Jim Comey’s political independence made his downfall inevitable

Tuesday’s bombshell announcement that President Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey sent shockwaves rippling across the national security and political communities, as well as the media. Although there appeared to be some tension in the air between President Trump and the man who was leading an investigation into allegations of collusion with Russian officials during the 2016 election, the decision to suddenly fire Comey took virtually everyone by surprise. When viewed in the context of the incessant drama that pervaded the 2016 presidential campaign, however, and particularly Comey’s peripheral role in that drama, it is fair to say the writing had been on the wall foretelling Comey’s termination for quite some time.

It’s easy to forget that Comey had a lengthy career at the DOJ prior to becoming the Director of the FBI. He worked at DOJ under four different presidents, including serving as lead prosecutor in cases ranging from the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia to the Martha Stewart securities fraud saga. He infamously was serving as deputy attorney general in 2004 during the “hospital room” showdown with the Bush White House concerning re-certification of an NSA surveillance program.

{mosads}If nothing more, Comey’s professional reputation was the embodiment of the type of principled and independent position that the DOJ writ large often attempts to claim from administration to administration. His nomination by President Obama to serve as the FBI director was warmly welcomed within the legal and national security communities, and he glided through his nomination process due in no small part to the bi-partisan view that he was one of the few people who would put his principles above any personal ideological or professional loyalties.

That independent streak and emphasis on principles, however, led Comey down a path rife with political risks. It led him to convene the July 5, 2016, press conference, where he laid out in detail the factual findings reached in the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server and mishandling of classified information. During that press conference, he described the actions of Clinton and her senior aides as “extremely careless,” but further stated that it was his judgment that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a criminal case. His stated motivation for providing this level of detail about an FBI investigation in which criminal charges were not recommended – something which typically is not done and arguably was inconsistent with DOJ procedures – was that the public had a unique interest and right to understand what had happened given Clinton’s candidacy for the presidency.

That same adherence to principles led Comey to revive the Clinton investigation saga on Oct. 28, 2016, a mere 11 days before the election, when he sent a letter to several congressional committees informing them of the discovery of new, potentially relevant e-mails. Just as his own principled view of the requirements of his position led him to publicly discuss the investigative findings in July 2016, he believed the possibility his sworn testimony before Congress may have been rendered inaccurate by the discovery of new information obligated him to formally notify Congress. It was not the easy or politically expedient decision to make, but it was the decision someone concerned about their ethical and moral obligations would pursue.

That adherence to ethical obligations finally led to Comey’s official confirmation on March 20, 2017, in sworn testimony before the House intelligence committee, that there was an ongoing DOJ investigation into the Russian collusion allegations. That testimony shook the political landscape, as it provided evidence that the concerns were not merely political whining by lawmakers but rather had reached a level that had obligated a formal investigation by the DOJ itself. Disclosure of the existence of that investigation no doubt put Comey in the president’s political crosshairs, as President Trump wants nothing more than to be able to claim that the entire Russia investigation is a hoax.

By taking the steps he did over the last year Comey exemplified the political independence we expect from an FBI director, while at the same time exhibiting a degree of political naivete that cost him his job. He made political enemies of both Clinton and Trump, virtually assuring that his continued presence at the FBI would be in jeopardy no matter which of them had won last November.

I, for one, salute his independence and hope that we have not seen the last of him.

Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) is a partner at the Washington, D.C. Law Office of Mark S. Zaid, P.C., where he has represented countless individuals (including whistleblowers) serving within the intelligence community, and is also the deputy executive director of the James Madison Project, through which he has represented media outlets such as Politico, Gawker, Daily Caller, and the Daily Beast in FOIA lawsuits against the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.