Why hasn't the US political system taken recourse against Trump for his politically motivated firings?

Question

The answers to this question - What reasons may Donald Trump have had for firing FBI Director James Comey? - appear to suggest that there is widespread certainty that the sacking was politically motivated. And furthermore that the political motivation was to avoid or reduce the impact of potentially serious corruption charges.

This is not the first time Trump's behaviour has set off these alarm bells. Similar accusations were levelled against his sackings of Sally Yates and Preet Bharara.

As an outside observer (I live in Europe), it seems quite astonishing and appalling that he has been able to do this without political opposition. Especially when media condemnation and certainty that he has ulterior motives seems almost universal.

Part of the job of the US constitution and legislature would seem to be to offer checks and balances against the actions of the President. Why has no-one yet used any of these powers to try and rein in or remove the President? What steps would there have to be, now, in order to begin such a process?

Your question assumes that his firings were politically motivated. Our jaded misgivings otherwise, it's entirely possible that he fired Comey for precisely the reasons he stated. — , May 10 '17 at 16:30
Re: "appear to suggest that there is widespread certainty" - Keep in mind that there is a particular similar personality type that frequents stackexchange forums. The results of one answer on politics.stackexchange is probably not a good statistical representation of US politics as a whole. — , May 10 '17 at 17:01
You are incorrect that no recourse is being taken. The Democrats are on the warpath. But they won't get very far without a bit more Republican support. — Colin, May 11 '17 at 01:50
There was "Widespread certainty" that OJ did it... "Widespread Certainty" isn't a conviction... for the same reason Hillary walks free, Trump walks free: Innocent until proven guilty. — WernerCD, May 11 '17 at 06:41
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. — Sam I am says Reinstate Monica, May 12 '17 at 04:09
The question also assumes that the motivation, whether political or otherwise, is at all relevant. Absent proof of bribery, the president's motive for firing officials who serve at his pleasure--and the FBI director is one such--is immaterial. — EvilSnack, Dec 16 '18 at 20:14

score 104 · Answer 1 · edited Nov 30 '20 at 16:48

104

No one has attempted to "rein in or remove the President" because he has not been found to have done anything illegal. These "politically motivated sackings" were not of elected officials or even people appointed by congress. They were political appointees in the executive branch, which the President is in charge of. Obama replaced George W. Bush appointees with his own. Before that, George W. Bush appointed replacements for Clinton appointees and before that Clinton appointed replacements for George H. W. Bush's people.

That's how the system works. Political appointments tend to not last long after the appointing politician is gone.

Trump won the election and, as Obama said, elections have consequences. The duly elected President of the United States would have trouble fulfilling the demands of their voters if they were constantly having the department heads loyal to the predecessor who appointed them.

edited Nov 30 '20 at 16:48

phoog

17,829
3
58
81

answered May 10 '17 at 11:39

user14116

857
1
5
4

3

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – yannis May 10 '17 at 23:22
58

"That's how the system works." Summarily firing the FBI director is NOT how the system works. It has never been done before. It is legal, but violates established norms. – Colin May 11 '17 at 01:41
11

@ColinZwanziger what about William Sessions? – phoog May 11 '17 at 03:12
34

He wasn't summarily fired. He was fired after a DOJ investigation into abuse of power. – Colin May 11 '17 at 05:23
13

I heard on NPR that the FBI director "serves at the pleasure of the President" and he's entirely within his rights to fire him. It may be almost unheard of, but there's nothing prohibiting it. We already know that Trump is an extremely unconventional POTUS. – Barmar May 11 '17 at 21:50
4

@Barmar not to mention Trump did sort of make his campaign fairly heavily based on... removing political people from office and replacing them. – enderland May 13 '17 at 17:55
1

@barmar but don't confuse "legal" with "appropriate" – May 14 '17 at 23:47
@enderland no, he claimed he'd drain the swamp of corporate influence, then replaced many of them with corporate influenced people. Note he also praised comet for the things he claimed he fired comey for (until he admitted he did yet because if the Russia investigation) – May 14 '17 at 23:48
2

@blip Indeed, firing the official who is probably leading an investigation into your own activities smells very unethical. – Barmar May 15 '17 at 04:09
@Colin: If it is legal, then it is how the system works. The fact that the system is not often used that way is immaterial as far as the question of legality goes. – EvilSnack Dec 16 '18 at 20:09
@Colin precedent does not mean anything. https://xkcd.com/1122/ – Sep 24 '19 at 10:33

Jörg W Mittag · Accepted Answer · 2017-05-10T15:46:50.460

75

You wrote that you are

an outside observer (I live in Europe)

As a fellow European, I can somewhat relate. There is an important thing to consider, though: in the US, professional bureaucrats play a lot smaller role than in most European countries. Your profile page states that you are from the UK. In the UK, only the very top bureaucrats are political appointees; the rest are professional bureaucrats. In the UK, the number of bureaucrats that is actually appointed by the government, and thus usually (although not necessarily) changes when the government changes is ~100. (I got that number from an answer to a different question on this site which I cannot find again at this moment.)

