The Political Fallout of Comey’s FBI Tenure

Roughly twenty years ago, the tale of Justice Antonin Scalia’s duck hunting expedition with former Vice President Dick Cheney emerged. The expedition drew significant attention since the Supreme Court was evaluating a case that contested some official actions pertaining to Cheney’s role in the Bush administration. A consequent plea for Scalia’s withdrawal from said case, citing his personal relationship with the Vice President, was rejected by Scalia. Within his grounds for rejecting it, Scalia pointed out that demanding justices to dissociate from cases involving friends could be incredibly immobilizing. Many a time, Scalia stated, justices had been appointed just because of being friends with the current President, or other reigning senior officials. He also cited numerous historical instances of justices having close relationships with presidents or high-ranking executive branch members.

While on the surface, Scalia’s reasoning for rejecting the plea for withdrawal may seem questionable, it provides an accurate portrayal of the prevalent elite culture in Washington. High ranking presidential appointees form a relatively small group, the fraction of Republicans among them being smaller still. These roles in governance involve countless meetings, with rival agencies resolving their conflicts and political factions vying for dominance. Eventually, when these individuals ascend to topmost positions, such as a Justice or a leader of an agency, they are likely to be well-acquainted, if not friendly with many of their counterparts.

This brings us to a recent decision by Trump to levy criminal charges on former FBI Director James Comey –- charges so feeble that President Trump had to dismiss a US attorney to secure an indictment, going so far as to place a loyal member in the fired attorney’s position. Overruling the fact that Comey had been a Republican for the greater part of his career, and that the Democratic President Barack Obama had appointed him to lead the FBI to evade a difficult approval face-off with Senate Republicans.

Comey had a vivid career under the Republican President George W. Bush, serving the Justice Department as its deputy attorney general, a position second only to the Attorney General. His appointment to this role followed after his appointment by Bush to a prestigious post as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan. Given his several political roles, it’s highly probable that he had the opportunity to work directly with at least two sitting justices.

His stint as the deputy attorney general was overlapped with Justice Neil Gorsuch’s time in a senior position at the Justice Department. Also, the investigation being led by Comey into the Whitewater controversy of the 90s was parallel to the investigation led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh into the same matter under Ken Starr, who was then the independent counsel. Concurrently, Comey was undoubtedly familiar to most of the justices, considering his topmost official roles in two presidential administrations, and his prominence among Republican lawyers in Washington, D.C.

Comey’s background is very much identical to that of the Republican justices. If the justices continue their subservient demeanor towards this administration and fail to restrain Trump in time, they might soon find themselves falling next in line. It is an acknowledged fact that James Comey is largely responsible for Trump’s rise to presidency. One of the most ironic aspects of Trump’s prosecution of Comey is that without Comey’s influence, it’s highly unlikely that Trump would have made it to the presidency.

When Hillary Clinton assumed the position of Secretary of State in 2009, it was a common practice for the nation’s top diplomat to use a personal email account for conducting official duties – a practice which Clinton herself followed. A senior official from Clinton’s State Department later clarified the reason behind this – the need for the Secretary of State to communicate promptly with other senior diplomats, which could not be achieved while adhering to the strict security protocols followed for classified communications among more junior government employees.

Clinton’s decision to use a personal email account for work-related correspondence somehow became the most controversial issue during the 2016 election cycle. The media is partly to blame, but a lot of it had to do with James Comey. After the FBI had concluded that there was no need to prosecute Clinton for her email conduct, Comey, serving as the FBI director, surprisingly held a press conference wherein he termed her actions as ‘extremely careless’.

Close to the 2016 Election Day, Comey once again made the issue of the emails a subject of nationwide interest by releasing an obscure letter to Congress notifying that the FBI was reinstating its investigation into Clinton. These actions were a clear defiance of the long-standing Justice Department protocols. Comey had flouted ethical norms against disseminating unjust unstated implications against an accused party which they couldn’t rightfully counter.

These standards are not only a good convention to follow but are also rooted in our Constitution. Had Clinton faced charges, she would have been granted a trial and given a formal procedure for vindication. However, Comey’s use of his influential position to defame her effectively deprived her of this due process. Despite winning around 3 million more votes nationwide than Trump, she lost narrowly in the crucial states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

If Comey had abided by the Justice Department’s measures to prevent tarnishing individuals who haven’t been indicted and to refrain from interfering with elections, Trump would probably still be an unsuccessful real estate developer today. Consequently, Comey’s actions arguably led to Trump’s presidency. One might think that Trump would be eternally grateful to Comey for practically gifting him the presidency. However, his faith in Comey was lost after the FBI looked into the possible connections between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government.

Trump ultimately terminated Comey from his role at the FBI. Ever since, Comey has found his name in Trump’s blacklist. Trump targeting Comey depicts his readiness to turn against those who have previously been advantageous to him, at a moment’s notice once he perceives that they have turned against him. He even goes to the extent of harnessing the total potential of the United States government against those who’ve disappointed him. Even Republicans who have contributed exceptionally towards benefiting Trump are not immune to his vindictiveness.