Is This a Constitutional Crisis?

There are a number of points brought up in the article. Please discuss those points, and not one another.

Thank you.

:~)

As the news broke late this afternoon, the politicos of Washington stared into their smartphones, stunned, struggling with what to make of it. TV networks cut into their regularly scheduled programming. Chyrons promising “breaking news” actually delivered it: President Donald Trump had fired FBI Director James Come

I have to admit I was surprised....Trump seems to be taking greater & greater  risks than he has in the past. This may well "come back and bite him in the a$$ (to coin a phrase).

It certainly seems as if Trump decided to use a "nuclear" option in an attempt to get a handle on the situation, and it may very well be the straw the breaks the political camel's back.

I have to admit I was surprised....Trump seems to be taking greater & greater  risks than he has in the past. This may well "come back and bite him in the a$$ (to coin a phrase).

I agree. It just throws more fuel on the fire mostly because of the absurd reason he used. Does any rational person really think Trump fired Comey for being too mean to Hillary Clinton?

Desperate people do desperate things.

And this is the act of a desperate man. It is reflected in his attempt to draw the investigation away from himself in the letter by putting his comment (which no one believes) that Comey supposed told him three times (and the cock crowed three times?) that he was not under investigation. It was stuck into the letter like a 5th grader would. It just jumps out as so out of place.

"Is this a constitutional crisis? "

Clearly not. The FBI director serves at the pleasure o the POTUS. 

I kind of feel sorry for the ole boy, but the Democrats wanted to fire him until Trump wanted to fire him.  There is real division in the FBI ever since Comey convicted Hillary Clinton and then suggested to not go forward with charges, so there is no way the FBI could be functioning the way we would like it to function.

Maybe one day if and when Comey feels it is safe enough to tell it like it was he'll write a book and tell the truth about the matter.

Whether it is trumped up charges or real issues, it appears his firing is constitutional.  I don't put much credence in the charges against Trump or his associates when he has been investigated on for nearly two years and they still don't have anything.  I believe if they had put the same efforts in the Hillary Investigation instead of Loretta Lynch calling it off, she would have been convicted by now.

Yes, the firing is constitutional. The part that raises question is the lame excuse for doing it. As I understand the firing of Comey it was because he was unfair to Clinton...Really..

One less snake in the swamp. The water level is going down. 

No it isn't. No one has explained exactly how this act violates the constitution. Until then, it's just speculation.

I would offer this from the article in response...

‘It’s a deeply unsettling moment’
Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, is the author of The Fight to Vote and The Second Amendment: A Biography.

It’s a deeply unsettling moment.

This has every appearance of a brazen cover-up, a possible act of obstruction of justice, just as much as Richard Nixon firing the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in October 1973. That’s the only comparable historical precedent. That led to a constitutional crisis and a public outpouring of anger. Will this?

Trump's rationale is transparently, laughably absurd. Does anyone actually believe that Donald Trump fired Comey because Comey was unfair to Hillary Clinton during the campaign?

Let's be very clear what happened here. For all his flaws and mistakes, Comey is leading an investigation of extraordinary gravity: possible collusion between Trump, his campaign and administration, and a hostile foreign power. Remember, Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation because he himself lied to Congress about conversations with Russia. So he did the next best thing, recommending that the person leading the investigation--Comey--be fired.

It comes a day after the former Acting Attorney General clearly implied there was an ongoing FBI investigation of Michael Flynn. It comes before Comey was due to testify again.

Comey made many errors. But does anyone trust Trump to nominate his successor, the person who will effectively lead the investigation? How can Americans have trust in their government without even the pretense of independence for key investigations?

This is an extraordinary test of our democracy and its institutions. Will the Republicans in Congress stand up for the rule of law and independent investigations, at a time when a hostile foreign power has tried to interfere in our democracy? Will they stand up for country or party? 

***

‘It's a constitutional crisis’
David Cole is the National Legal Director of the ACLU and the Honorable George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at the Georgetown University Law Center.

