White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders assured the media yesterday that there was nothing inappropriate with President Donald Trump asking former FBI Director James Comey if he was a target of the ongoing investigation over Russian influence or collusion in the presidential election. She insisted that the White House had reached out to legal experts and “several legal scholars who have weighed in on it and said there’s nothing wrong with it.” She also said that “many legal scholars and others that have been commenting on it for the last hour.” While I cannot speak for all legal scholars, I find it surprising that the White House could find “several” who would sign off on such an inquiry. It was clearly improper for Trump to ask the question and it would have been equally improper for Comey to answer in this fashion.
To make matters worse, Sanders said that, by removing Comey, the White House hoped to bring the investigation to a sooner conclusion. In her defense, I took her comment as meaning that the White House has nothing to fear from the investigation and wants it to come to a conclusion: “We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity. And we think that we’ve actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen.” However, it was another uniquely ham-handed treatment of the controversy from a White House that continues to struggle with maintaining a single coherent message. The overwhelming thrust of the coverage of the Comey termination was that it was meant to bring an end to the Russian investigation. To connect the firing of Comey with the hope for a faster conclusion to the investigation is incredibly daft.
The issue came up after an interview of Trump with “NBC Nightly News” on Thursday. Trump said he asked ousted Director James Comey three times once over dinner and twice on the phone to confirm that he was not a target or under investigation by the FBI. To make matters worse, Trump said that Comey asked for a private dinner in an effort to keep his job. (Trump later said that he “thought” the dinner was Comey’s idea). Trump portrayed Comey as campaigning to keep his job at the very dinner that the President decided to ask him for an assurance that he was not a target of the investigation. Trump told Lester Holt:
“He wanted to have dinner because he wanted to stay on…he wanted to stay on as the FBI head. And I said I’ll, you know, consider and we’ll see what happens. And at that time he told me you are not under investigation.”
If Comey did give these assurances, he is not the professional that I have long taken him for. There is no way to know where this investigation will go. I have publicly criticized over-wrought coverage suggesting that Comey was fired because the investigation was “getting too close” to Trump. Indeed, I have repeatedly asked for precisely the crime that is being investigated other than reporting/registration violations by people like Flynn (which are rarely prosecuted). However, the FBI is still investigating claims of collusion and influence peddling. There have also allegations tied to Russian financial interests connected to Trump and his companies.
Now back to those “several legal experts.” There is nothing criminal in such an inquiry, though that should not be the test of appropriate presidential conduct. There is ample ethical problems with a president making such an inquiry. There are a host of rules and protocols insulating the FBI from White House interference and inquiries. That is the case for general communications. It is even more important when the president himself is at risk. After all, there have been demands for a special counsel for months. When you add that Trump knew Comey was actively trying to convince him to retain him as Director, the conflict becomes obvious and overwhelming.
The Justice Department has long limited direct conversations between a president and the FBI on matters involving the president. Under a 2009 directive, only the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General communicated with the White House directly and not the FBI Director absent special circumstances. While this is not an iron clad rule, it reflects the focus on protecting the FBI from allegations of political influence. It did not help matters for Trump to say that he fired Comey to guarantee that the investigation is “done properly.” A President does not dictate the proper way of investigating people around him. Moreover, no one has suggested that Comey had done anything to hinder or harm the Russian investigation.
The irony is that the White House claimed that Comey was fired because of his press conference on the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. Many agreed that Comey violated long-standing rules in discussing the evidence against Clinton. The point is that a director should not give inside information or progress reports on investigations. Yet, that is precisely what was asked from Comey when the President wanted confirmation that he was not a target of the FBI investigation.
There was an obvious conflict of interest in the conversation described by President Trump. It is not clear if Comey will confirm that he gave these assurances to the President. Ironically, if he did, we would no longer have to debate whether Comey warranted termination.
I have no doubt that Trump would have asked if he were under investigation.
I don’t believe Comey would have said “no.” I think he has more character than that.
If Comey did say “no,” then yes, he should have been fired, although why would Trump then fire him, after getting the assurance that he wanted? I don’t believe Trump.
“although why would Trump then fire him, after getting the assurance that he wanted?”
Just spit-balling here, but perhaps the President had lost confidence in Comey’s ability to lead the FBI. I know, that’s crazy talk. Trump would never do something so mundane as fire a federal employee for non-performance reasons. There must be a sinister motive, after all Trump was involved. And everyone knows that President Trump and his entire administration are lying liars that lie all the time.
