Gulf News

Firing Comey was a big mistake

Nearly a year after sacking the FBI director, Trump is in no better position in several of the hot-button cases that surround his presidency

- By Noah Feldman ■ Noah Feldman is a professor of Law at Harvard University.

As more details emerge about United States President Donald Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen, the whole issue may seem inevitable: Lie down with dogs and you wake up with fleas, as Poor Richard’s Almanac memorably put it. But that’s wrong. Trump could have avoided a full-on criminal investigat­ion of the lawyer who paid off Stormy Daniels and did who knows what else that seems likely to create further serious legal problems for the president.

We are where we are because of something very concrete Trump did himself a year ago this week: The president had fired James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigat­ion (FBI). With that decision, whether impulsive or considered, Trump sent America down a path of inquiries that is not merely sordid, but seriously jeopardisi­ng to his presidency. And he didn’t have to do it.

Ask yourself the classic counterfac­tual question of what would have happened if Comey had remained in office. Some things would have almost certainly happened anyway: The FBI would have continued to investigat­e Russian interferen­ce in the 2016 election. The Department of Justice would have indicted the Russians involved in the troll farm that manipulate­d US social media. The Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal would have come to light and been the topic of national conversati­on. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg would have testified before Congress about it.

Then there are the maybes. It’s possible that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates would have been swept up in the Russia investigat­ion. On the one hand, they had Russia ties via their Ukrainian escapades, and even a cursory investigat­ion of those ties by the FBI would’ve revealed the felonies they are now charged with. That’s reason to think they would’ve been arrested without the special counsel investigat­ion that was sparked by Comey’s firing.

The same is just not true of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. By firing Comey, then attempting to assassinat­e his character, Trump made it blatantly clear that he considered any investigat­ion a personal matter, and would treat any investigat­or as his enemy. As a result, when Mueller stepped into his role, he had to be aware from Day One that Trump would see him as the enemy, would try to pressure him and might well fire him. That gave Mueller every reason to insulate himself against the possibilit­y of being fired and to build up whatever leverage he could to stop that from happening. That meant genuinely investigat­ing not only possible coordinati­on with Russia, but also all crimes that might be discovered during that investigat­ion — as his letter of appointmen­t expressly authorises him to do.

And Mueller’s incentives go beyond protecting himself and his investigat­ion. The firing of Comey created a whole new potential crime: Obstructio­n of justice by the president.

As a result of the Comey firing, we face the possibilit­y that the Russia investigat­ion will end up looking more like Whitewater than Watergate. That is, even if it turns out that there’s no meaningful evidence of coordinati­on to affect the election — the original investigat­ive subject — the process of investigat­ion may well reveal legal violations unconnecte­d to the original subject. Former US president Bill Clinton really did lie under oath, albeit about Monica Lewinsky, not Whitewater. And Cohen really did engage in behaviour on behalf of Trump that seems likely to have violated federal law in connection with Daniels.

If the Cohen investigat­ion ends up implicatin­g Trump in crimes, he will have no one to blame but himself.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Arab Emirates