In the US, political appointees go much, much lower, well into the mid-level management of all the many organizations. A new administration usually replaces ~4000(!!!) bureaucrats. All the heads of all the government organizations, all the department heads of those organizations, etc. are appointed by the President and serve at the President's discretion. IOW: the President can appoint whomever they want whenever they want for as long (or as short) as they want for any reason whatsoever without owing anyone any explanation of any kind. (Some positions (~1000) require Senate approval, of course.)

The head of the FBI is one such position. It is true that customarily, the head of the FBI is usually not replaced by a new administration, simply because the position is not usually a very political one in the first place: FBI directors aren't chosen for their party affiliation, they are chosen for their crimefighting and leadership skills. Obama kept several appointees by G.W. Bush, just like Bush kept several appointees by Bill Clinton. But, that's just a custom, and President Trump is free to break from this custom, if he so chooses.

Maybe Trump fired him to stall the investigation. Maybe Comey was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor and asked Trump to fire him to keep this fact private. Maybe Trump genuinely feels that he has someone who can do a better job. Maybe he just throws a set of dice and randomly fires people. It doesn't matter: all of those are legitimate reasons, and he doesn't have to explain anything.

You can judge him morally, you can judge him politically, but there's nothing you can do legally, and so there is no "recourse". He has done nothing objectively wrong.

Note that the FBI is not the only agency that can run an investigation. In particular, Congress could run an investigation, and it is completely free of influence from the President (other than the fact that he ran for the current majority party, but hey, that's democracy).

edited May 10 '17 at 15:46

answered May 10 '17 at 15:34

Jörg W Mittag

4,347
19
25

13

-1 this is factually incorrect implying that there is no recourse. One does not need to break the law for their to be political recourse. In fact, impeachment does not require that the president breaks the law--merely that congress finds the president unfit for office. – May 10 '17 at 15:56
20

@blip The answer is incomplete but factually correct. It explains why no legal recourse has been taken. – BobTheAverage May 10 '17 at 15:58
@BobTheAverage I don't know that the OP is asking specifically about legal recourse, but even so, that's my point. There can be legal recourse--even if the president didn't break the law. – May 10 '17 at 16:04
8

@Blip I think you should reconsider your downvote. There are two sides to this answer, legal recourse, and political recourse. Impeachment is as much political as it is legal. When Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment his approval rating was at 24%. He was going to be impeached because Watergate caused republican voters to abandon him. – BobTheAverage May 10 '17 at 16:48
@BobTheAverage I agree with you but don't see that in this answer. The second to last paragraph is primarily what I am commenting on. – May 10 '17 at 16:52
11

I'd argue that firing a FBI director to stall an investigation of foreign influence into your election would be kind of a textbook case of high treason. – Magisch May 11 '17 at 07:15
10

@Magisch There is no crime of high treason in the US and treason is defined as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." which firing an FBI director because he wants to investigate pretty certainly is not. – DRF May 11 '17 at 09:01
1

@DRF He could very well be adhering to US enemies by helping russia by trying not to get fired (assuming russia did help him in exchange for favors). – Magisch May 11 '17 at 09:03
2

@magisch see https://www.jstor.org/stable/787437?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents for some further explanation. In the first place it is very unlikely that Russia qualifies as an enemy of the US, generally hostile relations seems to mean at least a limited war. – DRF May 11 '17 at 10:20
5

So, TL;DR: "American civil service is not an episode of Yes, Minister. You can't @#!& off the politicians and expect to keep your job." – Kevin May 11 '17 at 23:39
1

@Magisch Legal treason has a specific definition - you must betray your country to another country with whom yours is currently at war. The US is not formally at war with anyone, so technically no one is capable of committing treason. – TylerH May 12 '17 at 20:29
1

@blip: although it may well be true that in reality impeachment is motivated as much (if not more) by politics than law, at least officially the only reason you can impeach a president is for "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (US Constitution, article 2, section 4). So no, at least officially, the congress can't remove a president simply because they find that he's unfit for office. – Jerry Coffin May 13 '17 at 17:07
3

(-1) The third paragraph completely misses the point: The head of the FBI is not one such position. That's the reason there is a 10-year term. And it's been relatively unpartisan not because head of the police naturally tends to be a nonpartisan position whereas other position would lend themselves to political appointments. Positions like Director of the United States Geological Survey are much less sensitive, yet s/he is a political appointee serving at the will of the president. – Relaxed May 13 '17 at 17:09
2

