Posted on 12/15/2018 8:06:42 AM PST by yesthatjallen
“I probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it.” Those words this week from former FBI Director James Comey could well be chiseled in marble as his epitaph. Comey was explaining yet another violation of bureau policy during his tenure as director.
What was shocking was not that Comey violated protocols or policies again but the reaction of the audience to his admission. In describing how he set up a critical meeting with President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, the audience was audibly thrilled by his cleverness in keeping Flynn unrepresented by legal counsel and unaware of the true nature of the meeting. Scheduled to testify to House members again next week, Comey may find a less rapturous reception in Congress.
In his interview, Nicole Wallace of NBC said, “It’s hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the State Room. How did that happen?” The audience erupted when Comey responded dryly, “I sent them.” What followed was even more revealing. He said, “Something we’ve, I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration, two men that all of us, perhaps, have increased appreciation for over the last two years. In both of those administrations there was process. So if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there would be discussions and approvals and it would be there. I thought, ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.’”
Just send a couple of guys over. One line could not more aptly capture Comey and his own professed view of “ethical leadership.” The interview confirmed what some of us have written about Comey for more than two years. The media consistently reinforced his image as a rules driven and principled public servant, often referring to him as an almost naive Eagle Scout. (The Washington Post even ran the headline, “Boy Scout James Comey is no match for Donald Trump.”) Yet, Comey’s history shows both an overriding self-interest in his actions as well as a willingness to violate rules to achieve that interest. But his comments, including a call to defeat Trump in a “landslide” in the next election, have stripped away any remaining pretense. The fact is, there often was more pretense than principle in Comey’s final years as director.
Consider Comey’s conduct during the 2016 presidential election, leading up to his controversial press conference and public announcements, which were widely condemned by both Republicans and Democrats. As here, Comey failed to inform the Justice Department or the attorney general of his intended action. In doing so, he was far outside the clear policies and protocols. Indeed, the first public act of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was to issue a memo excoriating Comey for his “serious mistakes” and citing former judges, attorneys general, and leading prosecutors who believed Comey “violated longstanding Justice Department policies and tradition” along with “his obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the department and the FBI.” Rosenstein added that Comey “refused to admit his errors.”
Then there was Comey’s response to being fired. He removed memos on his meetings with President Trump related to the Russia investigation, then leaked those to the media. The FBI and the Justice Department rejected Comey’s claims that these were his memos, not agency material. Some of the material was classified. He violated core FBI rules in removing the memos, and the man tasked to find leakers became a leaker as soon as it suited his interests. He also undermined the investigation by revealing to Trump and others that the memos existed, information that investigators likely preferred to remain secret before they conducted key interviews.
Then Comey published a tell all book, a sharp departure from prior directors, that discussed the ongoing Russia investigation. He did not pause before rushing it to the shelves, revealing details of the investigation and various meetings, and making a fortune for himself. Now Comey has again admitted to violating rules and protocols, by setting up Flynn. Ironically, Comey criticized Trump for breaking longstanding protocols in meeting with him alone and asking about an ongoing investigation. He was right in those criticisms, because there is a formal, fairly rigid process for communications between the FBI and the White House. Yet, the same protocols go the other way. If the FBI seeks to interview White House officials in an investigation, they go through the Justice Department, which communicates with the White House counsel to arrange the interview. He evaded both counsel and the Justice Department in ordering the move.
What was Comey’s justification? Because he could. He refers to the “process” of other administrations. That process, however, was still in place and did not change. Moreover, he noted that he thought he could get away with it because this was “early” in the administration. That is not principle. It is opportunism. He was supposed to work through the Justice Department and not simply follow the rules only if he might be caught breaking them. (Notably, acting Attorney General Sally Yates is mentioned in recently released FBI material as being irate over his action.)
There is a reason for the policy of conferring with counsel. It protects not just the individual but the institution. It prevents rogue or impulsive actions and maintains a clear chain of command within the Justice Department. It is part of the internal rules in how the components of the executive branch function and communicate to preserve both independence and proper review. It is part of the very delicate relationship that Comey accused Trump of violating. There was nothing noble in Comey seeking to reduce the chance that Flynn might have legal counsel. Those same liberals applauding him wildly now would, presumably, be appalled if a police detective proudly described how he prevented a suspect from speaking to a lawyer simply because he could.
Flynn ultimately bears responsibility for any false statements to FBI agents. As special counsel Robert Mueller noted in a court filing Friday, he should have known better, and we should not forget that Flynn ultimately pleaded guilty to lying. However, that does not mean the circumstances of the meeting or the conduct of FBI officials are irrelevant.
The agents, including Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok who were both later fired by the FBI for their actions in this investigation, admitted that they discussed warning Flynn about criminal liability for false statements. They warned other witnesses, like former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos. Yet, they not only intentionally omitted that warning with Flynn but did not specifically raise a conflict in his denying that sanctions were discussed with Russian diplomats. They also encouraged Flynn not to bring a lawyer or to inform the White House counsel. Instead, they arranged a meeting just hours after the telephone call with McCabe.
