Boston Herald

Prez undermines independen­ce of FBI

Norm is to keep law enforcemen­t politicall­y neutral

- By NOAH FELDMAN Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a professor of constituti­onal and internatio­nal law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

It’s not a constituti­onal crisis. Technicall­y, President Donald Trump was within his constituti­onal rights Tuesday when he fired FBI Director James Comey. The Federal Bureau of Investigat­ion is part of the executive branch, not an independen­t agency. But the firing did violate a powerful unwritten norm: that the director serves a 10-year, nonrenewab­le term and is fired only for good cause.

Only one director has ever been removed from office involuntar­ily: President Bill Clinton fired Director William Sessions in 1993 after an internal report found that he had committed significan­t ethics violations.

There is, therefore, reason to be deeply concerned about Comey’s firing, which has the effect of politicizi­ng law enforcemen­t — a risky precedent in a rule-of-law democracy. And the fact that the FBI is investigat­ing the Trump administra­tion makes that politiciza­tion look like pure presidenti­al self-interest.

Practice regarding FBI directors doesn’t go back all that far, because J. Edgar Hoover ran the department from 1924 to 1972, ultimately dying in office. Hoover was too powerful and knew too much to be fired.

In reaction, Congress adopted a law in 1976 that limited the director to a 10-year term. The law doesn’t place any limits on presidenti­al power to fire the director. Arguably, law enforcemen­t is so central to the core constituti­onal power of the executive that it would violate the separation of powers if Congress tried to take away the president’s authority to remove the chief federal law enforcemen­t officer.

At the same time, however, it’s anomalous in a rule-of-law system for law enforcemen­t to be too responsive to the political whims of the elected executive. It’s just very risky to allow a country’s most powerful elected official to control the appointmen­t of key law enforcemen­t officers — in part because of conflicts of interest like the one raised by the Comey firing. As a result, the vast majority of well-functionin­g democracie­s profession­alize the investigat­ive role, rather than politicizi­ng it.

That’s been the unwritten norm in the U.S. — one might almost say, a part of our unwritten, small-c constituti­on, though not of the written, big-C Constituti­on. Of the four Senateconf­irmed directors before Comey, all served under presidents of both parties. Three served until their terms ended or they voluntaril­y retired. One, Robert Mueller, got a special twoyear extension.

The exception was William Sessions. Sessions, initially appointed by President Ronald Reagan, was fired by Clinton after an investigat­ion by the Office of Profession­al Responsibi­lity of the Department of Justice found that he’d used FBI planes to visit friends and relatives. Clinton tried to get Sessions to resign in order not to have to break precedent and fire him. But Sessions refused, and Clinton pulled the trigger and fired him anyway. Trump alluded indirectly to the Sessions firing in his message to Comey when he said “you are not able to effectivel­y lead the bureau.” This echoed Clinton’ s language when he said that Sessions could “no longer effectivel­y lead the bureau.” By implicatio­n, Trump was saying that he has as much right to fire Comey as Clinton did to fire Sessions. In practice, there’s a big difference between Sessions’ ethics violations, which were documented by George H.W. Bush’s Department of Justice, and Comey’s admittedly highly problemati­c management of the investigat­ion of Hillary Clinton.

Comey may arguably have acted unethicall­y by announcing the reopening of the Clinton email investigat­ion shortly before November’s election — but Trump didn’t say so, and surely he’s the last person in the world who would make that claim. The firing of Comey is blatantly political. The bottom line is presumably that the Trump administra­tion knows it can’t control Comey, and so it doesn’t trust him.

It seems to me, for what it’s worth, that Comey should have resigned after Trump’s election to avoid the appearance that he had politicize­d his position to the benefit of the candidate who won. I’m not writing to mourn his tenure.

Yet Comey’s act of politiciza­tion doesn’t justify Trump’s decision to make the firing of the FBI director into a political act. It’s a classic case of two wrongs not making a right.

And it’s profoundly troubling that a president whose administra­tion is already under investigat­ion on multiple fronts would take such an action. Whoever is appointed to run the FBI permanentl­y will be seen as beholden to the president who appointed him or her. That will make any decision not to pursue investigat­ions into the president look politicall­y motivated and illegitima­te.

The erosion of the independen­ce of law enforcemen­t is thus a blow to the unwritten constituti­onal norm of political neutrality. It doesn’t violate the separation of powers. But it violates a norm that in its own way is almost as important.

 ??  ?? COMEY: Firing deviates from pattern of FBI chiefs serving under both parties.
COMEY: Firing deviates from pattern of FBI chiefs serving under both parties.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States