I/III.
[The fallout from sacking by Donald Trump has gathered pace, with
reports Comey asked for more resources to investigate alleged ties
between Trump’s election campaign and Russia just days before he was
fired.]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/may/10/donald-trump-fires-fbi-director-james-comey-reaction-live

Comey farewell letter emerges as Senate subpoenas Michael Flynn – as it happened

Keep up to date with all the news as Trump dumps Comey as FBI director
Huge skepticism greets president’s decision, taken on Tuesday evening
‘Terrifying, Nixonian’: Comey’s firing takes democracy to new territory
Trump dumps Comey: catch up with the shock announcement as it happened

[Trump and Comey’s love-hate relationship - (1.49-min.) video explainer]

9h ago
04:00
Summary

There has been plenty of movement during another busy day in
Washington, so here is a round-up of the main points. We will put this
blog on hold pending any fresh developments.

Sacked FBI director James Comey has urged the organisation to continue
to protect the American people and uphold the constitution in a
farewell letter obtained by CNN. He says he has “long believed that a
president can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at
all”.

***The fallout from sacking by Donald Trump has gathered pace, with
reports Comey asked for more resources to investigate alleged ties
between Trump’s election campaign and Russia just days before he was
fired.*** [Emphasis added.]

The reasoning behind the dismissal remains the subject of much
scrutiny. The White House has said Trump’s frustration with Comey had
been building for months. Media reports have pointed to a range of
motivations, including personal antagonism, the progress of the FBI’s
inquiry into alleged Russian electoral interference and a refusal to
provide Trump aides with an advance copy of his planned testimony to a
Senate panel last week.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn has been issued with a
subpoena by the Senate intelligence committee for documents relevant
to its Russia inquiry. Flynn last month declined to provide his
records.

Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House oversight and government
reform committee, has asked the justice department to expand its
review of the FBI’s actions during the election campaign to include
the “facts and circumstances surrounding” the firing of Comey.

The sacking has attracted scant vocal support among Republicans, while
Democrats have drawn comparisons with Watergate.

Former FBI agents have reacted with shock and no small amount of
trepidation about the bureau’s independence.

Trump has continued to attack Democrats for their apparent change of
heart on Comey and tied it to his “drain the swamp” slogan.

Updated at 4.04am BST
Facebook Twitter Google plus

10h ago
03:22

The last US president to fire an FBI director was Bill Clinton, who
dismissed William Sessions in 1993 over financial irregularities. Time
magazine has more detail on Sessions’ downfall.

It makes the point that the reaction of FBI agents to the news in both
cases was very different, with “no love lost between Sessions and his
subordinates”.

Facebook Twitter Google plus
10h ago
03:08

The reasoning behind Trump’s swift dismissal of Comey – assuming the
people should be given more detail than simply that he was ‘not doing
a good job’ – remains the focus at the moment.

Reuters has it from White House officials that Trump had been
frustrated with Comey for months – which supports what White House
deputy press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders says – but also that
the turning point came when Comey refused to hand Trump aides his
planned testimony to a Senate panel.

Trump, his attorney general Jeff Sessions and deputy Rod Rosenstein
had wanted a heads-up from Comey about what he would say at a hearing
on May 3 about his handling of an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s
use of a private email server.

When Comey refused, Trump and his aides considered that an act of
insubordination and it was one of the catalysts for the decision, the
officials told Reuters.

“It gave the impression that he was no longer capable of carrying out
his duties,” one official said. Previews of congressional testimony to
superiors are generally considered courteous.

Snipped

II/III.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-decision-idUSKBN1862WP

Wed May 10, 2017 | 9:29pm EDT

Comey infuriated Trump with refusal to preview Senate testimony: aides

By Steve Holland and Jeff Mason | WASHINGTON
The anger behind Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey on
Tuesday had been building for months, but a turning point came when
Comey refused to preview for top Trump aides his planned testimony to
a Senate panel, White House officials said.

Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein had wanted a heads-up from Comey about what he would say at
a May 3 hearing about his handling of an investigation into former
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private
email server.

When Comey refused, Trump and his aides considered that an act of
insubordination and it was one of the catalysts to Trump’s decision
this week to fire the FBI director, the officials said.

"It gave the impression that he was no longer capable of carrying out
his duties," one official said. Previews of congressional testimony to
superiors are generally considered courteous.

