​THE sensational firing of controversial FBI director James Comey on Tuesday has stoked the long-smouldering inquiry into the Trump campaign’s alleged electoral collusion with Russian intelligence into a towering firestorm. The Administration’s critics cry foul, seeing an attempt to deflect the investigation, and thereby undermining the rule of law and by extension, the entire constitutional order, while its defenders insist that the Comey had acted improperly with regards to the earlier criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and that his departure was long overdue. The Democrats’ own criticism of the Director for his handling of that case has since come back to haunt them, gleefully repeated by insincere mouths. But what is the truth?

The first thing to acknowledge is that Comey was a fool. There is no question that he was too big for his boots, and sought a role on the political stage that was improper for a man in his office to seek. His decision, at a public hearing in July of last year, to heap invective on Hillary Clinton before clearing her was not, any more than his catastrophic decision to announce the re-opening of the email server investigation just days before the election, the calculation of a secret Trump sympathiser, but the blunder of a self-important buffoon. As much is revealed by his insistence, when offered an opportunity to denounce his decision to inform Congress of the re-opening of the email probe, that it was by his grace alone that the Bureau’s sacred obligation to not meddle in politics would be observed (or not, as was the case). He has no-one to blame for his humiliation before the eyes of the world: his own recklessness and stupidity left him open to persecution.

But the Administration’s pretext – that Trump sought to defend the honour of Crooked Hillary – is a lie so ludicrous as to be insulting. The lie is blatant but insistent, and believed by no-one, least of all those who most vociferously defend it. Why else have Trump loyalists resorted to deflections, hollow charges of hypocrisy and invidious comparisons with Bill Clinton? (Suffice to say, the disingenuous and farcical attempts to compare this sacking to President Clinton’s firing of then-serving FBI Director William Sessions – a man whose misdeeds in public office were documented in a 161-page Department of Justice report, backed by the sworn testimony of more than 100 serving FBI officers – deserve only ridicule.) Nor is Comey’s dismissal the action of an innocent man: if Trump is as eager as he should be to prove his innocence of collusion with Russia, he must do two things: first, he must replace the Director with a serious and credible figure – one boasting unimpeachable integrity and bipartisan support. Some pliable non-entity or obsequious hack will not do. Second, he must appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of the Trump-Russia connection, and make public whatever there is to find. And the Republican Congress, if they truly believe their man to be innocent, should demand these steps too. Their effort to block a genuine investigation reveal their true estimation of this Administration’s integrity.

They are as delusional as they are desperate. This scandal will not simply expire with time, because it cannot: if the President successfully thwarts an investigation into his campaign by firing the chief investigator, the United States will have become a banana republic. Recall what is at stake: there exist credible allegations that Trump’s inner circle engaged in common endeavour with a foreign power to corrupt an American election. If such collusion did take place, it is a matter of treason – and someone must swing for it.

 

Nathan

Saturday May 13^th, 2017

London