CONGRESS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERING TRUMP’S APPOINTMENT TO FBI DIRECTOR
By Joseph Gallina
Published: 7/12/2017 11:30 a.m. ET
Today, fresh off the heels of the first public evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign to work with Russia to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton, Congress is moving forward with the nominated FBI Head's Confirmation Hearing. According to the LA Times, "Wray’s nomination has won some bipartisan praise and to date has not provoked opposition that would suggest his Senate confirmation is in peril."
We however, question that logic.
On June 7, President Trump declared in a tweet that he intended to nominate Christopher A. Wray to serve as the new Director of the FBI. That came after some reports indicated
the president was being investigated for obstructing justice, for firing the predecessor of the person now being considered.
Allowing the nomination to move forward will only exacerbate the very serious implications of Trump’s actions. Until we get to the bottom of the situation, Trump must not be allowed to bare the fruits of his bad behavior.
After all, it appears the FBI is in good hands in the meantime.
On May 11, when Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in place of his predecessor, James Comey, he stared down the barrel of questioning and rebutted the Trump Administration.
Significantly, when McCabe was asked by Sen. Angus King (D-ME) if the White House was correct in their assessment that the investigation was “one of the smallest things on the plate of the FBI,” McCabe disagreed. “We consider it a highly significant investigation,” he said. During the hearing, he also vowed the investigation would continue. “It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely,” McCabe said.
Meanwhile, the eerie echo of the events of the Watergate scandal has drawn comparisons from historians.
On a cool day in October, 1973, Richard Nixon sent shockwaves amongst the prime movers of Washington D.C. when he had Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox fired. The next two in line for the position, Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus, resigned when they refused to fire Cox first.
Cox said in a statement at the time: "whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people."
Books can be written (and they have been) about the implications of Richard Nixon’s decision that night and its impact on the limits of presidential authority and its oversight.
But perhaps the overlooked key to the situation was not only the firing, but it’s equally dizzying and pivotal aftermath.
When Nixon and Robert Bork, the acting Special Prosecutor, agreed to appoint a new Special Prosecutor, Bork named Leon Jaworski, a man whose actions proved integral in Nixon’s ultimate fate.
Nixon hoped desperately that Jaworski would limit the scope of his investigation to the Watergate burglary, and in fact had Jaworski done that, Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” would have been a success. Instead, like Cox, Jaworski cast as wide a net as he could, including an investigation of the “plumbers” and demanding Nixon’s taped conversations. After a legal battle that went to the Supreme Court, Nixon relented and the rest is history.
If it wasn’t for Jaworski’s integrity in the face of Richard Nixon’s daunting pressure, Nixon might have finished out his term and the full extent of the Watergate scandal might never have been known.
Now, that Robert Mueller’s investigation is under way, and the FBI investigation continues, the political fate of Donald Trump may rest on the people in charge of them.
All this begs the question: why should Donald Trump get to appoint the next head of the FBI now?
Certainly, it is not a precedent we should wish to establish in the face of presidential investigation. From Trump’s own mouth, we heard that at least part of his decision to fire Comey was because he felt the investigation was "a made-up story.” He also might have told Russian officials that firing Comey alleviated pressure on him. The thing is, in America the accused don’t get to fire their judges, and suspects don’t get to fire their arresting officers.
James Madison once mused, “liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.”
Donald Trump’s firing of James Comey was an abuse of his power to do so. He could have, but he shouldn’t have. Now, we have evidence that the president's campaign colluded with Russia. The only way to compound Trump's abuse is to allow the Trump Administration to have a direct say in who investigates his administration.
Now that the Hearing is in motion, Wray's appointment is all but inevitable. The only way a delay at this point can work is if principled Republicans in Congress agree to put country over party and join his efforts. Echoing Archibald Cox’s words, the American people are in the best position to influence their representatives. It’s worth calling and writing for.
McCabe would have done a fine job and he is qualified for the role.
If history shows us anything, the strength of Democracy lies not in the law or even our Constitution itself, but instead the actions of the courageous few willing to defend its virtue.
