Komi and "Russian dossier"

On Thursday, the US Senate Intelligence Committee was performed by the former director of the James of the Komi Federal Investigation Bureau, sent exactly a month ago by President Donald Trump. The reason for the dismissal of Komi, as the owner of the White House himself openly admitted, was the reluctance of the main police officer of the country to quickly complete the investigation of Russia's intervention in last year's election campaign.

According to the results of the hearings in the Senate, the Democrats said that the information provided by Komi was even more discredited by Trump. There were more nuances in the verdict of republican commentators: Komi did not add or took his glasses from the president, Trump’s rating is both among his electorate and in the representation of the one-party members in the congress remains the same.

Full video recording of James Komi's speech in an open part of the hearings in the Senate

James Komi’s speeches were eagerly awaited by the leading American television channels that changed their planned broadcasting grid in order to insert a direct broadcast of two -hour public hearings into it. It is understandable: Komi was dismissed because of the "Russian dossier", which in Trump's eyes was so huge that he likened his black hole that sucks political oxygen from the administration. The television people agreed with him. In the same chipper manner and, as if forgetting with whom he was frank, Trump then explained his decision to dismiss the director of the FBI by the visit to him in the White House of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov and the Russian Assit of Russia to the United States Sergey Kislyak: "It was like a mountain fell off my shoulders." The president hurried with the conclusions - the mountain is now there.

Fragment of hearings:

- Do you have doubts that Russia tried to intervene in the 2016 elections?

- No.

- Do you doubt that Russia was behind hacking the systems of the Democratic Party and the subsequent publication of this information?

- There is no doubt about that.

- Do you have doubts that Russia was standing in the lists of voters?

- No.

- Do you doubt that Russian officials knew about these actions?

- I have no doubt about it.

- Are you sure that not a single vote during the elections in 2016 was changed?

- Sure. At the time when I left the director’s post, I had no evidence of this.

The curiosity of the congressmen was pretty fueled by the previous administration of Obama, and Hillary Clinton herself, which attributes her losing in the elections on the intrigues of Russians

The Russian Dossier produced members of the congress to find out if there were people from the Trump election headquarters, and, it is possible, and the Republican candidate himself was involved in the hacker attacks organized from Russia for various structures of the Democratic Party. As well as to the stuffing of the extracted compromising evidence into public space. However, you should not forget that the curiosity of the congressmen was pretty fueled by the previous administration of Obama, and Hillary Clinton herself, which loses her loss in the elections on the intrigues of the Russians.

Fragment of hearings:

- According to your assessment, did General Flynn threaten legal prosecution at the time of dismissal? And do you think that the president tried to interfere with justice or just tried to help Flynn keep his face after dismissal?

- Flynn at that time had problems with the law. The FBI has opened a criminal investigation against its applications about contacts with Russia and the contacts themselves. Then I assessed the situation so. It is not for me to decide whether our conversation with the president was attempt to interfere with justice. I thought that this conversation is concerned. But I am sure that the special advice will try to come to the conclusion, what were the intentions and whether it was a crime.

Moreover, in the course of the case, the “dossier” was overgrown with additional issues, equally legal and political. And therefore, also allowing polar interpretations, depending on the party addictions of the interpreter. For example, Trump's urgent requests addressed to James Komi are drawn, for example, to “leave alone” by Michael Flynn’s national security assistant to James. They pull it off, until they remind us that the president as the head of the executive branch by law, if not in practice, is authorized to decide who to pursue in court, and whom to "leave alone".

Personal devotion to the chief does not necessarily imply the commission of unlawful actions for him

Or: Did Trump go beyond the borders of competence, demanding from Komi to demonstrate his personal, president, loyalty? At first glance, he definitely went out. But by sober reflection, personal devotion to the boss does not necessarily imply committing unlawful actions for the sake of him. It can mean nothing more than interested attention to how your performance of official duty affects the political fate of the chef. There is no Machiavelli to doubt the possibility of staying in the post of head of the FBI of an absolutely supra -party personnel state official.