Comey, who testified for four hours before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, said it made him feel "mildly nauseous" that his decision
to make public his reopening of a probe into Clinton's handling of
classified information might have affected the outcome of the Nov. 8
presidential election. But he said he had no regrets and would make
the same decision again.

Trump's sudden firing of Comey shocked Washington and plunged Trump
deeper into a controversy over his campaign's alleged ties with Russia
that has dogged the early days of his presidency.

Democrats accused the Republican president of firing Comey to try to
undermine the FBI's probe into Russia's alleged efforts to meddle in
the 2016 election and possible collusion with members of the Trump
campaign, and demanded an independent investigation. Some of Trump's
fellow Republicans called his dismissal of Comey troubling.

The Trump administration said on Tuesday Comey was fired because of
his handling of the Clinton email probe.

Before he axed Comey, Trump had publicly expressed frustration with
the FBI and congressional probes into the Russia matter. Moscow has
denied meddling in the election and the Trump administration denies
allegations of collusion with Russia.

A former Trump adviser said Trump was also angry because Comey had
never offered a public exoneration of Trump in the FBI probe into
contacts between the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Sergei Kislyak, and
Trump campaign advisers last year.

According to this former adviser, Comey's Senate testimony on the
Clinton emails likely reinforced in Trump's mind that "Comey was
against him."

"He regretted what he did to Hillary but not what he did to Trump,"
the former Trump adviser said of Comey.

Clinton has said that the Comey decision to announce the renewed
inquiry days before the election was a likely factor in her loss to
Trump.

Aides said Trump moved quickly after receiving a recommendation on
Monday to terminate Comey from Rosenstein, who began reviewing the
situation at the FBI shortly after taking office two weeks ago.

Trump's move was so sudden that his White House staff, accustomed to
his impromptu style, was caught off guard. Stunned aides scrambled to
put together a plan to explain what happened.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer ended up briefing reporters about
the move in the dark on Tuesday night near a patch of bushes steps
away from the West Wing.

Comey, who was in Los Angeles meeting with FBI employees on Tuesday
and returned later to Washington, has made no public comment on his
firing.

'FIG LEAF'

ALSO IN POLITICS

Comey had pushed for more resources for Russia probe before being
fired by Trump: source
Trump tells Russia to 'rein in' Syria's Assad during meeting with minister
Many questions remained about what caused Trump to move so quickly.

Two former senior Justice Department officials said it made little
sense to fire Comey while the Justice Department Inspector General was
still doing a review of the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email
investigation.

“I take Rod (Rosenstein) at his word that be believed everything in
that memo but he must know that it’s going to be used as a fig leaf to
fire Comey,” one former official said.

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, told reporters it was her “understanding” Comey
had been seeking more resources for his investigation into the tangled
Russia controversy.

  White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump had
pondered dumping Comey as soon as he took office on Jan. 20, but
decided to stick with him.

Trump shrugged off the political firestorm he created with Comey's
dismissal as he met with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

Asked by reporters why he fired Comey, Trump said, "He wasn't doing a
good job, very simply. He wasn't doing a good job."

(This verison of the story has been refiled to adds missing word in
final paragraph)

(Additional reporting by Joel Shectman, Julia Edwards Ainsley and
Susan Cornwell; Editing by Caren Bohan and Frances Kerry)

III.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/10/15611522/comey-trump-obstruction-justice-impeachment

By firing James Comey, Trump has put impeachment on the table
A whiff of obstruction of justice is in the air.

Updated by Matthew Yglesias@[email protected]  May 10, 2017, 2:10pm EDT

The old saw that the cover-up is worse than the crime often obscures
more than it reveals. But in the case of President Donald Trump’s
firing of FBI Director James Comey, it carries an important element of
truth. It escalates the administration’s Russia scandal, and, for the
first time, provides indications of impeachable offenses.

Nothing we’ve seen credibly reported thus far about Trump and Russia
would amount to an impeachable offense, and indeed, it’s not really
clear what allegations of “collusion” on the campaign trail would
really amount to even if proven.

Firing the FBI director in order to obstruct an ongoing investigation
would be different.

That obstruction charge is, of course, unproven as of Wednesday
afternoon. But the probable cause is everywhere. And it makes a sham
of the notion that replacing Comey with a well-qualified director or
continuing with existing congressional inquiries is a sufficient
remedy.