Anytime a sitting president fires the person responsible for investigating his campaign's potential criminal activities, it is a matter of grave public concern. When that criminal investigation involves collaboration with Russia to undermine the U.S. democratic process, it's a constitutional crisis. And when the president offers the most blatant pretext for his action, it is a challenge to the credulity of the American people. Does anybody really believe that he fired the FBI director over his part in resuscitating Trump's campaign? This is the dénouement of the cover-up. But the truth will out, and democracy will prevail, if we insist upon it.

***

The question is a knee jerk reaction to a basic campaign platform:  Returning the country to rule of law and the Constitution.  This has been a battle cry of the Conservatives for the past 8 years.  Much of what Obama and the Democrats have done was highly suspect in the legality to the Constitution.

Now that the Conservatives are in control, everything they do will be looked at and compared to the Constitution. 

The Director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the President.  He, and any other Cabinet member can be fired at any time, for any reason. 

I have stated a number of times …

If the investigation into the TRUMP/RUSSIA connection is thwarted or stalled, THE RELEVANT INFORMATION WILL COME FROM A DELUGE OF LEAKS.

Comey is well thought of by FBI career individuals; given Trump's attacks on the security community, and now, the firing of Comey (and other individuals involved in the investigation process), I believe the heat on Trump will result in his impeachment, dismissal, or resignation.

Those who believe that "there's no there, there" based on their rationalization … "I have yet to see any evidence about this Russian connection," -- OF COURSE YOU HAVEN'T -- for two reasons …

1) You choose to ignore the evidence that's already been presented to indicate that Flynn's conversation(s) with a Russian operative was picked up as the result of surveillance of that operative … NOT ONLY BY U.S. SURVEILLANCE, BUT, THAT OF OTHER NATIONS AS WELL!

2) As Comey stated … "We don't talk about on-going investigations" (of course, he did talk about the Clinton investigation). Classified information will not be revealed … unless via leaks … and recall how indignant you boys were about those e-mails … can't have it both ways.

Whenever we have these "conversations," I can count on the usual ad hominem attacks, the bad/inaccurate counter commentary and the broad brush "IT'S FAKE NEWS" dismissive arguments.

By all means, if anyone can viably refute the information I post … do it! Otherwise, whether or not anyone thinks I'm "arrogant," a "socialist" or any other type they don't care for, let the outcome determine whether or not I know what I'm talking about.

Comey is well thought of by FBI career individuals; given Trump's attacks on the security community, and now, the firing of Comey (and other individuals involved in the investigation process), I believe the heat on Trump will result in his impeachment, dismissal, or resignation.

I am not sure if Trump would resign because of Pressure(heat) I have watched Trump's behavior for 40years in NYC he always bounced back..It will take more to get Trump out of the WH..TRUMP is after something bigger for himself his family and billionaire friends..Watch your pocket book, he is like a sweet talking man who while whispering in a woman's ear his hands have made it to areas he was not invited...CON MAN IS WHAT I CALL HIM...

Can't have it both ways!

If Comey was fired because, in part, HE INDICTED CLINTON IN THE "COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION" and consequently gave the election to Trump, THEN TRUMP FIRED HIM FOR HANDING TRUMP THE ELECTION!

The reason for the firing is so clearly a bullshit story to intimidate investigators of the Trump/Russia connection … that it doesn't pass the laugh test.

Again … the dam of damning information is about to burst!

Again … the dam of damning information is about to burst!

I sure hope so.  I'm tired of the corrupt government we've been experiencing and the MSM manipulating what the people take as being the truth.

I'm tired of people unmasking people for political purposes during an election, then denying they had anything to do with it and refusing to testify about it.

Tired of the Establishment on both sides supported by the MSM.

Jeff Sessions broke the terms of his recusal by participating in this action. He's lucky the GOP controls Congress or there would likely be congressional hearings about that. 