The comedy of the situation is that candidate Trump created the Lyin’ Ted strawman to get elected and it worked. Now we’ve got folks trying the same method to destroy Trump and it’s not working. They will not out-Trump Trump.
“[i]t was another uniquely ham-handed treatment of the controversy from a White House that continues to struggle with maintaining a single coherent message.”
The level of absurdity is truly amazing, but did anyone really expect a greater degree of professionalism than what we’re seeing from Trump? That he was going to somehow rise from the depths of fast cash and business sleaze to the duty? Puhlease.
“The overwhelming thrust of the coverage of the Comey termination was that it was meant to bring an end to the Russian investigation. To connect the firing of Comey with the hope for a faster conclusion to the investigation is incredibly daft.”
The emperor wears no clothes.
Who killed Lee Harvey Oswald?
Who paid him to do it?
When Lyndon B. Johnson as President met with J. Edgar Hoover in July 1968 he asked: 1. Did you order the killing of John Kennedy? 2. Did you order the killing of Martin Luther King? 3. Did you order the killing of Robert Kennedy?
Then when Hoover equivocated, LBJ asked: Am I next?
Hoover said: No.
LBJ: Ok we can get on with talk about abusing children.
SMH at the “Trump is not following the traditional rules” hysteria. These blue pill eaters cannot accept the fact their reality just might not be so real after all. It’s as if they are taking a peek outside their one dimensional political world and are trying to deny anything else is possible. Therefore, Trump is a lying liar that lies all the time. Yeah, good luck with that. You should’ve taken the red pill.
This Spokeswoman is better than Spicer, but that is damning w/ faint praise. The best person to hold this job in my lifetime was Tony Snow.
William Sessions was fired by Bill Clinton because he would not go along with the Clinton administration. any president can fire an f.b.i.director no matter what the reason. there are no Russian submarines on the or below the Potomac River like the democrats want you think. time to go after the criminal Hillary Clinton and the Weiner family.
The point is that a director should not give inside information or progress reports on investigations.
He actually works for someone. Academics want the independence of the self-employed with the regularity of salaried employment. Doesn’t work that way anywhere else.
“While I cannot speak for all legal scholars, I find it surprising that the White House could find “several” who would sign off on such an inquiry.”
You’re kidding me! This trump and he lies about almost everything. How could anyone be surprised by anything trump says. He LIES! He LIES! He LIES! It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t have emotions, ethics or values (other then personal greed). That’s all it does. And as long as contards continually put party before country, it will continue to be empowered and LIE, LIE, LIE!
Bill W – so, you are unconcerned about the various unnamed sources used by the MSM? They always seem to parrot exactly what they want.
Paul – He LIES. He LIES! He LIES! Nothing about the msm. Your nazi hero is a pathological liar. Understand you are religious so have a questionable prism to view the world. But no one with real values would support the liar trump.
Bill W – first, I am agnostic. second, I have deeply ingrained values that I follow. third, unlike you, I do not blindly follow the herd.
And then forces the fools that work for him to go out and lie some more.
Did Obama lie about Obama care, did he lie about the I r s , did he lie about the v.a. did he lie about the Benghazi movie , did he lie about Beau Berghdal. ???? ans”YES
It was clearly improper for Trump to ask the question and it would have been equally improper for Comey to answer in this fashion.
No, it’s ‘improper’ only in the addled heads of lawyers, who maintain all sorts of rubrics – some designed to maintain the professional prerogatives of lawyers, some which are dunb shticks, and some which actually are Chesterton’s fence.
I would ask if I was under investigation. If he said yes then I would say: Lets talk about the Cubs.
Comey has been doing a poor job. Obama wanted to fire him and now Trump has. I think if you have dinner with someone you can ask if you are under investigation, I sure would.
Democrats wanted Comey fired along time ago. Here’s Maxine Waters video take. Yes/No?
If crooked Hillbots and crooked Trump Russia bots wanted Comey fired then he must have been doing the right thing.
For youins to lookie over:
http://www.redstate.com/smoosieq/2017/05/10/lost-shuffle-two-key-nuggets-missed-yesterday%E2%80%99s-hubbub/
Here’s some more fun reading:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-trump-did-not-obstruct-justice-in-firing-james-comey/article/2622875
The four words ‘if it is possible’ are enough. If it wasn’t possible to answer the question it would have been ignored.
Investigating an entity such as a campaign team is not the same as investigating any particular individual. So far if anything it’s shown who or what in terms of machinery wasn’t involved.
The same situation with DNC and Clinton organizations came up with a far different answer.