Ultimately, the agents recounted that they did not believe Flynn deliberately lied at the time. Moreover, Flynn told McCabe that he assumed McCabe had read the full transcript of his conversation with the Russian ambassador, an apparent reference to his knowledge that Russian embassy phones were tapped. The comment further raises the question of why Flynn would lie about discussing sanctions if he recalled the discussion and knew of the wiretap.
Yet, Comey seemed to delight the audience by taking credit for keeping Flynn in the dark about the FBI interview. When Wallace asked what Flynn thought the FBI agents wanted, Comey replied, “I don’t think he knew. I know we didn’t tell him.” Actually, Comey didn’t tell anyone. Not the White House counsel, not the acting attorney general, not the Justice Department. He “just sent a couple of guys over” because he could “get away with it.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
bump
“The FBI treating conservatives citizens like criminals while giving passes to liberals - is the essence of political corruption.”
The FBI, like so many government agencies these days, recruits from a limited number of universities. These are generally very liberal institutions, and those recruited form these places are, as expected, influenced by their educational background. As discussed previously on this board, to ensure equal representation in government, it is essential that those hired into government service reflect the diversity of opinion in the US.
ALL of the current Supreme Court Justices - ALL of them, come from one of two law schools, Harvard or Yale. The only quasi-exception is Ginsburg, who graduated from Cornell, but attended Harvard Law School. How does this lead to an unbiased interpretation of the Constitution, and a representative Judiciary - reflecting the whole of the US? Think about it.
There are a limited number of law ‘Professors’ that teach at these two schools - and thus the exposure of all our SCJ members is to essentially the same teaching. This is ludicrous. It is also the height of elitism, and ensures the same outcome as inbreeding among royalty. Does anyone truly believe that the brightest and best in the nation always wind up attending the same universities? Really?
Time to stop this nonsense.
Good advice.
Sorry, but the FBI needs eliminated. Totally.
The “rank-and-file” in the FBI are just as corrupt as its leaders. Otherwise, you would have heard from the “rank-and-file” during all this, even from just one person. What did we hear? Crickets. Absolutely nothing.
We do not need nor want a national police force. Especially a corrupt-to-the-core one.
FBI = Gestapo.
Phony Comey for Prison - 25 to life minimum.
Rope...Lamp Post...Some assembly required!
You know things are going to go very badly for Comey when Jonathan Turley turns against him.
You're comment was right on every point...
The 'ruling class' is intentionally being created NOT to reflect the country. Think about it - WHO would benefit most from that insanity? ('our enemies' would be in the first five answers...
If we were capable of manipulating the Russians or Chinese what would work better than assisting with creating a ruling class for them that came from Universities most known for pushing Western values?
The face of the Deep State. These are the people who dropped two nukes on civilian cities and even experimented on their own citizens with drugs and radiation exposure. One must assume they desire hell, since that is what they have created here on earth.
WTH?
“FBI = Gestapo”
Yep. And it is not that they will turn into the Gestapo, they are already there.
A least Hitler had some control over his Gestapo.
Name them, please.
I ask sincerely, so what do we do with all the outside and inside terrorists, not to mention individual criminals? Who has the resources to investigate the planners of mayhem?
I don't know how to clean out FBI. It would take a smarter man than me. However, I do know they bust criminals every day for crimes committed and those who are planning harm. It's not a big secret.
Bullshit. The rank and file keep their mouths shut because they have Mothers, Fathers, Wives, Husbands, Children, and extended family and friends. They still do their jobs in big ways, daily. The same goes with the military and first responders in every metropolis.
Like many, you expect immediate results when the Swamp has been building for decades. Lighten up Francis!
IOW: The Trump administration were fools to think that a legally subordinate Federal agency was anything but devious and hostile toward them.
Yes, the education system is a huge part of the problem, but Holy crap! Free Republic is turning into conspiracy central. What next? Trump is a clandestine mole for the Build-some-burgers or Free Masons? Then there is always the demolition charges in the Twin Towers to fall back on. Enjoy your paranoia. Don't bother - I'm naive after 69 years.
Okay, a few things:
1) If you work for a corrupt organization, and have to keep your mouth closed about criminal acts you have knowledge of in your organization and leadership, just to keep your job, you are in the wrong job. You have a responsibility to leave and find a new job, or be complicit in the crimes. No excuse. (And I know what I am talking about, as I have left at least one job in such a situation.)
2) I haven’t seen where the FBI has done anything resembling their “job” for years now. They come off as bumbling, inept, and unqualified. They are not doing what the FBI is tasked to do: solve crimes.
3) I never, repeat never, equated FBI employment with the military or first responders. I never would, and you are putting words in my mouth that I would never think of saying.
4) I never said nor implied that I expect immediate results of anything. The FBI has been corrupt for decades, as anyone with eyes can see. I surely don’t expect it to get fixed immediately. But, it has been two years now since President Trump took office, and I would like to see at least some movement in the right direction. So far, I am unimpressed.
5) I am not “lightening up”. If we don’t get this train back on the track in a few years, we, as a nation, are toast. Anyone with eyes and brain can see that. We need to keep pushing and supporting the President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.