John , I read both letters you posted on a different seed, both dated the same day, my question , of course , is which came first , Sessions  or the deputy AG's?  Because of that question , if the deputies came first , sessions letter can be viewed as a concurrence , being made as head of the agency as a matter of personel . Of course there is the question of was the deputies letter solicited in any manner? or did he reach that conclusion on his own? if it is the latter , then I don't feel sessions violated the recusal and simply, as head of the dept , concurred and made it known he was aware.

the choice to fire / dismiss , rested with the president.

So you think they'll find collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians now, since they say they didn't have anything yet as of yesterday?

SIX: Do you really think what you heard on the NEWS is really what is going on???I hope COMEY had enough Sense to keep  records away from what he has in the office, I hope he knew to Cover his Ass...

SIX: Do you really think what you heard on the NEWS is really what is going on???

That wasn't just the news, I heard that right on the House floor, unless they are lying to Congress.

No one has officially said "there's no evidence of collusion."

Whatever evidence may exist would be classified as Yates, Clapper and others have stated on the record.

 These pronouncements regarding information to which the public is not privy, are a huge problem in that they disseminate speculation and partisan wishful thinking as facts.

Those who regularly leave such comments often blame MSM for doing what they themselves do ... repeating the debunked misinformation of Fox, Drudge, Breitbart, The Daily Caller and the others.

It's frightening.

My choice for Special Prosecutor ... independent Council ...

James Comey ...

I hear he is currently not busy.

I'd support him!

LOL mac , I know that was said mostly in jest since Comeys dismissal / firing makes him a key witness. and it isn't like he now doesn't have an axe to grind for both sides of the isle, but lets look at the call for an independent prosecutor. and it is now an issue because of reports that the senate democrats are discussing the nuclear option of a work stoppage using the rules of the senate until they get one.

 problem I see , is even IF the repub side in leadership agrees to ask for one , neither side would get to choose who that independent prosecutor would be , it would fall to the deputy AG since the person normally tasked , the AG has recused himself from the matter of the investigation . AND whom the deputy AG chooses if he agrees one is needed and required is up to him without any congressional influence , so it ends up becoming a crap shoot , remember the Star investigations and how that grew legs and went where it did?

I think even IF a special prosecutor is asked for , with comeys removal , the deputy AG would most likely say that the agency currently investigating should be allowed to continue, albeit , with a new head / point man that is the face of the agency answering what is being discovered, in other words , before the step of an independent investigator is visited , the new "guy " has to be given a chance.

 Just MHO of course.

I totally agree with you Mark.  There is no need for an Independent Prosecutor, but the Democrats want that for several reasons.  One is it will drag this thing out probably until the 2020 election, which they can use to gain campaign funds.  Two they will continue to hold a cloud over this administration for as long as they want.  Three because they are a bunch of low life scumbags who don't really give a crap about the American Citizens.  They only care about power and don't want to lose their elite status in the Washington Establishment Club.

There is nothing to this Trump and the Russians and they know it, but they don't want this administration to get anything done, even though they will probably lose a few more politicians in the next election because all the Deplorables have caught onto their game on both sides of the isle.

youtube

I must have let the YouTube video play out and put the wrong one up.  This one is the same as the audio above.

I think even IF a special prosecutor is asked for , with comeys removal , the deputy AG would most likely say that the agency currently investigating should be allowed to continue, albeit , with a new head / point man that is the face of the agency answering what is being discovered, in other words , before the step of an independent investigator is visited , the new "guy " has to be given a chance.

I think it depends on who the "new guy or girl" Trump nominates is. If he promotes someone who is (if you'll excuse the word) unimpeachable from within the FBI, then that would be great, though there is no guarantee that if he or she gets too close to finding out things Trumps doesn't want known. On the other hand if he nominates someone with ties to his administration or election like a Rudi Giulinai or Chris Christie level type or that lunatic sheriff then a 9-11 style commission has to be appointed. I would nominate Colin Powell to lead it and assemble it.

Liberals demand Comey resign or be fired.

Trump fires Comey, for the reasons liberals argue for.

It's a Constitutional Crises!

From an outsiders POV:

The issue is timing. Comey was not fired for his investigation of Clinton, even if that is what the White House says. If they cared about that, he would have been fired right away. He was fired during his investigation of Russia's interference. That doesn't look good. 