Published: 7/12/2017 11:30 a.m. ET
Today, fresh off the heels of the first public evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign to work with Russia to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton, Congress is moving forward with the nominated FBI Head's Confirmation Hearing. According to the LA Times, "Wray’s nomination has won some bipartisan praise and to date has not provoked opposition that would suggest his Senate confirmation is in peril."
We however, question that logic.
On June 7, President Trump declared in a tweet that he intended to nominate Christopher A. Wray to serve as the new Director of the FBI. That came after some reports indicated
the president was being investigated for obstructing justice, for firing the predecessor of the person now being considered.
Allowing the nomination to move forward will only exacerbate the very serious implications of Trump’s actions. Until we get to the bottom of the situation, Trump must not be allowed to bare the fruits of his bad behavior.
After all, it appears the FBI is in good hands in the meantime.
On May 11, when Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in place of his predecessor, James Comey, he stared down the barrel of questioning and rebutted the Trump Administration.
Significantly, when McCabe was asked by Sen. Angus King (D-ME) if the White House was correct in their assessment that the investigation was “one of the smallest things on the plate of the FBI,” McCabe disagreed. “We consider it a highly significant investigation,” he said. During the hearing, he also vowed the investigation would continue. “It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely,” McCabe said.
Meanwhile, the eerie echo of the events of the Watergate scandal has drawn comparisons from historians.
On a cool day in October, 1973, Richard Nixon sent shockwaves amongst the prime movers of Washington D.C. when he had Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox fired. The next two in line for the position, Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus, resigned when they refused to fire Cox first.
Cox said in a statement at the time: "whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people."
Books can be written (and they have been) about the implications of Richard Nixon’s decision that night and its impact on the limits of presidential authority and its oversight.
But perhaps the overlooked key to the situation was not only the firing, but it’s equally dizzying and pivotal aftermath.
When Nixon and Robert Bork, the acting Special Prosecutor, agreed to appoint a new Special Prosecutor, Bork named Leon Jaworski, a man whose actions proved integral in Nixon’s ultimate fate.
Nixon hoped desperately that Jaworski would limit the scope of his investigation to the Watergate burglary, and in fact had Jaworski done that, Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” would have been a success. Instead, like Cox, Jaworski cast as wide a net as he could, including an investigation of the “plumbers” and demanding Nixon’s taped conversations. After a legal battle that went to the Supreme Court, Nixon relented and the rest is history.
If it wasn’t for Jaworski’s integrity in the face of Richard Nixon’s daunting pressure, Nixon might have finished out his term and the full extent of the Watergate scandal might never have been known.
Now, that Robert Mueller’s investigation is under way, and the FBI investigation continues, the political fate of Donald Trump may rest on the people in charge of them.
All this begs the question: why should Donald Trump get to appoint the next head of the FBI now?
Certainly, it is not a precedent we should wish to establish in the face of presidential investigation. From Trump’s own mouth, we heard that at least part of his decision to fire Comey was because he felt the investigation was "a made-up story.” He also might have told Russian officials that firing Comey alleviated pressure on him. The thing is, in America the accused don’t get to fire their judges, and suspects don’t get to fire their arresting officers.
James Madison once mused, “liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.”
Donald Trump’s firing of James Comey was an abuse of his power to do so. He could have, but he shouldn’t have. Now, we have evidence that the president's campaign colluded with Russia. The only way to compound Trump's abuse is to allow the Trump Administration to have a direct say in who investigates his administration.
Now that the Hearing is in motion, Wray's appointment is all but inevitable. The only way a delay at this point can work is if principled Republicans in Congress agree to put country over party and join his efforts. Echoing Archibald Cox’s words, the American people are in the best position to influence their representatives. It’s worth calling and writing for.
McCabe would have done a fine job and he is qualified for the role.
If history shows us anything, the strength of Democracy lies not in the law or even our Constitution itself, but instead the actions of the courageous few willing to defend its virtue.