In September of 2017, President Trump’s press secretary Sarah Sanders suggested that the US Department of Justice should “should certainly look at” prosecuting James Comey, the former director of the FBI, for (unsubstantiated) false testimony to Congress. Trump himself hinted that he had tapes implicating Comey. Then last week, the President tweeted that the Justice Department must “finally act … on Comey.”
While acknowledging that it wasn’t up to the President to decide, his press secretary nevertheless detailed a list of Comey’s violations that should warrant investigation. Although we have become accustomed to the President’s intervening in other legal cases (see my post here), it’s important to reiterate how inappropriate these interventions are and their risk to democracy.
The comments about Comey, however, go even deeper.
The role of the FBI is to investigate crime within the country. Because some crimes have political implications, it’s crucial that the FBI remain above even a hint of partisanship. Trump’s response to the FBI’s (appropriate) investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails and then its (appropriate) investigation of Russian interference in the election, however, has politicized both the FBIs and Comey’s role. (Trump has called behavior by a senior FBI investigator “treason.”)
The President has, to say the least, a personal interest in the outcome, making his intervention even more unacceptable. This politicization has spread to other parts of the Republican Party, threatening to derail both Senate and House investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The President fired Comey because of Comey’s initial investigation of the Trump campaign’s possible collusion in Russian interference in the election. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s appointment to continue the probe has led to concerns about Trump’s alleged use of his office to obstruct justice by firing Comey. Comey’s testimony will be essential in Mueller’s investigation, making the President’s push for Comey’s prosecution even more treacherous.
For the President to suggest legal action in a matter in which he is so intimately involved, crosses the line over his appropriate constitutional power.
A Washington Post editorial:
The president’s assault on a nonpartisan law enforcement agency and his insistence on prosecuting political opponents suggest he does not understand the differences between advanced democracies and authoritarian states.
In the United States, the government does not punish political adversaries through the legal system unless there is overwhelming evidence of criminal behavior. And even in these cases (eg Richard Nixon’s role in Watergate), politicians must be scrupulous in maintaining their non-partisanship.
President Trump’s impact on our democracy has been destructive. When he threatens political enemies with legal punishment or when he seeks to impact the behavior of law enforcement or the courts, he threatens the fragile web of tradition, law, and expectation that sustain our democracy.