@JerryCoffin "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is completely open to interpretation, though. It's not any sort of specific legal term. – May 13 '17 at 18:52
@blip: That's not really true at all. Both "high crimes" and "misdemeanors" are types of crimes. Without breaking the law, there is no crime. – Jerry Coffin May 13 '17 at 19:20
@JerryCoffin a good quick read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#United_States It's a 'term of art' that is open to inrepretation. – May 13 '17 at 19:26
@blip: It's open to interpretation a little the same way "water" is. It's open to argument/definition whether "water" means only liquid water, or also includes steam and ice (i.e., gas and solid). Unfortunately, your position is roughly equivalent to claiming that "water" also includes helium and plutonium. – Jerry Coffin May 14 '17 at 18:25
@JerryCoffin uh, no. I'm simply saying it's open to interpretation by congress. – May 14 '17 at 18:51
There were many good answers to my question: I have accepted this because, for me, it provides the clearest explanation of the situation. – Bob Tway May 15 '17 at 09:00
2

@Magisch - You can argue that it was "to stall an investigation" but you'd have absolutely NOTHING to prove that point by even a preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. The FACT is that Comey was clearly incompetent and/or politically motivated instead of impartial and Trump had planned on getting rid of him when he got around to it. It just so happened that the time to get around to it was when the 2nd in charge for the attorney general who finally got past the democrats slow-rolling of appointees just 2 weeks prior had complained about Comey to Trump. – Dunk May 15 '17 at 15:32
Now that Trump's gone on record to admit he fired Comey to make the investigation go away, a lot of this answer is wrong. Not that it is your fault, but -1 – Shane May 15 '17 at 17:20
@Magisch: Not even close to treason. At worst it would qualify as obstruction of justice (which I believe does fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors"). – John Bode May 16 '17 at 14:18
1

AtShane AtMagisch The funny part is whether or not Comey is fired for whatever motivation doesn't stop the actual investigation. You'd have to fire the entire FBI for that. Trump has constitutional authority to fire anybody under the Executive Branch and the FBI and the DOJ are departments directly under the executive branch. It's quite clear and quite legal but doesn't stop the trolls from insisting that even though DOJ Rosenstein recommended Comey firing, many Democrat party leaders calling for Comey firing, then Trump actually doing it, they then claim "high treason" or something ridiculous – enorl76 Jan 01 '19 at 20:31
I think this is a good answer to put into some perspective for people. I do wonder if you still feel as per your wording that "Congress could run an investigation, and it is completely free of influence from the President" is still an accurate statement with 100% certainty? It seems that at the "current moment" this is exactly what is being done yet his influence does affect the process. I just randomly found the post by the way, wasn't even looking but I to keep reading your answer once I started so good job! – The 'Bernie Sanders' Party Oct 09 '19 at 22:00
@JerryCoffin The current HoR has initiated an impeachment investigation on Biden merely on the basis of his son's legal problems -- they have absolutely no evidence that the President is involved. So it doesn't take much if there's political will. – Barmar Dec 22 '23 at 22:11
@Barmar: I'm not sure how that's relevant to anything I said. What I talked about was types of allegations for which impeachment is supported. It's pretty clear that what they're investigating is the possibility of his having been involved in bribery, which clearly is one of the things for which impeachment is supported. As to lack of evidence: the whole point of an investigation is generally to find evidence (or look hard enough that if you don't find any, it probably doesn't exist). If they already had the evidence, there would no longer be much point in an investigation. – Jerry Coffin Dec 22 '23 at 22:48
@Barmar: Further with respect to evidence of his being involved: I'd say there actually is some pretty obvious (though clearly circumstantial) evidences. At this point, few people seen to entertain real doubt the Hunter Biden was making money by at least claiming it would buy influence over his father. Given the people he was dealing with, the simple fact that he's still alive is actually pretty strong circumstantial evidence that he delivered. – Jerry Coffin Dec 22 '23 at 23:08

score 44 · Answer 3 · answered May 10 '17 at 17:01

The concern about checks and balances is important, but you are misunderstanding how these checks and balances work in the United States government.

The FBI is Not a Check on the President

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a federal law enforcement agency located within the executive branch of the government (under the President). The FBI's mission includes combating corruption of public officials. This makes sense when the FBI is sufficiently independent of the official being investigated, but as you noted in the question, it doesn't make sense if you are interested in investigating the President.

The Congress is the Check

The U.S. Constitution allows the President to be impeached by a proceeding of the Senate:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. (Art. I, Section III)

The House of Representatives brings impeachment charges:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. (Article I, Section II)

Impeachment is the "stick" the constitution outlines for punishing a President. The organization responsible is the Senate. In these cases, the Senate operates as a courtroom and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the judge. The Senate is also the jury - they will vote on whether the President will be impeached or not. The Senate webpage outlines this in more detail.

