On Wednesday, James Comey, the former director of the FBI, denied the pair of counts of misleading Congress being brought by the Trump government. On the selfsame day, ABC News conveyed that the attorneys engaged on the Comey matter — who were dismissed due to their unwillingness to indict him — deemed the primary witness versus Comey to be fundamentally flawed.
It’s a situation that seems both weak and yet full of implication for the fate of American justice. Vox senior correspondent Andrew Prokop has reported on Comey, President Donald Trump, and their increasingly bitter quarrel for a number of years. I desired to pose four significant queries to him as the matter progresses.
You’ve been reporting on Comey for quite a while — going back to the Hillary Clinton email probe. How startling is it that we’ve landed in this situation?
I believe the real shift is from 2016 when Comey communicated his conclusions on the Hillary Clinton email issue. During that period, he drew a considerable amount of critique, but it was viewed as politically unimaginable that his position would be in peril or that anyone would meddle with his administration of the FBI in any noteworthy manner. Following Trump’s victory, he remained in his post — until, naturally, he angered Trump and was terminated. However, even Comey’s dismissal subsequently caused Trump to encounter further complications, initiating the Robert Mueller inquiry.
Advancing to the current day, the autonomy of the Justice Department and FBI has utterly crumbled, and Trump has effectively arisen as triumphant in this protracted clash. He ultimately obtained the retaliation and the formal accusation that he sought. It’s an exceptionally astonishing sequence of occurrences that merely illustrates how successful Trump has been in a manner that genuinely would’ve been quite implausible to envision back then.
That’s the overarching story. Let’s discuss the matter at hand. Comey declared his innocence on Wednesday morning. What’s the outlook?
It seems as though events will develop rapidly, given that the situation is in the Eastern District of Virginia, often referred to as “the rocket docket.” The presiding judge implemented some very imminent deadlines today regarding pre-trial submissions later in the month of October.
Nevertheless, this situation might never proceed to trial, because Comey’s attorney Patrick Fitzgerald expressed in court today that he intended to submit several motions: to have the situation dismissed due to retaliatory prosecution, to contend that the buddy Trump installed as the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawfully assigned, and to assert that the grand jury procedure was employed improperly.
They will attempt to secure a dismissal prior to its progression to trial, and the judge seems predisposed to act swiftly on it.
Therefore, how can there be a formal accusation to begin with?
When a situation is brought before a grand jury, prosecutors gain absolute control over the data they put forth. It lacks the qualities of an adversarial proceeding, and the defendant is completely without a voice. Therefore, an attorney may present the grand jury with a heavily skewed, deficient, or one-sided portrayal of occurrences that outright overlooks exonerating proof.
The grand jury process is confidential and happens behind closed doors, so we have no way of knowing exactly what was put before them. However, we are aware that the grand jury rejected one of the three accusations they attempted to levy, which is quite uncommon. They endorsed the remaining pair of accusations, but they were divided on the matter. They indicated that, concerning both accusations, only 14 out of 23 grand jurors authorized those accusations, and that occurs with the remarkably skewed, selective information they were receiving.
Thus, even the grand jury, relying entirely on attorneys with their limited information, is wavering on whether an indictment is justifiable. There is no likelihood of a conviction with a real jury, which demands complete agreement to reach a verdict. Given the weakness of the matter, even in the grand jury stage, it is practically unthinkable.
Under ordinary DOJ practice, this situation should not have been instigated, as cases deemed unlikely to result in a conviction are generally avoided. Nevertheless, Trump, of course, evaded the usual procedure. He ousted the US attorney. In her place, he put Lindsay Halligan, who appears to have expedited the case just before the statute of limitations was about to lapse.
So what are the implications moving forward, in the grand scheme? What will this situation convey about the nation in which we are residing?
I am of the opinion that this situation paradoxically exposes both the risks associated with Trump’s actions and their constraints. He demonstrated his ability to dismiss enough individuals and nominate enough cronies to secure a grand jury indictment against an individual. However, subsequent to that occurrence, a judge could potentially dismiss it. A jury might reject it. Numerous additional actions are necessary before an actual conviction can be reached, and this matter seems exceedingly flimsy and improbable to result in a conviction.
Yet, that possibility might not extend to every other situation Trump’s associates are contemplating against his political rivals. What transpires if they succeed in presenting the case before a profoundly right-wing Trump-appointed judge? What if it takes place in a Republican-leaning district where a substantial proportion of individuals are more inclined to convict?
It’s still perilous. Nonetheless, should the Comey matter culminate in a major setback for the administration, be it through the charges being dismissed or Comey being found not guilty, it will, in my estimation, be perceived as quite illustrative of Trump’s failed attempt to incarcerate Comey. It disseminates the message that any person has the capacity to defy Trump and that there is no justification to comply in advance or to be afraid that he will essentially be able to make good on the threats and intimidation he’s endeavoring to enforce against any of his detractors and adversaries.
Source: vox.com