There needs to be a separate investigation — featuring sworn testimony
from the key players and subpoenas of documents — into why Comey was
fired. Was it because Trump suddenly decided in mid-May that Comey’s
handling of the Clinton emails was unforgivable, or was it because
Trump was trying to obstruct justice?

The answer makes a huge difference.

Media reports suggest obstruction of justice
Anonymously sourced journalism is not the same thing as sworn
testimony or hard evidence. But it’s also indispensable to uncovering
official wrongdoing. And Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning already
brought forth plenty of evidence of wrongdoing:

The New York Times reports that “days before he was fired, James B.
Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a
significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau’s
investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential
election.” NBC News says it can confirm that story, as have several
other outlets.
CNN reports that grand jury subpoenas were “issued in recent weeks by
the US Attorney's Office in Alexandria, Virginia,” targeting business
associates of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
A separate New York Times report states that Attorney General Jeff
Sessions “had been working to come up with reasons” to fire Comey
since at least last week, which partially explains why he eventually
settled on reasons that contradict all of his previous statements
about Comey.
Trump himself contradicted the stated reasons for the firing on
Wednesday morning when he said Comey wasn’t “doing a good job” running
the FBI.
A CNN report that Trump has since disputed says that Trump discussed
firing Comey with Roger Stone, a longtime Trump political adviser with
whom Trump has officially cut ties, and that Stone urged him to fire
Comey.
Josh Dawsey of Politico reports that Trump “had grown enraged by the
Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability
to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia.”
Some or all of this reporting may prove to be false. But it has all
been published by credible journalists in credible publications. And
it adds up to a very clear picture of a president deciding to fire an
FBI director to obstruct an ongoing investigation and then stitching
together a shaky rationalization for doing so.

Impeachable, if true
Impeachment is, of course, a political process rather than a judicial
one. Trump will be impeached and removed from office if a critical
mass of members of Congress want him to be, and not otherwise. There
are no formal criteria.

But obstruction of justice featured heavily in the articles of
impeachment that drove Richard Nixon from office, and also in the
articles of impeachment that passed the House only to see Bill Clinton
narrowly acquitted in the Senate. In short, it lies firmly in the
American political tradition to regard possible obstruction of justice
as a serious issue worthy of investigation in an impeachment context.

RELATED

Why the Comey firing could be Trump’s Watergate moment

It is possible, of course, that a thorough investigation would either
exonerate Trump on this score or else at least fail to produce an
adequate quantity of hard evidence — documents and sworn testimony —
to consider the case truly proven.

To do that, however, someone would need to take a serious look.

Journalists can do a lot, but we can’t compel testimony or force the
disclosure of documents. A special prosecutor and congressional
committees could. We ought to have both. But thus far, it looks more
likely that we will have neither.

Republicans have their heads in the sand
The key leaders of the Republican Party are, once again, protecting
and defending Donald Trump. And once again, there is a small thread of
dissent, with various more vulnerable members of Congress suggesting
that they find the timing suspicious or otherwise troubling. John
McCain is even back to making trouble about the need for a more
serious independent inquiry into Russia matters.

But while the Russia matter is, of course, important, at this point,
to simply focus on Russia is to miss the elephant in the room: Trump
and obstruction of justice.

Congress ought to investigate what really happened here. Did Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein really write a memo about Comey’s
handling of the emails that was so persuasive it convinced Sessions
and Trump to both change their minds and fire Comey? Or, as seems much
more plausible, was he tasked with writing up a memo that would
validate an already-made decision on the theory that if the Trump
administration aligned themselves with earlier Democratic criticism of
Comey, they would be unable to knock him for the firing?

And if so, what was the real reason Comey was fired — and how did it
relate to the president’s anger over the Russia investigation and its
forward progress?

The odds that a Congress under continued GOP control will pursue such
questions seem slim. During the 2016 presidential campaign, few
Republicans in Congress were under the delusion that Trump’s rise to
prominence was a good thing for the conservative movement. They
worried, overwhelmingly, that his erratic ways were going to drag them
down with him.

Ever since Election Day, they have operated in a strange moral and
intellectual miasma that’s led them to forget all that and invest
their energy in defending him, believing that to be the best path
forward for American conservatism. One can only hope at this point
that they’ll reconsider before it’s too late. If not, America is going
to need a different group of Congress members.

Watch: How to impeach a president
[Video]



-- 
Peace Is Doable

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to