This intuitively makes sense: you can't have a subordinate organization be an effective check on their boss. Checks and balances are designed so that organizations at the same level of government can balance each other. So while it may be suspicious that the FBI Director was fired, it is not a violation of any sense of checks and balances because the FBI Director is not a check on the President. It is the business of the Congress to conduct these kinds of investigations.

This is certainly correct...however, it also needs to be made clear that the FBI has been seen as someone independent (informally of course) and the president meddling directly with the FBI--though not illegal--has certainly led to repercussions in the past. — , May 10 '17 at 17:37
I would recommend switching your two quote blocks and descriptions - the House brings the charges first, and then the Senate deliberates on them, as I recall. — TylerH, May 12 '17 at 20:30
Good answer, but I would point out that impeachment is far from the only formal tool Congress has to check and balance the president. Probably the most relevant tool in this case is the Senate's authority to confirm or reject the presidents nominee for Director of the FBI. (Of course, there are also softer political tools, involving cooperation with the president's other objectives.) — Mike, May 14 '17 at 15:36
@Mike Their confirmation ability only exists at nomination time; they have no similar ability to check firings. The only stick they could possibly invoke is a threat not to confirm anyone if POTUS fires the current office holder. But there will like be an "acting director" who takes their place, without confirmation. — Barmar, Dec 22 '23 at 22:15

score 18 · Answer 4 · edited May 11 '17 at 11:57

Especially when media condemnation and certainty that he has ulterior motives seems almost universal.

This agreement may be an artifact of how the media is disseminated. The more left wing European media tends to repeat the left wing portion of the United States media rather than the right wing portion.

As a practical matter, Donald Trump is still supported by conservatives. For example, Meghan McCain has been quite critical of James Comey for some time. Yet that doesn't seem to have been published through outlets of which you are aware.

As an outside observer (I live in Europe), it seems quite astonishing and appalling that he has been able to do this without political opposition.

You also might consider how this would work differently in a parliamentary system. In the US, Trump was elected directly. He can't be unelected until 2020 (and wouldn't leave office until 2021). He could only be impeached. Yet he remains popular with his supporters.

In a parliamentary system, Trump would be less personally popular and the party would be more popular. So it would be easier to remove him and replace him with someone similar, as Theresa May replaced David Cameron. Because in parliamentary systems, the chief executive (prime minister) is selected by other politicians. In the US, Trump was selected directly by voters. Removing him, especially so soon in his tenure, would be a direct strike against his supporters. And there isn't really any other tool to keep him from firing people.

I also rather question the assertion that he hasn't had political opposition. The framing of your question is from his political opposition.

Similar accusations were levelled against his sackings of Sally Yates and Preet Bhara.

Preet Bharara (correct spelling) was fired as part of a larger group, as previous presidents have done. It doesn't protect Trump since the Attorney General of New York could still do any investigation that Bharara could have done. The odd thing about the Bharara firing was not that he was fired, it was that Trump had considered keeping him. Bharara refused to discuss things with Trump and has been making political noises that suggest he may be running for office or angling for a job in the media.

Sally Yates was fired for disobeying a direct order based on one of Trump's campaign promises. She was only being retained (briefly) to help smooth the transition to Jeff Sessions. It wasn't like she was a permanent employee who was fired. She was a departing employee who was released early due to gross disobedience.

Comey is a bit different. He was less than four years into a ten year term. However, there were rumors that Barack Obama had considered replacing him for his antics around the Clinton emails. The week before his termination, he was lambasted again by Hillary Clinton. The claim that Comey had lost control of his agency (and leaks within it) was first made by Obama. It's not a ridiculous charge for Trump to make.

You should expect this criticism to be launched any time Trump let's anyone go in the Justice department. On the bright side, there aren't many political appointees left.

Note that there are some things that can be done after a firing. The next FBI Director will require a Senate hearing. We can expect it to be rigorous. Of course, Harry Reid's changes to the system mean that they don't even need to get all of the Republican Senators to vote for the nominee. Prior to that, the nominee could have been filibustered which would have required eight Democrats or Independents who caucus with the Democrats as well as all the Republicans.

Generally good answer, though "Trump is still supported by conservatives" is maybe a bit of a stretch. Certainly by some conservatives, but many conservatives never really supported him in the first place and still don't (though lots of those voted for him anyway in the general election, due to viewing Hillary Clinton as being an even worse choice.) That said, it's certainly accurate to say that conservatives in general aren't ready to impeach Trump without much stronger evidence of wrongdoing. Impeachments of U.S. Presidents are very rare and require strong consensus. — reirab, May 10 '17 at 16:06

score 11 · Answer 5 · answered May 10 '17 at 17:30

11

I think all previous answers miss the obvious. It's pure partisanship. Trump is a Republican, there are Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. It hasn't gotten to the point where a sufficient number of Republicans (if any :-() are willing to abandon partisanship for principle, and vote to either impeach him, or have him removed on grounds of incapacity (under the 25th Amendment), which are the only recourses available.

