President Drumpf has surprised many by his action to fire FBI Director James Comey, based in part on a recommendation from Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. The reasons for the action, as with many actions by the sitting President are convoluted and contradictory. The Assistant Attorney General stated in a letter that the firing was justified by Comey's mishandling of the Clinton "E-mail Investigation" in which Russian agents hacked the email accounts of Clinton's campaign and released information. Specifically, the allegations point to his public discussion of the status of the FBI investigation, and an alleged "find" of thousands of e-mails for further inquiry. Oddly, at the time, this action was sharply criticized for multiple reasons. First, it violated FBI policy of not publicly commenting on investigations. Second, the announcement was made when the FBI had not even reviewed the e-mails to determine whether they were any different from those previously reviewed, and upon which a decision to close the investigation had been made. The timing of this "bombshell" about reopening the investigation indisputably affected the election, even if no one can say precisely to what degree. That conduct probably justified removal of Comey at the time, but President Obama chose not to do so, probably fearing further disruption and interference with the national electoral process. President Drumpf certainly had the opportunity to replace Comey immediately upon taking office, if he actually believed that Comey's removal was justified for that stated reason. Such a move would have provided positive political optics for Drumpf, claiming to root out bureaucratic misconduct (even if it helped him), but he was too busy being defensive about losing the popular vote to see the larger political landscape. Instead, Drumpf publicly praised Comey who, in both fact and perception, contributed to intentional disruption and influenced the election.
The current "firestorm" is not really about whether Comey was justifiably removed from office. The controversy, instead, rests in the timing and related circumstances surrounding the firing. It is a fair question whether the termination was based upon a desire to slow down, if not sabotage, the FBI investigation into communications, ties and potential collusion between the Drumpf Campaign and Russian agents related to influencing the election or establishment of inappropriate connections with the Drumpf business organizations and Drumpf's Administration. That is a far more credible explanation than a termination for arbitrarily announcing an investigation on the eve of election, an announcement that helped Drumpf get elected. This gets complicated because the recommendation to discharge Comey was pressed by Sessions, who had to recuse himself because of dishonesty in failing to disclose his own dealings with Russian agents while an adviser to the Drumpf Campaign. The implicit motive for firing Comey is precisely the reason Sessions has to recuse himself. Moreover, it is very doubtful that any nominee to fill the FBI Director post, at this time, could establish or restore credibility that the FBI can conduct a thorough and objective investigation of Russian meddling in US elections.
Presently, because of an unfortunate choice by Democrats to remove the filibuster for most appointments, there is no significant obstacle to the President appointing anyone willing to do his bidding, or at least bend to his will (express or implied) regarding investigation into Russian interference. Pronouncements by GOP senators that any appointee will be "thoroughly vetted" is about as credible as the President's explanation for terminating Comey. It does not pass what some call the "snicker test." [When statement is made, can everyone in hearing range refrain from laughing]. Democrats have renewed calls for an independent investigation and prosecutor, but such calls are likely to be impotent because the GOP would seek to control the scope and pace of the investigation and tidy up after an uncontrollable and inept Drumpf Administration that continues with repeated and inexplicable gaffes. Thus, prospects for finding out the true extent of Russian interference and Drumpf Campaign collusion are likely to unfold only in history book recounts, if at all.
The closest analogy to this action would probably be the firing of Elliot Richardson by former President Nixon when he would not agree to sabotage the Watergate investigation. While some distinctions exist, they are not very substantial, particularly when evidence has surfaced about Russian connections with the election campaign related information hacking and release. There is a very substantial distinction between then and now, even though Drumpf is unpopular with many GOP in Congress as was Nixon.The resulting impeachment of Nixon was supported by GOP members of Congress who had the character and sense of responsibility to country and Constitution to stand up and refuse to allow Nixon to bully and intimidate the investigative process, to cover up his involvement in Watergate. The US public also had a higher respect for the nation and its citizens, and apparently believed that a standard of ethics should apply to holders of higher office. Those conditions may exist to some degree now, but their existence is not clearly manifest. Indeed, the number of citizens who would dissemble and rationalize the conduct of the current Administration, primarily because it holds power and not because its actions are logically or ethically defensible, is remarkable.
The Comey discharge is currently at best a spark, a potential catalyst. Whether that spark can become a flame that puts heat on the current Administration and ultimately sheds light on Russian directed or sponsored meddling in US elections. remains to be seen.