In life, timing is everything.

Is this a Constitutional Crises? That I am not sure of.

LoL!

So folks Trump finishes his inauguration and his first order of business is to fire FBI Comey.

Schumer's response:  It's not Congress, but the people of this country I love, who need to know Trump's immediate actions are indicative of stopping the ongoing investigation into his ties to the Russians and the collusion between the two.  We need to have the temporary FBI Director choose an Independent Prosecutor immediately so we can end this corruption perpetrated by the Trump Administration.

Schumer's later response:  The Temporary FBI Director shouldn't be the one choosing the Independent Prosecutor.

CNN:  The water is murky, but the view is clear, Trump has made it his first action to stop the investigation into his collusion with the Russians during the 2016 election.

MSNBC:  I think we have a whiff of fascism here today when it's not the Constitution, but the power that is driving Trump's administration.

So tell me when the perfect timing should be?

Obama got stuck with Hillary.  Comey got tied up in their corruption.  Rice and others unmasked over 5000 people in 2016 compared to 150 in 2013 and Comey will not divulge who they were even to Congress or the President.  Rice refuses to testify even though she told two entirely different stories, kind of like Obama's usual take, I was able to get our boys out of Iraq.  Shit hits the fan. Obama:  I didn't have anything to do with it.

The unmasking was suppose to be only to the person who requested it, but The New Times and The Washington Post were reporting it. 

I know the Democrat leadership thinks their constituents are pretty dense and they feel the same way about the rest of us, but we're not as dumb as they think.  The only problem we have is we don't seem to have the power to get to the bottom of anything because of the obstruction.  The Obama Administration and all divisions of it have been the most obstructive administration in my life time.  I doubt they even have all the requested information from Benghazi even today.

So tell me when the perfect timing was?

There is and was no perfect timing.  The Democrats would have reacted the same at any second Trump would have chosen to fire Comey.  They were just waiting for it to happen.  They didn't really know if would happen, but they already had their lines memorized if and when it did. 

I bet you if everyone called all their friends and had all their friends call all their friends 1000 fold, you wouldn't come up with a handful of people who changed their votes because of any collusion or not or any Wiki Leaks that were made public. 

But I have to say it is kind of sickening how the Clinton campaign was run.  It reminds me of someone stealing a wallet, someone witnessing it and the person witnessing it getting blamed for turning the thief in.  It is kind of disgusting how low these people will go and people will still not see how unscrupulous they truly are.

They are definitely led around like sheep completely oblivious to reality.

The issue is the timing ... Trump could have fired Comey on day one in office; instead, he waited until he heard footsteps.

Comey was fired in part because he turned the court of public opinion against Clinton and handed Trump the election.

Since that equates to firing the guy who violated Justice Department protocol to improperly hand him the election, Trump should take the next logical step and call for a new election.

When you make your case by leaving out the most relevant details, you lose your case.

Since that equates to firing the guy who violated Justice Department protocol to improperly hand him the election, Trump should take the next logical step and call for a new election.

Only if you're honest and not drunk with power..

LOL.. now that makes two of us. You owe me a beer, Mac. 

First time we meet in person, the beer is on me ...

... Or, you can drink it from a bottle or mug.

Even if learned men, academics and legal experts state their opinion that it is a constitutional crises, it does not make it so. It's still speculation.  In the US legal system, there is a presumption of innocence. Meaning, at face value, if Trump said he fired Comey for some kind of legal malfeasance, then it must be assumed that the act was legal, regardless of popular opinion or how bad it looks.

What changes things is when that act is challenged in court. It must be proved that Trump is guilty of deliberately subverting the law by firing Comey. As of this moment, no suits have been filed.

During today's White House Briefing whenever Sarah Sanders was asked about why Donald Trump praised Jim Comey last year, but lost confidence in him and fired him this year, for what he did last year, she kept saying that last year's Trump was Candidate Trump and today's Trump is President Trump and that basically what Candidate Trump said doesn't count compared to President Trump. Didn't she realize that she was saying that means that everything Candidate Trump said was a lie?