I really don't see this as much different than European politics. A prime minister with a strong majority in the legislature could likewise do similar things with impunity, until s/he offends a sufficient part of his/her own party.

answered May 10 '17 at 17:30

jamesqf

12,474
1
29
48

5

Firing the head of the FBI, even if done to prevent him from investigating the President, does not fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors". Impeaching the president for firing the head of the FBI would be naked partisanship and represent a complete breakdown of the rule of law. – Mark May 10 '17 at 23:24
10

@Mark: Not JUST firing the FBI director, but firing the FBI director in order to try to stop an investigation into possible illegal activities by Trump or on his behalf. See above-mentioned similarities with Nixon & Watergate. There are many other reasons as well, though IMHO more suited to a 25th Amendment removal. – jamesqf May 11 '17 at 05:15
6

@jamesqf how on earth did you figure out that's the reason he fired him? sounds to me like a conspiracy theory. there was never a shred of evidence trump did anything. it's fabrications by the media. – user2914191 May 11 '17 at 10:22
3

@user2914191: Why else would Trump have fired him, if not to try to sidetrack the investigation? If Trump hadn't done anything he needed to (try to) conceal, why would he not have cooperated fully with the investigation? It's Nixon/Watergate all over again: the initial misdeeds, if in fact there were any, pale in comparison to the attempted coverup. – jamesqf May 11 '17 at 17:00
4

@user2914191 Occam's razor. We know for a fact the officially stated reason is untrue, because Trump and Sessions voiced exceptionally strong support for Comey's actions at the time. Therefore we know the actual reason differs from the official one, and we also know the administration doesn't want to state the actual reason. That leaves exactly one reason that's plausible. – Peter May 11 '17 at 22:02
1

jamesqf, in response to your answer to @user2914191: If you are an executive, have done nothing wrong, and one of your underlings proposes to tie up manpower and resources conducting a highly public investigation of you for supposed wrongdoing, do you (a) quietly sit and let him smear you because "the facts should speak for themselves," (b) pay homage to this underling and applaud his industry in working to "expose" you (though you've done nothing wrong), or (c) fire him and get on with your job? – Wildcard May 12 '17 at 03:11
@user2914191: And in addition to Occam's Razor, Trump himself has reportedly said that that was part of the reason: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation – jamesqf May 12 '17 at 04:15
@Wildcard: The FBI director is not one of Trump's underlings. He is a law enforcement official, responsible only to the United States & the Constitution. If there are credible allegations of wrongdoing, no matter by whom, then it is his DUTY to investigate them. Indeed, according to news reports I've read, another factor in Comey's firing was that he refused to pledge personal loyalty to Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ap-news-in-brief-at-1204-am-edt/2017/05/11/4e56173a-35ff-11e7-ab03-aa29f656f13e_story.html – jamesqf May 12 '17 at 04:25
@Wildcard Your analogy is incomplete. In your analogy your executive is accused of sexual harassment, the investigation is done by HR and your executive fires the head of HR, for doing something 8 months earlier, something your executive highly praised him for, on the record, dozens of times. In your analogy, the next thing that happens is your executive will be fired by the board, which has no choice because the board members would otherwise be fired by their shareholders - that's where the analogy diverges from the Trump case. – Peter May 12 '17 at 09:18
1

@Peter "We know for a fact the officially stated reason is untrue, because Trump and Sessions voiced exceptionally strong support for Comey's actions at the time. " That's not a fact, that's a conjecture. You think that Trumps previous support precludes him from firing Comey, that's not a certainty. – NPSF3000 May 12 '17 at 16:42
3

@NPSF3000: Granted, since we can't read Trump's mind, we can't know for sure why he decided to fire Comey. We can only know what he says, and reasonably take whatever he does say with more than a grain or two of salt because of his demonstrated track record of lying. So Occam;s Razir again: given the circumstances & character of the people involved, what is the simplest explanation that covers all the known facts? – jamesqf May 12 '17 at 17:38
1

@jamesqf The simplest explanation is that Trump fired Comey for reasons known to him, and that political opponents and media have a vested interest in hyping that up. Trying to over-analyze things based on limited information and inherently biased world viewpoint doesn't lead to truth, it just leads to delusion. – NPSF3000 May 12 '17 at 18:06
1

