They won’t need to do any of that. I think Senator Lindsey Graham already tipped his hand when he commented about Comey’s handling of the fake Russian emails. I think Comey has been a basically honest broker in trying to work through the GOP’s attempts to politicize the military and DoJ but he did commit some unforced errors in handling these situations, which has upset both parties. The GOP is going to put the focus on Comey’s errors and try to drift away from the probe and his firing itself. I suspect that those who are hoping for Trump’s Waterloo are going to walk away feeling disappointed. The same number of people will want Trump impeached and the same number of people will defend him, no matter what is said on Thursday.
And the president could then fire every single one of them. There might be political consequences of doing so, but that’s true of everything the president does. However, I doubt he’d find any resistance to quashing the Pizza Parlor Investigation since that investigation, itself, would have been a blatant politicization of the FBI’s authority. Your vision allows unchecked corruption to exist in the FBI. Sort of like the good old days of J Edgar himself.
If a hypothetical president Clinton shut that down, it would be absolutely wrong and make me believe that there is actually something to it. No reason to shut down a probe into something that you didn’t do, and if the FBI saw fit to investigate and Clinton shut it down, it would be obstruction of justice.
We could argue about that, but since that is not what Bob was talking about, it would be pointless. Bob said “Sitting in the Oval Office does not entitle one to shut down any investigation”, emphasis added. I agree that the president trying to interfere with an investigation concerning him/her is fraught with problems. And I agree that, in general, the prez should not inject himself into an FBI investigation. I just don’t agree that the prez can never do so, nor do I agree that he doesn’t have the authority to do so.
In which case, your argument is little more than a legal technicality that carefully ignores whether an action is worthy or valid?
Ibid
Prior public statements may preclude the president from doing so at will under the law.
I would say sitting in the oval office does not entitle one to shut down any investigation that includes one’s self in any way.
The Constitution is silent on the issue, which is unsurprising given that the Department of Justice did not exist until 1870 and no federal agency was authorized to perform formal investigations until the establishment of the National Bureau of Criminal Identification in 1897. (The US Marshals Service has existed since 1789 but it was primarily an enforcement agency directed by the federal courts and involved in fugitive recovery in US territories and other extra-state level operations, and more recently, asset forfeiture and witness protection.) The President may very well be legally able to suspect or halt investigations by executive order, and Congress would have to resort to passing a law authorizing the application of an independent counsel or prosecutor to perform investigation under Congressional oversight, which is an “implied” power of the legislative branch. A legal challenge against an arbitrary dismissal or order to halt an investigation, on the other hand, would throw the decision to the judiciary, which has broad powers in investigating and rendering decisions regarding executive authority.
Donald Trump, of course, feels that he is entitled to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the Constitution (which he most certainly has not read) directs or implies, and would be pleased to ignore the “so-called” judiciary and Congressional investigators entirely, and may do so until someone holds his feet to the fire.
Stranger
What do you mean by “entitle”? Are you saying he should’t or that the can’t, legally? If the latter, I’ll need to see a cite for that.
So, I’m reading that ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox will all have live coverage of Comey’s testimony? When I saw the news of ABC and CBS, I thought maybe it was too much hype, would be boring to a lot of people, and would blow up in their faces (or liberal faces) if nothing so sever that the GOP would be compelled to act came of it. Then saw that NBC and Fox were covering it, too. I was surprised. I do kind of wonder if they know/expect something big might happen, though. Here’s hoping.
In other news: Russian hacking - at this point talking about voter rolls rather than votes, I think. Also, the leaker has seemingly already been arrested.
They don’t have to think something big will happen. They just need to think that people will watch. When Michael Jackson died, we had a live feed of his driveway for hours and hours, and nothing happened.
I think you’re right: these may well be questions that will be asked.
I would also like to see questions asked Comey about claims that Trump made about him, in the May 11 interview Trump did with NBC’s Lester Holt:
Comey should be asked: “was the President’s claim accurate–*did *you request to have dinner with him?” and “was the claim that you stated or otherwise communicated to the President that you ‘wanted to stay on’ as FBI Director, an accurate claim?”
Comey’s responses would be of interest to many.
Trump lies again. Movie at 11.
Stranger
I’m not getting why those are interesting questions. So what if Trump was wrong about that? He can just claim that that was the way he remembered things, and that’s that. I mean, he even qualified one of those claims with “I think…”. “I think he did X” genially means you’re not 100% sure.
All they have to do is get big ratings. That’s the one thing that’ll send Trump off the rails.
He gets the BIGGEST ratings. Terrific ratings!!!
The reason to ask them is to put on the record that Trump’s claims about conversations he had with Comey are false and fictional. (Recall that one of the main issues being addressed in the Thursday hearing is the topic of those very conversations: whose recollections are more credible?)
Everyone knows that it’s highly unlikely that Comey would have told Trump that he “wanted to stay on” (in Trump’s words)–the FBI Directorship has a ten-year term, which was not nearing its end, and no FBI Director has to ask any President if he can “stay on.” This is even aside from the unlikelihood of someone with Comey’s personality traits asking a President if that President will let him stay on in the directorship.
The unlikelihood that Trump’s claims are true have direct relevance to the weight that should be placed on Comey’s own claim (that Trump asked him to minimize or curtail the Russia/Flynn investigation).
The problem with that is that Trump’s likely ignorance of an FBI director’s term set by federal statute is that his own ignorance and assumption about the situation vis-a-vis Comey’s continued tenure is such that it could be offered as an equally likely explanation for his account besides Trump lying.
Comey has certainly made some recent questionable actions and statements in 2016 both for and against Hillary, but his record as a long-standing civil servant and his integrity don’t seem to be much in question. That seems to be one of the many reasons why his testimony is so eagerly awaited - because it will likely be true. Proving Trump to be a liar is not necessary to establish that whatever account Comey gives is trustworthy.
The problem is, people don’t know what to think. Look, I think Trump’s guilty as hell of obstruction and collusion, but even so, there’s no smoking gun and I doubt that’ll be revealed on Thursday. There will probably be a lot of “I don’t know” and I can’t answer that." Conversely, I expect GOP senators are going to grill Comey – they have to in order to be able to tell Trumpists in their home states that they fought the good fight.
The thing I worry about here is, if this hearing turns out to be a nothing burger or an event in which the tables are turned on Comey, then Trump could conceivably win a big-time PR coup. Everyone then walks away and says “What’s the truth? Will we ever know?” As incredible as it seems, a lot of people wonder why they should care about Russia. But this is serious, serious stuff here. When people can break the law and then gaslight the electorate and institutions designed to hold them accountable…that’s a ticket to authoritarian rule.