Does anyone remember who from the FBI went to the White House to tell Reince Priebus that the NY Times story about Paul Manifort's meetings with Russian agents, was "b.s." and not to worry about it?

The Times story, in fact, has been validated ...   as not b.s. ...

So, who will be first to name that FBI stooge for the White House, and why it's troubling?

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. It's a problem because he wasn't supposed to go over his boss' head and not talk to the White House about the story.

We have a winner!

Now, we'll likely see a spinner ... or two. 

The Washington Post is reporting, from 30 different leak-ers (sources) that most of the FBI Agents that they have been talking to, far from being happy that someone they have "lost confidence in" being gone, they are pissed off (not the reporter's exact words) and are going to double down on their efforts on this investigation.

I told my wife back when Trump first insulted the CIA by comparing them to Nazis that the worst thing he can do is to piss off career intelligence agents because they can and, if needed, will bring him down. He has pissed off career intelligence agents one too many times methinks.

The winds of a shit storm are whipping up; Trump continues to create more problems for himself and greater resolve among those who have the info to bring him down.

And that's it too. He is, by his ham-handed, amateurish way of doing things, making things much worse for himself. This firing screams cover-up and he could have handled it a lot better! He is trying to run the government like he is still a CEO and answerable to no one and is genuinely shocked at the blast back he is getting from is one screw up after another. He honestly didn't see the firestorm coming from this firing! Which has to make him incredibly naive or some sort of low grade moron! Hell my dog Molly saw this reaction coming!

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Comey spoke to The Senate Investigators on Monday and that, in spite of what the White House and the DOJ are claiming, he reported to them that the investigation had really heated up, including evidence of collusion and that he had requested extra personnel and resources and they had asked him to step up his investigation immediately.

The New York Times is now reporting that people close to James Comey are also saying that, in Comey's words the President is "outside the realm of normal" and "crazy."

From the article according to Dan Farber , the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley:

We won’t really know how to interpret the Comey firing until we know whom Trump nominates to replace him. If Trump nominates an independent, respected figure to replace Comey, well and good. If he nominates someone who is compromised by associations with Trump or who lacks credibility as an objective investigator, then it will be fair to start making comparisons to Richard Nixon. That would be the point to start worrying in earnest about a constitutional crisis.

Could you get a more "liberal" opinion source than one from UC Berkeley ? I think not & this source thinks that conclusions at this point are premature ...

Does the name Archibald Cox ring a bell?

OH yeah. I'm sure that many of the younger members may have just read about him, but I remember him well and the Saturday night Massacre. That's when I knew our old Congressman and all around nice guy was going to become President. I was just starting Computer School the following Monday at Sheppard AFB in Wichita Falls TX. It was all of the talk all over the Air Base.

en.wikipedia

"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over... Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule."

Gerald R. Ford

August 10, 1974

I hope what he said is still how our nation works and that partisanship has not destroyed it.

The Washington Post is now reporting that the Deputy Attorney General, Ron J. Rosentein threatened to resign last night when he found out that his letter was being presented as the reason for former FBI Director Comey being fired. He said he never recommend the firing, that the decision was not his and he wanted the blame taken off from him completely and immediately.

I have no idea who you think is Deputy Attny Gnl . The current holder of that office is : Rod Rosenstein . And so far he has not quit ...

Deputy Attorney General, Ron J. Rosentein threatened to resign last night when he found out that his letter was being presented as the reason for former FBI Director Comey being fired.

It might not be a bad idea to fire him too.

A typo? Really? That's the best you have? And you wonder why I rarely lower myself to your level.

So ... you don't think its premature to reach a conclusion now ? Comey was at no time a special prosecutor . Drawing such a parallel is unwarranted ... but feel free to make a case . Frankly I've never seen you make a solid case for anything . Everything you say seems to be speculation bordering on conspiracy theories .

Frankly, coming from you, I take that as a compliment.