@NPSF3000: Now who exactly is "hyping that up"? The media, who are simply reporting on almost unprecedented action? Or Trump and his press people, who keep changing their story, and in Trump's case, tweeting to the world about it? – jamesqf May 13 '17 at 04:51
1

@jamesqf why present a false dichotomy? – NPSF3000 May 13 '17 at 13:13
@NPSF3000: I don't. – jamesqf May 13 '17 at 16:21
Have you not all been paying attention to the news? Trump said why he fired him: because of the Russian investigation. – May 14 '17 at 23:52
@jamesqf "why else" isn't convincing enough proof. – Sep 24 '19 at 10:42
@Hugo Zink: No? See Thoreau regarding trout and milk :-) – jamesqf Sep 24 '19 at 16:26

BobTheAverage · Answer 6 · 2017-05-10T22:54:59.140

Jorg W Mittag and CharMart's answers are factually correct but incomplete. To summarize the points that they have made:

Trump does not appear to have broken any laws.
The President has the legal authority to replace an FBI director.
There is a valid motivation to replace Comey, even if that motivation wasn't the real one.

All of these mean there is no LEGAL recourse. A political recourse is a different matter. Currently Republicans, the party Trump nominally belongs to, control the House and Senate. During the campaign, high profile republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham, publicly fought with Trump. All of the linked articles, were published before the election.

Trump has many Republican views, but he is not a Republican in the same way that John McCain, Paul Ryan, and Lindsey Graham are republicans. They are lifelong politicians, and the past decade they have a big role in writing the Republican platform and choosing which issues are brought to the forefront. Trump is an outsider with no political experience, who often embarrasses the Republican Party. The investigation into Trump's ties with Russia are not the only embarrassing things he has done.

Since the election, the Republican party has not been sure what to do with their new leader. I will use Lindsey Graham as my example because I live in his state, South Carolina, and have been watching him more closely than other Republicans. The same voters that elected Graham, also elected Trump by a fair margin.

Graham has publicly criticized Trump since the election, but his tone is much softer than it was before the election. In the news article, Graham responds to a wild and ridiculous claim Trump made, by asking him for evidence. Graham does not say Trump is lying. If Graham butts heads with Trump too brutally and too publicly, Graham could lose reelection.

As long as South Carolina voters have faith in Trump, Lindsey Graham will not fight him too publicly. There are other Republican leaders who are in very similar situations. They will only publicly stand against Trump if their constituency is behind them. This survey done in February shows that Trump's approval rating among republicans is still pretty high, and is higher than republican congressional leaders.

My conclusion: Republicans will not take any serious political action against Trump unless his approval ratings among republicans drop significantly. He won't get impeached unless he breaks the law AND loses the support of Republican voters.

Perhaps we're just not agreeing on terminology? Are we considering impeachment legal recourse or political recourse? If congress deems him "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" is that legal or political recurse? — , May 10 '17 at 16:57
This reads like a lot of opinion about how the politics will shake out. Can you provide a reference backing up this line of thought? — indigochild, May 10 '17 at 17:07
"It is not unheard of for a new president to replace an FBI director" That's a very weaselly way of phrasing "The FBI director has been fired on exactly one previous occasion." (source: BBC) — David Richerby, May 10 '17 at 17:08
@Blip Impeachment is a legal recourse that is decided by politicians. This is in stark contrast to legal recourse decided by judges or juries. — BobTheAverage, May 10 '17 at 22:39
@BobTheAverage I think we agree on that...but that contradicts your answer. You state there is no legal recourse. Or are you making a distinction between legal recourse outside of congress vs. inside of congress? — , May 10 '17 at 23:10
congress cannot just impeach someone because they dont like the LEGAL choices the president makes. this whole question is loaded. why SHOULD there be recourse for this? obama fired the FBI director. nobody seeked to impeach him for that. this is all a red herring. — user2914191, May 11 '17 at 10:24
@user2914191 5 sentences, 1 question. 4 of the 5 sentences are factually inaccurate, and the remaining sentence is a hypothetical about a fictional situation you incorrectly assert has happened. — Peter, May 11 '17 at 22:15
@user2914191 that is incorrect. There's no requirement that the president has to break a law to be impeached. — , May 13 '17 at 18:53

user2914191 · Answer 7 · 2017-05-11T10:20:05.930

5

Allegations against trump are wholly lacking a shred of evidence. It was a narrative invented by the media. Here's how this works.

