Trump wobbles... but won’t fall down
Republicans likely to stand behind underfire president until he becomes just too toxic to voters, writes Danielle McLaughlin.
THE President of the United States is in trouble. Not just the ‘‘so out of your depth you’re likely to accidently start a war in the Middle East’’ trouble. Not just the ‘‘destroy the increasingly popular US healthcare scheme out of spite for your predecessor and face a massive public backlash’’ trouble. Not just the ‘‘know-nothing, bull in a china shop has abandoned America’s leadership of the free world’’ trouble. But ‘‘obstruction of justice’’ trouble.
The salient question at this point, just 142 days into his administration, is whether Americans, and more importantly, members of the president’s own party, will stand for it, or let it go.
Former FBI Director James Comey gave over two hours of riveting testimony yesterday, detailing his interactions with Trump prior to Comey’s abrupt firing in March. We already knew the president fired Comey because of, in Trump’s words, ‘‘this Russia thing with Trump and Russia’’ – an ongoing FBI investigation – which he called a ‘‘made-up story’’. This week Comey articulated in sworn testimony that Trump had pressed him, on numerous occasions, and intentionally in the absence of witnesses, to drop at least a part of the ‘‘Russia thing’’ – the investigation into former National Security Advisor and Trump ally General Michael Flynn.
Comey’s firing, standing alone, might not rise to the level of obstruction of justice. But as one tile in a mosaic of revelations about Trump’s other interactions and requests of the former FBI Director, a picture emerges of a strong case for obstruction of justice against the US President.
The most broadly used federal obstruction law, 18 USC 1503, prohibits any activity that ‘‘corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavours to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice’’. An obstruction case can be made then, with any corrupt act that impedes, or seeks to impede, an ongoing investigation.
It appears that from January through March, Trump was sizing Comey up, deciding whether he would be a loyal Trump soldier (as is the president’s preference) or an independent arm of government loyal to the US words, he was ‘‘honestly concerned’’ Trump might lie about them after the fact.
Reading Comey’s prepared testimony, and hearing him on Capitol Hill this week, the similarity between the TrumpComey power play, and the way that many women have had to navigate sexist work environments hit me like a wave. The way Comey described their interactions, it was like Trump was testing and grooming him. Comey called it an aspiring ‘‘patronage’’ relationship. The way the president seemed to want Comey to ask for his job again and again, perhaps in return for something. The highly unusual, intentionally staged, one-on-one meetings. The loyalty pledge. Comey said it made him ‘‘uneasy.’’ It took me back to my own experiences in jobs during and after university with a handful of lecherous men in positions of power. The improper requests. The awkwardness. The sick feeling of knowing that someone was abusing, or attempting to abuse, their power over you. And that all you could do was suck it up, and email Human Resources after the fact.
Setting the creepiness of it all aside, it’s clear to me as a US lawyer that a case could be made for obstruction of justice on these facts. But even if the criminal case could be made, it’s not clear a president can be criminally prosecuted. So we are left with impeachment. Something Republicans, who control Congress and therefore the impeachment process, have shown zero willingness to entertain. That refusal will hold unless and until Trump becomes toxic. Until the swamp he promised to drain is poisoning the electoral chances of Republicans writ large. There is no guarantee that will ever happen. So what’s the lesson here? The US democratic system features a built-in presumption that the occupant of the highest office will hold himself to the highest standards of conduct. Presidents have few ethical and legal constraints. Therefore, so long as a president enjoys political support, he is almost untouchable.
Trump is proving on a daily basis that such presumptions were misplaced, more than 200 years since they were formed. A president who says ‘‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty’’, has no understanding of, or concern for, the institutions and norms that are formed to ensure that public servants remain exactly that.
The President is certainly in trouble. The scandal that hangs over him hasn’t been seen since Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky drama, or Reagan’s Iran-contra affair. This cloud is, at minimum, a huge diversion from the business of being President. Which he will remain, at least for now, while the political tides are still with him.