I am no staff opinion writer for the Washington Post, but all the squabble over Comey’s firing dazzles me. Was Comey the only person investigating? Who is running the store now? Nobody? Isn’t the FBI still investigating? The FBI is not one person, is it?
Will the new director or deputy director stop the investigation? At best, changing directors or putting his deputy in charge is a very temporary delay. Won’t Comey’s backup or replacement take the reins? I am no lawyer, but passing the baton is not the same as stopping the race.
Doesn’t an obstruction block the way? I do not see anything stopping. Isn’t the point of all these inquiries to find the facts? Don’t we really want the results?
As to Sessions’ actions, why don’t we see what he was asked regarding Mr. Comey? Just as Comey was not the FBI, Comey’s dismissal was not dismissal of the FBI investigation.
Re the recusal: No attorney general could operate within the critics’ broad theory that Sessions’ recusal of matters relating to the investigation, includes matters relating to anyone in the FBI. I guess the Justice Department could add all sorts of knotty issues to the newly appointed special counsel’s agenda, conjoining the various conspiracy theories. That way Robert Mueller’s name can fill the newsways for a while.
What I detect is a strong appetite for the process, per se. The news media have a voracious appetite for spectacular “content.” What good are results versus chances to publicly speculate, ruminate, accuse, and read minds? Who could pass up opportunities to castigate, lambast, and assassinate national reputations? – oh dear, the excitement, my heart, I think I’ve got the “vapuz.”