Invent a narrative that russia hacked the election
Claim trump is involved with russians
Keep running the story nonstop
Trigger an investigation
Point to the investigation as evidence of wrongdoing

To answer your question, there's nothing illegal about president firing FBI director. More likely than not, President Trump fired Comey for the reasons he provided. The Trump russia conspiracy theories are arguably no different from republican's obama birth certificate muslim infiltrator claims.

edited May 11 '17 at 10:20

answered May 11 '17 at 10:12

user2914191

235
1
3

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Philipp May 15 '17 at 08:24
2

This answer is only a week old but also very out of date now. :/ – May 17 '17 at 18:10
1

This appeared in the low quality review queue this week (30/11/2020) while it may not be the best, most accurate or well sourced answer in the Question, deleting it after 3 and 1/2 years doesn't look good. Either we're removing things we don't like, or we're really bad at clearing up things that shouldn't be here in the first place. – Jontia Nov 30 '20 at 09:39

score 5 · Answer 8 · answered May 15 '17 at 16:49

Part of the job of the US constitution and legislature would seem to be to offer checks and balances against the actions of the President. Why has no-one yet used any of these powers to try and rein in or remove the President? What steps would there have to be, now, in order to begin such a process?

Expanding on indigochild's answer a bit...

Impeachment proceedings are brought in response to "high crimes and misdemeanors", which aren't explicitly enumerated anywhere, but are generally understood to be gross abuses of power, dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, or other betrayals of public trust.

You don't get impeached for being bad at your job, or for being nakedly political in appointments or firings. The President has a lot of freedom to staff the Executive as he or she sees fit. It's just that in the past, most American politicians had a concept of "shame", and usually avoided doing things that appeared dishonorable (or at least covered them up more effectively).

The House has to choose to bring articles of impeachment, and they may be perfectly happy with how and why the President fired Comey (because let's face it, Comey did not cover himself or the Bureau with glory over the past year). If the House did bring articles of impeachment against the President, then the Senate would have to choose to convict him and actually remove him from office.

Now, if it's true that the President has admitted that he removed Comey specifically because of an FBI investigation into conflicts of interest or criminal behavior by the President or his staff, then we've clearly crossed the line into "high crimes and misdemeanors" territory (obstruction of justice) - that's part of why President Nixon was impeached.

But...

The US is in an unfortunate situation where politics matter more than literally anything else, so this Congress is unlikely to impeach this President for anything short of outright treason unless it seriously weakens the Republican Party's chances in future elections. Congress may choose to censure the President, which has no real effect other than to be an official "Bad dog! No cookie!" admonition.

40-some-odd years ago, Congressional Republicans convinced President Nixon to resign rather than face impeachment, but not out of political concerns - to them, it was genuinely better for the country that the President not be forcibly removed from office.

Ultimately, the fault lies with us, the voters. We truly get the government we deserve, and right now we deserve the most indolent, venal, petty, and incompetent government imaginable. Political literacy is at a dangerously low level in the US right now, combined with a strong anti-intellectual and narcissistic bent.

Unfortunately, we get to inflict the results on the rest of the world.

score 2 · Answer 9 · edited Nov 30 '20 at 10:11

People who wonder about such things forget that "firing" is what made Trump popular. From wikipedia we read:

The popularity of the show led to Trump becoming known for his fateful catch phrase, "You're fired!" and for the emergence of Trumponomics, a "portmanteau of Donald Trump and economics initially spelled ‘Trump-Onomics’ (2004), [which] started out as a bland managerial concept on cable TV, meant to convey the notion that 'impressing the boss' was the only way to 'climb the corporate ladder' (The Apprentice, Season 1)."

So perhaps Trump doesn't care about the politics of his firing outside the executive branch. But it will have an effect on politics within the executive branch. If you work for the "Donald" you don't mess with him or his objectives, you get your job done. It isn't like the FBI doesn't have anything better to do. There are drug problems, scams, terrorists, gangs, murderers, rapists, etc. to spend those resources on. And perhaps most important, if you work for the "Donald" make sure you don't get more headlines than him.

And we have been trained by 14 seasons of the Apprentice to accept this kind of behavior as acceptable and reasonable.

score 1 · Answer 10 · answered May 11 '17 at 13:44

1

The question itself relies on the narratives being perpetuated, that this was somehow to stall an investigation; that the timing is questionable. Not only is the President acting within his full authority as the Presidents before him have, Comey's performance during the Clinton investigation was appalling - she should have been charged - he was dismissed promptly after it was discovered he misrepresented facts about Huma Abedin during testimony before Congress. The final straw, as it were.

