Why does a member of the Trump campaign get to pick the next investigator of the Trump campaign?

There has been a lot written about the President’s decision to summarily fire FBI Director Comey. There are very legitimate criticisms of Director Comey’s conduct over the last year, from both sides of the aisle. This is obviously a huge story, and it has deep ramifications for the independence of federal investigatory and law enforcement agencies.

What really concerns me and what is not getting as much attention, however, is the Attorney General’s role in recommending the termination of Director Comey, as well as the Attorney General’s participation in the selection of Director Comey’s replacement.

Then-Senator Jeff Sessions was one of Trump’s earliest and most vocal supporters. He was a surrogate for the candidate and was deeply involved in the campaign at high levels from the beginning.

Once confirmed as Attorney General, Sessions announced that he would recuse himself from any investigation into the Trump campaign. He made the obvious statement:

“I should not be involved in investigating a campaign I had a role in.”

His decision to recuse himself was widely supported by Senators from across the political spectrum, including Republican Senators Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, and Rob Portman.

On May 9, the FBI/DOJ issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of Michael Flynn, a Trump surrogate and the former National Security Advisor. On May 11, the FBI executed warrants at a firm linked to Republican party. Last week, Director Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee the FBI is conducting broader investigation into Russian inference and the Trump campaign. We have an active and extremely high profile investigation, led by the FBI, into Russian interference and prosecution of at least one member of the Trump campaign and Administration. Unequivocally, the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign.

The Attorney General’s recusal is extremely broad. Sessions stated:

“I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.”

Any investigation. Of any matters. In any way. It is difficult to fathom a recusal of broader scope.

Despite this broad recusal, based on obvious conflicts of interest, the Attorney General specifically recommended removal of the chief investigator into Trump’s campaign. On May 9, he wrote to the President: “I have concluded that a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI….I must recommend that you remove Director James B. Comey, Jr….”

The President specifically cited the Attorney General’s recommendation in his letter removing Director Comey.

Not only did the Attorney General remove the person leading the investigation that he recused himself from participating in, the Attorney General is now actively participating in selecting the new leaders of the investigation.

To put it bluntly, a member of the Trump campaign gets to pick the next investigator of the Trump campaign.

This fails to meet any standard for recusal, impartiality, or independence. Legal-Dictionary defines ‘recuse’ as: “To disqualify or remove oneself as a judge over a particular proceeding because of one’s conflict of interest. Recusal, or the judge’s act of disqualifying himself or herself from presiding over a proceeding, is based on the Maxim that judges are charged with a duty of impartiality in administering justice.”

This Administration is rife with conflicts of interest, ethical quagmires like nepotism, and failure to observe tenets of ethical leadership.

This is yet another example of breathtaking failure of ethics at the highest level of government — and it underscores the immediate need for a truly independent investigation into Russian interference in our election.

This week, former Director of National Intelligence Clapper (who served under both Republican and Democratic Administrations and is hardly a tool of the ‘liberal media’) said:

“Russia’s influence activities in the run-up to the 2016 election constituted the high water mark of their long running efforts since the 1960s to disrupt and influence our elections. They must be congratulating themselves for having exceeded their wildest expectations with a minimal expenditure of resource. And I believe they are now emboldened to continue such activities in the future both here and around the world, and to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundation of our democratic political system, this episode is it. I hope the American people recognize the severity of this threat and that we collectively counter it before it further erodes the fabric of our democracy.”

We deserve answers, and we deserve them from a credibly independent source.