Sun Sentinel Palm Beach Edition
In he-said, he-said, advantage Comey over Trump
WASHINGTON — There are two steps involved in President Donald Trump’s defense of the allegations leveled against him by former FBI director James Comey.
The first is to make the question a he-said, he-said contest between the two men. The second is to make himself seem more believable.
If that seems familiar, it should.
It was precisely the strategy Trump and his team used during the 2016 campaign, fighting hard against Hillary Clinton until she was viewed as unfavorably as him and then squeaking past her in just enough places to win the presidency.
Here’s how this works in the case of Comey.
During a news conference with the president of Romania on Friday, the Washington Times’ Dave Boyer asked Trump how the president was “vindicated” by Comey’s testimony — as he claimed earlier on Twitter — given that Comey’s testimony boiled down to “his word against your word.”
In broad strokes, Trump’s tweet was accurate.
Comey says that Trump tried to persuade him to drop the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn; Trump says that he didn’t. But Comey also claims to have contemporaneous notes documenting the conversation, which he has provided to special counsel Robert Mueller — notes that shift the balance in Comey’s favor.
Trump, of course, has hinted that he has recordings of his conversations with Comey — but refuses to confirm whether such recordings exist. (On Friday, he said he would let the world know “in a short period of time” if they do.)
Trump’s answer to Boyer’s question happily accepted the he-said, he-said premise.
“No collusion. No obstruction. He’s a leaker,” the president said in his response, tersely summarizing what he felt was learned during Comey’s testimony. Trump then again claimed that the Russia investigation was just an effort to distract from the Democrats’ electoral college loss last year, though the investigation itself began in July of 2016.
“James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said, and a lot of the things that he said just weren’t true,” Trump continued.
That’s a significant statement for Trump to make, given that Comey was testifying under oath. If Comey said untrue things under oath — and knew that they were untrue — that’s perjury. Trump is accusing Comey of a crime.
But that comment also reinforces another way in which this isn’t just a hesaid, he-said. Comey was testifying under oath, something that wasn’t true of either Trump or his attorney (who released an errorriddled statement about Comey’s testimony).
ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked at the news conference if Trump would be willing to testify under oath.
“He said those things under oath,” Karl said. “Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of those events?”
“100 percent,” Trump said.
Would he be willing to talk to Mueller, Karl continued, a conversation which would likely require sworn testimony? “I would be glad to tell him exactly what I just told you,” Trump replied.
The importance of Trump’s unwavering assertion that he would tell the special counsel the same thing under oath is important. Again, Trump’s goal is to force people to choose who they trust, him or Comey.
But there is a big difference between saying you’d be happy to testify under oath and actually testifying under oath, the same difference as saying you’ll give money to charity and actually doing it — something else that Trump knows about.
Trump knows very well that sworn testimony is a different ballgame.
Last year, The Washington Post documented a deposition in which Trump was forced to admit to 30 distinct falsehoods he’d made when not under oath. Perhaps Trump will subject himself to the same scrutiny with Mueller,.
But until he does, it’s premature to give him the benefit of the doubt on honesty.
Even if it were a he-said, he-said contest with Comey, Trump has far more reasons to be dishonest than does Comey. Trump’s presidency is at stake, and if there is a pattern of obstruction of justice in his behavior — the sort of thing that Comey’s testimony could reinforce — the repercussions could be severe.
Trump would have Americans believe that Comey is the one lying, motivated by ... Anger? Revenge? It’s not clear.
Trump can lie with literal impunity at this point and has a motive to do so. Comey faces legal repercussions for lying — and it’s not clear why he would.