In law, clear language imparts a different outcome from obfuscated or indirect language, and as such, this distinction may be used tactically to one's own advantage. Rosenstein used careful language to avoid a direct statement; instead, people are reading between the lines and producing an interpretation of this careful language. In other words, as you continue reading this post, you may roll your eyes at the difference between the literal and perceived, but the difference is distinctive in law.
Let's review the last paragraph where Rosenstein's letter reaches certain conclusions.
"Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly."Rather than advocating his removal, Rosenstein is clearly warning Donald that removing Comey is a serious matter that should not be taken in haste. I reiterate, Donald fired Comey on the same day he received both this memo and Sessions' letter -- the perfect example of a hasty act.
"I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials."What Rosenstein is concurring to, is the criticism that Comey failed to follow protocols set up to avoid the optics of political influence inside of Justice / FBI.
"The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong."Most everyone knew this already. The only holdouts were those who were hypocritically embracing Comey's actions for the purpose of advancing Donald's candidacy. The question is, is being "wrong" a fireable offense? Since what Comey did was not illegal, firing him requires a considerate judgment of how the "wrong" afflicts and affects the Bureau. It is not a direct route to firing.
"As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them."By using the word "unlikely", Rosenstein avoids creating a clear route to firing Comey. "Unlikely" does not mean impossible; rather, it means that you shouldn't be surprised when the #1 seed in a tourney fails to win the championship. See: University of Connecticut Women's Basketball.
Calling out "until it has a director" is not the advocation of a new director. If, for instance, Comey were to come out and state that he "understands the gravity of the mistakes" and that he "pledges never to repeat them", in effect he becomes that director Rosenstein is advocating for.
"Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions."By using the phrase "cannot be expected", Rosenstein again avoids creating a clear route to firing Comey. If Rosenstein were direct, he would have stated, "Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot implement the necessary corrective actions." See the stark difference? In one instance the door is left partially open, in the other, the door is completely shut.
So why did he write his memo in this manner?
For one, it's probably not in his place to recommend firing the Director of the FBI, and instead, simply lays out the analysis for others higher up to review and come to their own conclusions. Alternatively, there are other signals within the letter pointing to an attempt to lay the blame for an inevitable firing of Comey at the feet of Jeff Sessions and Donald. I suppose we may soon find out.
UPDATE:
- Rod Rosenstein threatened to quit the moment the WH tried to pin the firing of Comey on him.
- He has also sought out, on his initiative, to speak to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
- The Acting head of the FBI refutes the idea that morale within the FBI had been affected by Comey's actions.
The White House's lies are catching up to them quickly. If the WH staff or political appointees start quitting, that'll be the signal that the end is near.
No comments:
Post a Comment