It is permissible to assume - with a large, though stretch - that Donald Trump was captured by thoughts about such a kind of complex matters, when journalists on the eve of the Senate hearings asked him the question that he wants to wish James Komi. I Want to Wish Him Good Luck, Trump answered. "I want to wish him good luck." With the president, in an interview with Radio, Liberty is in absentia polemnes the teacher of Harvard University Jacob Munk :

There are signs of an article on the prevention of justice

-It does not seem that the defendant needed some special luck. Komi is a professional with a capital letter. He without a piece of paper, exclusively from memory, quoted what Trump said or that Trump told him during his meetings that took place four, five, six months ago. He was perfectly oriented in that it is permissible and that it is not permissible to disclose in open ones than in closed meetings. All that he wanted to say, Komi stated clearly, clearly, without embellishment and false modesty. Without hiding that he would not mind if Trump had retained his position. Therefore, the words of Komi that the president apparently tried to persuade him to unlawful actions in an extremely important criminal investigation, sounded, in my opinion, absolutely convincing. There are signs of an article on the prevention of justice. So is it really or not, the answer will give the newly appointed independent investigator. In any case, the administration of Trump is awaiting at all easy times.

- On the eve of hearings with the participation of Komi consensus in the journalistic, if not expert, the community has come down to the fact that this week will become decisive in the fate of the Trump administration. Do you share this opinion?

- This is an exaggeration. Let us not forget that many Republicans (and they are in the senate in the most part) still want to shield Trump, take the investigation on some dead end. But if you evaluate past hearings in a strategic context, then we can say that this is another important step towards the widespread discredit of the current president. I looked at the data of fresh polls: Trump’s anti -rating was never as impressive as today - 55–58 percent. The level of its support, meanwhile, does not exceed 35–38 percent. If such a high anti-rating will remain for some more time, then the Republicans will run from it.

- Especially considering that we are approaching the next intermediate elections to Congress. Well, what are your impressions as a political scientist-theoretic from past hearings?

Trump did not take advantage of the prerogative of the head of the executive branch to prevent Komi's speech in the Senate

- The impressions are contradictory. On the one hand, it is gratifying that our institutions continue to function normally. The inquiry bodies work as they should work. Trump did not take advantage of the prerogative of the head of the executive branch to prevent Komi’s speech in the Senate. At the personal level, some senators, mainly from the Democrats camp, proved their loyalty to the principles on which parliamentarism is being built: they carefully, objectively and comprehensively prepared for hearings, asked questions on the merits, without insinuations and petty politics.

On the other hand, I was disappointed with those Republicans who put party loyalty above loyalty to institutions. The cooked abuse of power, which, presumably, allowed themselves to Trump, they, in fact, contributed erosion of democratic norms. As far as I can judge, it was not interesting for them to understand whether the presidential candidate came from one of the leading parties, specifically - their parties, conspiring with a hostile power, aimed at discrediting the country's electoral system. In other words, a democratic consensus, which the United States has recently considered something for granted, was undermined. This is a dangerous phenomenon, and it inspires me with an alarm about the future American democracy.

- Is it not theoretically disturbing you, a possible negative impact on democratic mechanisms that the president is able to have, whose personal and professional formation occurred exclusively in the world of business?

It is critical that Donald Trump, unfortunately, does not understand the difference between business and democracy

- The very fact of coming to the White House of a person with a business past does not bother me. The professional profile of the head of state can be different, this circumstance is not critical. But our case is different. In it, it is critical that Donald Trump, unfortunately, does not understand the difference between business and democracy. Business is a monarchy. The head of the company has the right to dismiss any subordinate. No explanation of the reasons. In private firms, there is no system of checks and counterweights. In a democratic state, on the contrary, no one has the full power. Inside the company, the general manager is higher than criticism, in the democratic system of action of the president are constantly subjected to public discussion. And, if necessary, condemnation.

Therefore, democracy cannot work without freedom of speech and equality. As for the company, these institutions are irrelevant for it. A person involved in the democratic elections must have a theoretical chance of victory. This is what is not in business, and our president-businessman does not bother at all that this is not in the countries that are so impressed by him-Russia, Hungary, Turkey. This is the trouble: Donald Trump is convinced that the American republic should be managed as a company in which he is a general manager, ”says Harvard University, Jacob Munk.