Since the shocking move to fire FBI Director James Comey, the White House has been flat footed in its response to the general reaction. The firing itself looks to be extremely poorly executed, with the notice delivered to an empty office and immediately leaked to the press. Comey and the agency at large found out by watching television. He reportedly questioned if it was a joke, which my first reaction to seeing on twitter. So yes, the firing of Comey was extremely ham-fisted, but was it justified? Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein makes the most comprehensive case against Comey’s behavior. He leaves little doubt that Comey mishandled the Clinton investigation. A fuller review makes clear that all the blame does not fall on Comey’s shoulders.

The letter declares that Comey ‘supplanted federal prosecutors and assumed command of the Justice Department.’ It gets this point backwards. Loretta Lynch had been caught secretly meeting with Bill Clinton during the height of the investigation. Instead of recusing herself, Lynch tried to absolve herself by appointing Comey as the prosecutor of the case. In defending herself against the obvious conflict of interest she claimed she would follow the decision of the FBI.

As the letter points out, the FBI’s role is to gather evidence, not make decisions about prosecution. It was not just Comey changing the rules, but the head of the DOJ itself. Further, it’s fair to raise Comey’s doubts that the DOJ would fairly handle the case. In his testimony he claims he was concerned on how to ‘credibly complete the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.’ He could be referring to public perception, but there is reason to believe he had serious concerns. The DOJ’s behavior in the case was suspect. It kneecapped investigators by granting immunity to various potential parties to the crime. These immunity agreements were handed out by the DOJ in exchange for testimony needlessly. Not only that, but the DOJ stymied FBI agents who wished to expand the probe. Regardless of his ultimate reason, he went along with the charade. He should have spoken out or resigned. He didn’t.

The burning question is why now though? These things happened in July, well before Trump kept Comey on board. If you listen to the Democrats, it’s evidence of a cover up! Comey just asked for more money in the investigation, a major breakthrough is just around the corner and Trump is trying to keep it under wraps! Please… The acting FBI direct today testified that there’s been no suppression of the investigation. I’ve come to the conclusion that the Trump Russia collusion is the birtherism of the left. A highly appealing partisan narrative that breaks down under a rational look at the facts. The only difference is that high level Democrat politicians are playing to it. With the biggest birther sitting in the White House, perhaps this is a credible strategy. I don’t think it was Trump’s intention, but his actions may just bait the Democrats into going full on McCarthy. Reality is far simpler. Trump kept on Comey with some reservations, felt he allowed innuendo about the Trump Russia investigation go unanswered, and then moved to fire him once he had some cover provided by Dept AG Rosenstien. With Democrats loudly denouncing Comey in recent days, Trump felt there would be little backlash. Obviously his calculus was off.

Trump’s handling of the dismissal has done a deal of damage to his leeway in appointing a new director. Trump was already at odds with many old hands in the Senate and they are using this as an opportunity to embolden their pursuit of their own agendas. Already McCain and Graham have rebelled and defeated a CRA regulatory rollback. If Congress sees more political payoff in opposing Trump than working with him, these next few years will not be productive. Trump needs to calm the waters quickly with a strong FBI appointee. Without it, he risks losing congress on a host of unrelated issues, from taxes to healthcare.