If you pay attention to the media cycle and look just a few months in the past, you will see most of this malarkey is being spun up by people upset it was Trump who pulled the trigger rather than "President Clinton", which Maxine Waters just openly admitted to. It is political theater at its finest, with no true substance.

answered May 11 '17 at 13:44

Bobby Joe Childs

51
1

4

"she should have been charged" on what legal basis? "he misrepresented facts" what facts? – Federico May 11 '17 at 13:47
4

I'm not sure how you can claim the timing is not questionable, since there has been a formal DOJ Inspector General review going on, that they did not wait for, and since the POTUS was tweeting his dissatisfaction with being investigated just before dumping the guy running the investigation. Indeed, since none of what Comey was fired for happened after Trump took office, the timing is pretty much inexplicable if one takes the claimed reasons at face value. And that doesn't even get into open cheering by the parties that fired him for the very actions they claim he's being fired for. – PoloHoleSet May 11 '17 at 14:03
1

Please edit to back-up this answer. – indigochild May 11 '17 at 14:07
Let's avoid assuming someone committed crime while in office, as otherwise where do we draw the line, LOL? – ajeh May 11 '17 at 21:17
2

Your answer would make more sense if the people firing Comey didn't voice exceptionally strong support for Comey's actions. While Comey probably did do the wrong thing, both Trump and Sessions have gone on record strongly disagreeing with that interpretation. They said he did the right thing, and then fired him for doing (what they call) the right thing – Peter May 11 '17 at 22:08
1

Trump, himself, HAS SAID HE FIRED COMEY BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AGAINST HIM. Arguing that there is "nothing illegal about that" is just a silly diversion. – May 13 '17 at 19:02
@blip - Now you've gone from just being delusional to outright lying. Trump never said "he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation against him. YOUR STATEMENT IS A BLATANT LIE. It may have been one of many factors, especially considering all the time and money invested in the investigation resulting in not one shred of evidence even slightly insinuating that there was any collusion. With the complete and total lack of any evidence, any competent FBI director would have long ago already said NOTHING TO SEE HERE. That same director would have then gone after real criminals, the leakers. – Dunk May 17 '17 at 17:46
@Dunk that you don't like to acknowledge Trump's own words isn't something I can debate with you. Either you believe what people say or you don't. – May 17 '17 at 18:08
1

Typical liberal modus operandi - Hitler said I like pepperoni on my pizza. One day Trump says I like pepperoni on my pizza. Liberal Media Headline - Trump shares same views as Hitler. Trump in collusion with Hitler in advancing agenda. blip's response when someone points out the obvious lies in the story "that you don't like to acknowledge Trump's own words...." – Dunk May 17 '17 at 19:39

score 0 · Answer 11 · answered May 14 '17 at 19:46

POTUS nominates the heads and inmediate subordinates of all federal agencies. Other positions in the legislative and executive are also nominated by the elected president, but need Senate comfirmation.

There is a publication United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions "Plum Book" with all the positions nominated by the President.

About the Plum Book

Published by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and House Committee on Government Reform alternately after each Presidential election, the Plum Book lists over 9,000 Federal civil service leadership and support positions in the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointment, nationwide. The duties of many such positions may involve advocacy of Administration policies and programs and the incumbents usually have a close and confidential working relationship with the agency or other key officials.

The list originated in 1952 during the Eisenhower administration. For twenty-two years prior, the Democrats controlled the Federal Government. When President Eisenhower took office, the Republican Party requested a list of government positions that President Eisenhower could fill. The next edition of the Plum Book appeared in 1960 and has since been published every four years, just after the Presidential election.

Theres no need to explain the reasons of nomination or dismissal. It's among POTUS attributions.

This is a ridiculous answer. Of course there is a need for the president to justify his actions. This isn't a McDonald's he's running. It's a nation. — , May 14 '17 at 23:54
Ridiculous? It's how the system works since 1952. The executive can nominate whoever they want and no need for explanations why. If they don't have confidence in the nominated person how can they assure he follow their policies? — roetnig, May 14 '17 at 23:59
I think you are looking at this purely from a legal/administrative HR position rather than a political POV. The very fact that Trump is getting all this flack right now is because he couldn't properly explain his reasons. Yes, legally he doesn't have to. Politically he does else face the fact that what is happening now is what is happening now. Nixon was in his legal right to fire people but if you recall, there was quite a bit of blowback because of it due to his inability to explain his reasons outside of the suspicious. — , May 15 '17 at 01:13

score 0 · Answer 12 · edited May 15 '17 at 17:40

0

The President doesn't have to justify anything. The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President. He can fire him for any reason, or no reason at all. PERIOD. Clinton fired his too.

edited May 15 '17 at 17:40

answered May 15 '17 at 17:05

Old Guy

33
1

1

Clinton dismissed Sessions after an investigation in to ethical improprieties which predated his presidency. Not quite the same thing. – May 16 '17 at 00:43
Your answer isn't really applicable to the bigger picture. The legality of the situation isn't really in question (or, at least wasn't at the time). It was a matter of whether it was appropriate. – May 17 '17 at 18:09

Why hasn't the US political system taken recourse against Trump for his politically motivated firings?

12 Answers12

The FBI is Not a Check on the President

The Congress is the Check