Two of the Ad Hoc Standing Committee’s contributing writers offer brief opinions on Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey. While events continue to unfold rapidly in the wake of the dismissal, the act itself of firing carries some weighty implications, to which we turn our attention.
Mel: What concerns me the most about this situation is that it is yet another example of President Trump’s tendency to act first and then ask questions or seek advice later. His administration appears disorganized and chaotic because his staff is constantly required to react to the whims and caprices of a Commander in Chief who shoots from the hip with little to no context, forethought, or engagement. President Trump fired Comey because he wanted to; it doesn’t matter if it was because of the Russia investigation, the Clinton emails, or because he didn’t like the tie Comey wore on TV. What matters is that the President decided to do something drastic and went ahead and did it with – apparently – little thought given to its ramifications. And then he was surprised when accolades didn’t come pouring in like he had anticipated.
The reason I find this concerning is because, for certain domestic political-institutional issues like this one, it’s largely insider baseball that political pundits like to talk about endlessly on TV, but with which the general public really doesn’t concern itself. I doubt most Americans really care about who the head of the FBI is or, really, who he’s investigating at any given time. It should matter to them, but I doubt that it does. What I’m worried about is if President Trump is allowed to continue this pattern of impulsive action before reflection in the international sphere. Foreign governments are significantly less, shall we say, understanding of spontaneous decision making than the general American public. Missteps like this in the international arena could have much more dramatic consequences than pundits complaining on MSNBC. Misread intentions can lead to people getting killed. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that anyone in the Trump Administration is willing – or able – to address this particular aspect of President Trump’s leadership style. At some point, he will shoot from the hip on the international stage and we will be left with the fallout. Hopefully it can be contained.
Patrick: Admittedly, my first reaction was tongue-in-cheek, something along the lines of “Huh. How ungrateful.” Although there are convincing reasons to believe that Comey severely mishandled Clinton’s email investigation (example), to be fair, he appeared to be proceeding in some good faith with the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Comey’s apparent unwillingness to operate as a political loyalist reportedly infuriated Trump, whether the president thought Comey was too soft on Clinton; Comey continued to pursue the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections; Comey refused to back off the Flynn investigation when asked; or Comey refused to pledge personal loyalty to Mr. Trump (example 1, example 2). Put in context with Trump’s conduct up to this point, the firing and subsequent fallout tell me three main things:
(1) Trump acted impulsively. Echoing Mel’s sentiment above, I believe this decision was not a premeditated one. Although Trump’s irritation with Comey has reportedly been growing, the decision certainly came as a surprise to Trump advisors. The White House communication strategy on Comey’s dismissal is practically non-existent and the communications team was apparently unprepared for the negative fallout. As Comey was seeking additional resources for the investigation prior to his sacking, the decision may also have been made in a moment of panic.
(2) Trump believes he is still CEO, not the president. This incident is one of a series in which Trump has been enraged and mystified when he is politically thwarted. He is accustomed to obedience in his previous life as a CEO in a centralized corporate structure built around him specifically, a mentality that he brought with him to the White House. Comey was not toeing the company line to Trump’s satisfaction and was therefore terminated. Trump will – presumably – replace him with a more on-message director. In a governance context, however, this mentality arguably undermines the accountability mechanisms and division of powers on which democracy is based.
(3) Accountability depends on the Republican Party. Trump’s obvious reason for dumping Comey is to replace him with a director who will steer the FBI’s efforts away from the Russian connection. Confirmation of a new FBI Director requires a simple 51-vote majority in the Senate, where Republicans hold 52 seats. Although some Republicans have voiced concern about Comey’s termination, it remains to be seen what kind of director they will approve. Additionally, while former FBI Director Robert Mueller has now been appointed by the Justice Department to lead the investigation in a special, independent capacity, it remains to be seen how much autonomy and cooperation he will receive.
This post represents the opinion of the authors in their personal capacities and should not be construed as the official position of any agency, organization, or contractor by which the authors are presently or have been previously employed.
This post represents the opinion of the authors in their personal capacities and should not be construed as the official position of any agency, organization, or contractor by which the authors are presently or have been previously employed.
