Here’s why FBI Director James Comey had to go: Integrity in law enforcement is essential. Otherwise, every act by law enforcers comes into question.
A nation of laws works only when law enforcement is honest and can be believed. Think banana republics. In such places, political opponents and innocents unwilling to pay bribes are jailed like criminals. They may protest their innocence. But who knows? When law enforcement is under a cloud of doubt, who is to say who’s a crook and who’s not?
Whom shall we believe when law enforcement has no integrity?
A recent example is illustrative. A suspected Russian computer hacker named Yevgeniy Nikulin says the FBI approached him last year with a deal. The FBI wanted him to confess to hacking the Podesta Democratic Party emails at the behest of Russian President Vladimir Putin to help Donald Trump win election. In return, Nikulin said, the U.S. government would drop charges against him for allegedly hacking social media websites.
Nikulin said he refused the deal. If he had agreed to it, the government would have put him and his testimony on display, effectively linking the Podesta email hack to Putin to benefit Trump.
Who knows whether this Russian alleged hacker is telling the truth? Shall we ask the FBI? Regardless, what are we to think of the FBI if Nikulin’s story is true?
This is why integrity in law enforcement is an absolute necessity.
It compromises integrity enough when authorities promise to reward a suspect by dropping or reducing charges against him in return for him telling the “truth” on the witness stand. When the jury learns the “truth” was provided only after an “incentive” was offered, it unavoidably raises doubts, undermining credibility and making motives suspect.
Did the bad guy guess what authorities wanted to hear, then craft his “truth” to fit it? Doubt about “true” testimony routinely is raised in trials by attorneys to impeach witnesses. Does the testimony conveniently…