Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Thoughts on Comey's Public Testimony

On Thursday, former FBI director James Comey gave testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding his relationship with President Trump. The substance of his testimony is, in the essentials, as follows.

  • Comey met with Trump alone on three occasions. Once on Jan 6 at Trump Tower to brief the then President-elect on the contents of the salacious Steele dossier, once after he was invited to a private dinner on Jan 27, and once alone in the Oval Office on Feb 14. 
  • Comey said that he felt uncomfortable on all three occasions, and openly admitted that he kept records of his conversations with Trump in significant part because he was concerned that Trump might lie publicly about them.
  • At the Jan 27 dinner, Trump repeatedly brought up Comey's job status, in spite of previously having assured him he would be retained. Trump noted, unprompted, that a large number of people wanted Comey's job. In that context, he repeatedly asked Comey for loyalty. Comey says - and it is very difficult to avoid this impression - that he felt Trump was seeking to establish "some sort of patronage relationship" by linking his job security to a perception of personal loyalty.
  • At the Feb 14 meeting in the Oval Office, Trump directed his personal consigliere Jared Kushner and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was then Comey's direct superior, to leave him alone with Comey. He then brought up the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, in particular the connections between Russian agents and Michael Flynn. It will be remembered that Flynn had been fired from his post as National Security Adviser the day before, after it came out that he mislead the Vice President among others about the nature of his contacts with Russians. Trump pointedly told Comey "I hope you can see your way clear to letting [Flynn] go."
  • After Comey's firing, and upon observing the broad based campaign by the administration to belittle him publicly, he asked a close friend to pass the contents of some of his memos along to the press, in the hopes that a special prosecutor would be appointed to investigate them. That is, of course, precisely what happened. 
His testimony is compelling for multiple reasons. First is that the level of openness he displayed throughout the testimony about his own feelings and motivations, as well as his care not to overstate his case or leave out any detail of even minor significance, forcefully gives the impression of someone who is telling the truth. Second, Comey's own impressive track record with regard to resisting improper executive action is well documented and gives him personally a credibility on this issue few others can match. Third, Comey's account of Trump's behavior is so very consistent with what is already known about the president and his memorized quotes so closely track Trump's speech and mannerisms that it is hard to believe that the president never said them.

The picture painted by his testimony is one of a president purposefully attempting to cultivate the head of federal law enforcement as a lackey. Not only that, but after dismissing a room full of advisors including Comey's own direct superior to leave Comey alone in the Oval Office with the President of the United States, Trump pointedly told Comey that he hoped he would "let go" of an active criminal investigation into one of the president's recent subordinates.

While many have focused on Trump's precise use of the word "hope" in an attempt to paint the conversation as an innocuous expression of concern for Flynn that the investigation wouldn't find anything on him, it is very clear to me what the most powerful person in the country means when he clears the room and tells you he "hopes" that an investigation will go away. One might as easily argue that when Don Corleone pledged to make Jack Woltz an offer he couldn't refuse, he only meant to present the film producer with an extremely generous deal.

Honestly, and with full acknowledgement that I may well be mistaken in this, I doubt whether any serious consequences for Trump outside of political unpopularity and gridlock will emerge from this testimony. The Republicans on the committee made it clear that they would go out of their way to defend the president's actions as innocuous or the result of a naive neophyte who doesn't know any better. This is consistent with their behavior for a year now, as they have excused Trump's many damning statements and actions because they know that he is their only real hope for undoing the Obama years. If the expectation that the president will respect established alliances, or the longstanding standards of decorum in presidential conduct toward other public figures, or the political independence of the FBI has to take a hit for that to happen, so be it.

That being said, we should all recognize and acknowledge openly what is happening. The standards of conduct expected of the executive branch that involve restraints on the political exercise of executive power are being slowly eroded. Whether that erosion ultimately redounds to the benefit of a president of the left or right is immaterial, because in the long run arbitrary power will not benefit any significant number of people beyond those who wield it. This is something that needs to be stopped, and it is a moment for us to rise however temporarily above the day to day ideological warfare that has consumed us. It is a melancholy reflection on our society that we seem unable to do that, at least for now.

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for sharing, Phil. If Russia was trying to undermine the U.S.'s faith in our democracy, I'd say it's working, unfortunately. Which, as it turns out, might work in the favor of our strongman president. We might be watching a slow-motion car crash, but we've got to do our best to stop it.

    ReplyDelete