Fight has just begun
D
Donald Trump thinks he was vindicated by James Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Or at least so he said in a tweet Friday morning:
“Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication...and WOW, Comey is a leaker!”
And to emphasize his point, the president later said at a news conference, “No collusion, no obstruction, he’s a leaker.”
Total and complete vindication? Hardly. This fight has barely begun. Special counsel Robert Mueller has a critical and difficult job ahead of him as he sorts through the evidence and claims and counterclaims of lying by Trump and Comey. Judging by some pre-testimony polls, the American people seem to lean a bit on the side of Comey, and with good reason.
Yes, Comey did indirectly leak documents, but what he described in his forthright and calm, professional manner certainly seemed believable.
It’s true that Comey’s testimony does not draw a direct line from Trump’s interchanges with Comey to an obstruction of justice charge. And it’s true that Comey said Trump was never a subject of the FBI’s investigation into allegations of Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election. Comey also said that no one from the administration, including Trump, expressly asked him to end the investigation.
But if Comey is to be believed, Trump sure came close. When the president asked the FBI director to take it easy on fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, that was close. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go,” Comey quoted the president as saying. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
Comey said he understood that to be a “directive.” How could anyone understand that to mean anything else?
Trump’s alleged demand of loyalty from Comey also comes close. Only autocrats demand that kind of personal fealty. The president of a republic has no right to demand personal loyalty from someone whose first loyalty always should be to the law.
And the fact that Comey was fired because of the Russian investigation — as both he and Trump have said — comes really close. Why would you fire the head of the investigation unless you expected to make some changes in the investigation?
How many “close” hits do you need before the target is acquired?
At the very least, Comey was right about one thing: The attempt by Russia to interfere with the American election was a “big deal.” Even if no votes were actually affected (and it appears that none was), the attempt alone requires the most thorough investigation. The American people need to know what happened. And if people close to Trump were involved in that Russian attempt, does that amount to treason?
That’s something else for investigators to determine.
Yes, it’s also disturbing that President Barack Obama’s attorney general asked Comey to change the language used to describe the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal to comport with the language being used at the time by the Hillary Clinton campaign. That, too, was interference.
But Obama didn’t ask Comey to let it go. He didn’t demand Comey’s personal loyalty. He didn’t fire Comey.
Trump apparently did the first two and unquestionably did the last. His interference in the investigation was at the least inappropriate and unwarranted. We eagerly await the special counsel’s determination on whether it was also illegal.