No plausible explanation
Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor who handled criminal cases against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, is contesting her abrupt July firing in a lawsuit that challenges Donald J. Trump’s claim of sweeping presidential power.
Ms. Comey, whose father, James B. Comey, is a former F.B.I. director, says in the lawsuit filed on Monday that she was never given a reason for her dismissal. She contends that no plausible explanation exists other than that she is the daughter of one of the president’s best-known adversaries — or her perceived political affiliations.
Ms. Comey is among many federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials who have been fired in President Trump’s second term, with no reason given beyond Article II of the Constitution, which broadly describes the president’s powers. Some have challenged their dismissals before administrative judges; others have sued in federal court.
Of course Article II isn’t a reason, it’s a power. Having the power to fire someone isn’t the same thing as having a reason to do so. I have the power to slap people in the street, but I don’t exercise that power, because I’m not a lunatic.
That’s not really a good analogy, except that with Trump it kind of is. He does enjoy exercising his power to harm people.
Ms. Comey’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, names as defendants the Office of the President, the Justice Department, Attorney General Pam Bondi and others, and calls her firing from the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York illegal.
“The politically motivated termination of Ms. Comey — ostensibly under ‘Article II of the Constitution’— upends bedrock principles of our democracy and justice system,” the lawsuit says. “Assistant United States attorneys like Ms. Comey must do their jobs without fearing or favoring any political party or perspective, guided solely by the law, the facts and the pursuit of justice.”
And presidents ought to be doing the same, but Trump is very far from being guided solely by the law, the facts and the pursuit of justice.
The lawsuit argues that Ms. Comey’s firing was done without cause, advance notice or an opportunity to contest it, and was unlawful and unconstitutional. It says that the dismissal was retaliation for “her father’s protected speech, or because of her perceived political affiliation and beliefs, or both.”
Ms. Comey contends that the law provides no authority for the president to fire rank-and-file prosecutors, who are protected by civil service laws passed by Congress and signed by past presidents.
“Neither the president nor the Department of Justice have unlimited authority to remove” prosecutors, according to the lawsuit, which was filed by Ms. Comey’s lawyers Nicole Gueron, Ellen Blain, Deepa Vanamali and Margaret M. Donovan.
Good luck to them.

I don’t see why you think it wouldn’t be a good analogy.
But none of those past presidents were Donald J. Trump, so anything they signed can be ignored, right? And Congress? He has definitely shown that he has no concept of Congress being able to pass laws that do things he doesn’t want done. He doesn’t see Congress as a legitimately independent body. They exist, in his mind, to do his bidding.
“But none of those past presidents were Donald J. Trump, so anything they signed can be ignored, right?”
Trump ignores stuff he signed too. See the Canada US Mexico trade agreement.