG’s letter does). However, no rational person can read the last paragraph and not conclude that the Deputy AG was suggesting that he be fired.
Doesn’t matter what he thinks, he has no right to interfere with any investigation. Even if he thinks he’s 100% innocent, he has no right to do anything other than cooperate. And he’s flat out wrong. It’s not an investigation into “Trump and Russia,” it’s an investigation into Russian activities during the election. Even if his campaign is 100% innocent, which is impossible for him to know, he has no right to interfere.