Yet where no proof of anything exists lies the attack and where proof is plentiful we find the excuses.
Hey, in a country where it is just peachy for the Attorney General to privately meet with the husband of a suspect under investigation (Lynch and Bill Clinton), why should this bother anyone???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
What, me bothered?
Obviously not. Were it one of the Trump family meeting with the chief investigator I suggest you would be all over it. The word collusion applies all right. But it appies to the left wing apparatus and begs the question what were their real motives.
Have another and then another after that. Then you’ll not tell left from right, or from center for that matter…
Have another and then another after that. Then you’ll not tell left from right, or from center for that matter…
Suspect Trump called the head of the FBi in to get him to back off. Did not work so he fired him.
The chicken fried steak eaters are starting to gag on the lies.
And it’s not fried chicken, it’s Shake N Bake.
“And I helped.”
I grew up in New England and had never been west of Pittsburgh when as a VISTA volunteer I was sent to KC. We had an orientation @ a hotel and the first meal I ate was chicken fried steak. I had never heard of it.
I’m no expert on FBI investigations, but trying to attach the Russians to the Trump campaign is akin to trying to find the unicorn that stole my argyle sock from the clothes dryer. No matter how long I look for proof, I’ll never find the unicorn guilty.
Statements regarding how the ‘FBI director never …” don’t take into account tha actions of those high-ranking officials who are under scrutiny. I felt for Comey last year when he took the only out he had with respect to Hillary by laying out the case and letting the voters decide, but that seemed only to embolden Comey to control the political narrative instead of running criminal investigations. Politics prevented Comey from bringing a case against Hillary for the actions noted without balancing politics by finding equally criminal actions by the Trump campaign with respect to Russia. The problem is there is a crime with Hillary and no crime with Trump — how can he appear apolitical? Now that Comey is gone, an apolitical investigation may find Hillary in need of a lawyer and the liberal media in search for a restaurant that serves the best tasting crow around.
Moses! Love the unicorn argyle sock analogy!
I agree that crow/revenge is a dish served cold.However, I see no escape from the weasel clause using Rachel Maddow types who will blame any possible short comings of any investigation for rendering anything but an impeachable offense.
The food analogy is apropos.
Even though Trump is a luxury kinda guy, his base is the chicken fried steak crowd and the Washington establishment has been accustomed to Haute cuisine.
As i learned living in Texas, You can’t feed the chicken fried steak crowd Haute cuisine.
Sure you can. Feed ‘um chitlins, cornbread and buttermilk and tell them that it’s Fois Gras just like they told us about Obamacare or their Iranian Nuke deal. If Trump and his Administration LIED to the Democrats for the next three years, eight months and hopefully another four years after that, the Republican led White House, Senate and House still wouldn’t come close to the LIES that Obama and his minions told to America. Everyday that the Progressives rant, rave, and puke their dismay on TV, I have another toast of champagne to President Trump!
Trump lies and he is ignorant of the constitution. He thinks running the government is akin to having a reality show. Sending one liar after another out to audition for press secretary is fool’s play.
The lines are clearly there. You can start with Flynn.
How long will it take for people to learn there are other ways to run a government?
Might try not to send another fool out to lie.
What lie Julee?
Does anybody in the administration know how to play this game?
bfm,
It doesn’t appear they care what game others want them to play. Good for them.
They
do not care or know what is ethical.
According to what standard of ethics Joe, yours? For example, how would you rate the ethics of Obama or Clinton? I’m trying to establish what should be the ethical standard for the President and his administration. How about Holder or Rice?
“Obama told Trump to fire him” per Franken. Why didn’t Obama fire him? OK, Congress (both houses) time to get back to business for the American people. That’s what we elected him to do!
Quite, quite mad.
Indeed. I would have asked Comey also. The problem is not President Trump asking Comey if he was under investigation. The problem is that Comey ANSWERED the President three times that Trump was NOT under investigation. Trump is telling the truth about this and that’s been proven by the testimony yesterday of Grassley and Feinstein. Turley, your thoughts regarding this and Cooper rolling his eyes at KellyAnne are making me think you are not getting enough sleep.
Trump asking Comey about the investigation is even more inappropriate than Bill Clinton asking Lynch. Doubt Comey told Trump anything of the kind. Trump is lying again.
And you know this how?
I agree. WHY CAN’T he ask Comey if he (the President) is being investigated? There has been no coherent reason given, whether by Turley or the media.
The media: quite weird.
One thing for sure is Trump
Is compromising the credibility of those that chose to serve in
His administration.
Now our psycho potus is threatening Comey.