Most white-collar prosecutions turn on the issue of criminal intent. These cases involve behavior that would, in ordinary circumstances, be totally legal—if not for the intent of the defendant.
.. It’s only criminal to sell stock if you had improper knowledge of the status of the company.
.. The President clearly had the right to fire Comey, but he did not have the right to do so with improper intent.
.. McGahn’s threat to resign shows that he saw these purported reasons as pretexts.
- .. The golf-dues matter was obviously trivial
- .. the law firm’s representation of Kushner, which did not involve Mueller at all, could only have biased the special counsel in favor of the President’s family
- .. and Trump’s willingness to interview Mueller for the F.B.I. position showed how much the President trusted Mueller, not that he believed the former F.B.I. director harbored any animosity toward him.
.. McGahn recognized the key fact—that Trump wanted to fire Mueller for the wrong reasons. Trump wanted to fire Mueller because his investigation was threatening to him.
.. Trump and his advisers have offered various tortured rationalizations for the firing of Comey—initially, for example, on the ground that Comey had been unfair to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. Trump himself came clean in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt and in a meeting with Russia’s foreign minister.
In both, Trump acknowledged that he fired Comey to stall or stop the Russia investigation—that is, the investigation of Trump himself and his campaign.
On the Comey Firing, a Race to the Bottom
Yet, the manner of the firing was ham-handed: The president’s bodyguard was dispatched to deliver the termination documents to what turned out to be an empty office, the White House having failed to check on the director’s whereabouts (he was on FBI business in California). And, as has become ever clearer over the last few days, the justifications for the action from the White House have been deceptive.
.. In a nutshell, Trump wanted to be rid of Comey but deflect responsibility for removing an FBI director less than four years into a ten-year term. So he directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Rosenstein to prepare a memo explaining the grounds of termination. Then, his team spun the firing as if it were the Justice Department’s idea, occurring now only because Rosenstein just started on the job. (Sessions has recused himself from aspects of the Russia inquiry, though the scope of the recusal is uncertain.) The White House tried to make it appear as if the president were merely concurring in the decision. Only when Rosenstein reportedly protested did Trump own up.
.. He also, disturbingly, said that he was thinking of Russia when he made the decision, contradicting everyone in the White House who said that had nothing to do with it.
.. It is understandable that Democrats are screaming bloody murder about events of the last few days — certainly Republicans would be doing the same if a Democrat were in the White House and axed an FBI director the way Trump has. But the analogies to Watergate — ubiquitous in the media — are overwrought
.. The objective of a foreign counterintelligence investigation is not to gather evidence of a specific violation of law in order to build a prosecutable criminal case against a suspect. It is to determine the actions and intentions of foreign powers to the extent they bear on American interests.
.. There have been reports that the FBI has been scrutinizing business dealings former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had with Kremlin-connected Ukrainian politicians between 2005 and 2014, and business conducted in Russia by Carter Page, whose connection to the Trump campaign — which listed him as an adviser — appears remote. Trump’s shady longtime crony Roger Stone has boasted of a relationship with WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange, and there are suspicions he may have had prior knowledge that WikiLeaks would publish e-mails hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
.. In short, it may be that this investigation really does have nothing to do with Donald Trump directly. That makes his petulant and self-destructive response to it all the more mystifying — except against the backdrop of his entire adult life, which has involved bullying and blustering his way to fame and fortune.
.. The more he complains and lashes out, the more the opposition turns up the heat. The race to the bottom may have just begun.
Democratic Hypocrisy and Hysteria Don’t Make Trump Right
the evidence is accumulating that Trump fired James Comey in the middle of an accelerating investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and then lied to the American people about the reason. No amount of Democratic hysteria can make that right. There is no amount of leftist hypocrisy that makes that acceptable.
.. To believe Trump’s story, you have to believe that he did a complete about-face, that he’s repudiated his previous praise and his previous critiques of Comey. For example, at a campaign rally on October 31, he said, “It took guts for director Comey to make the move that he made” to publicly announce that the FBI had reopened its e-mail investigation. Now that gutsy move is grounds for termination?
.. throughout, there was a consistent theme: Trump’s thoughts about Comey always directly reflected Trump’s political self-interest.
.. Lawyers are familiar with a term called “pretext.” Employment lawyers encounter it all the time. For example, if a boss wants to fire an employee because she’s black or Christian, they’ll rarely say: “I hate Christians. Pack your things.” Instead, they’ll look for another justification that masks the real motivation. “Jane was late Friday. She has to go. Jill didn’t fill out her TPS report correctly. Time to leave.”
.. Lawyers are familiar with a term called “pretext.” Employment lawyers encounter it all the time. For example, if a boss wants to fire an employee because she’s black or Christian, they’ll rarely say: “I hate Christians. Pack your things.” Instead, they’ll look for another justification that masks the real motivation. “Jane was late Friday. She has to go. Jill didn’t fill out her TPS report correctly. Time to leave.”
.. It’s time to stop enabling Trump and start seeking the truth — even if the truth hurts.
Critics Look for Opening to Fire Head of the CFPB
Richard Cordray is disliked by many for helping build the agency into an aggressive financial regulator
.. A battle is intensifying over the future of Richard Cordray, the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as Republicans search for any past transgressions that would allow President-elect Donald Trump to fire him.Mr. Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, is admired by consumer groups and disliked by many GOP lawmakers and financial-industry players for helping build the five-year-old agency into an aggressive financial regulator.
.. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R., Texas), who has led the attack on the CFPB at the House Financial Services Committee, said Mr. Trump’s transition team would study Mr. Cordray’s performance.
.. Mr. Neugebauer, who is seen as a candidate to succeed Mr. Cordray as the next CFPB chief, citing issues such as the alleged pay discrimination and the costs of renovating the agency’s Washington headquarters.
.. Republican lawmakers have a long list of steps aimed at overhauling the CFPB, including turning it into a commission, giving Congress control over its budget and reducing employee compensation by changing its pay scale. Such steps are included in a broad deregulation bill introduced this year by Rep. Jeb Hensarling
.. They added that any attempt to weaken the bureau and undermine its leadership would “risk severe impacts on our communities—including communities of color and low-income families who are most vulnerable to financial abuse.”