Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Smelling salts, anyone?

Whether we're skipping toward Oz or falling down the rabbit hole into Wonderland I'm not at all sure, but we're definitely not in Kansas anymore.  No one can know whether we're careening headlong toward ultimate relief and resolution or toward some inconceivably dangerous attempt to wag the bomb-sniffing dogs of justice by setting fire to the world order.  (E.g., for the first time, today there was TV news mention of a senior rump staffer's snarling at Israeli counterparts that the Western Wall is part of the West Bank and "not your territory".  That's news to Israel too.)

"Dizzying" is the clichéd characterization of how we feel hit with non-stop revelations of impeachment-worthy crimes, misdemeanors and blundering faux pas, one tromping on the heels of the other before we've had time to digest the implications of the first, or second, third, etc. 

I feel for the op-ed writers who have to write and submit their stuff without possibly knowing the subject of the next day's newly exploding "bombshell" that could demolish the timely relevance of the commentaries before they appear in print or even online.  For example, Dana Milbank's column today drills into the destructive effects of allying oneself with rump, starting with a case study of Sean Spicer's downward spiral as a jumping-off point for reviewing the using and screwing of thousands who've done business with him in the past and the recent histories of Flynn, Manafort, Comey...  Enumerating each link in rump's chain of destruction, Milbank tells the story of a world-class sociopath with some sympathy for the people who along the had the misfortune to trust him.  I would like to have seen Milbank hold rump's victims to account for bad judgment that made them corruptible in the face of evidence that this has always been a pathologically self-aggrandizing man who values the wrong things and demonstrates stunted moral, emotional and intellectual development.

All that said, Milbank's otherwise apt and important focus on the character of the POTUS (his column is pasted in at the bottom of this post) looks like yesterday's analysis when the Comey memo-to-self has swamped the commentariat with the whirlwind of Watergate impeachment obstruction W  T  F, not to mention Putin offering to provide a transcript of the rump-Lavov-Kislyak Oval Office meeting.       

In fact, literally as I was typing the above, Milbank was on MSNBC commenting on the nuclear news of the day and standing up to a right-wing radio host I'd never heard of who was spouting the GOP's pathetic last line of defense against empanelling a Watergate-model nonpartisan committee is, like, "why didn't Comey mention rump's attempt to abort the Flynn investigation when it supposedly happened?" 

The Daily 202 (linked just below) is the most updated written report and cumulative commentary on the state of scandal.  The links within Hohmann's column include the NYTimes report that started last night's media tornado around the Comey memo quoting rump asking him to drop the Flynn case.  The 202 gives a nod to rump's "inexperience" as a factor, but the core of the problem is rump's character and the actions it drives him to take without devoting even a blink of consciousness to consideration of consequences. 

Below the 202 link is a letter to the editor that is a psychoanalytic psychiatrist's look at the unhealthy psychodynamics and developmental warping that comprise that character.  Below the doc's letter is Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe's 5/14 column on the legal case for undertaking an impeachment inquiry.  The column was written before either the leak of classified intel to Russians or the Comey memo had come to light.  Those two items are mega-exclamation points to Tribe's argument.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/05/17/daily-202-trump-s-inexperience-contributed-to-comey-interactions-that-now-cloud-his-presidency/591b9e08e9b69b209cf2b84b/?utm_term=.2e0c4ae52c65


To the Editor:

As a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and parent, I am very familiar with teenagers’ tendencies to see what they can get away with. For many adolescents, it is a natural part of the developmental process, but most avoid causing serious harm to themselves or others.

We now have a man in the White House who is constantly trying to see what he can get away with, who has been encouraged by the leniency shown him thus far, and whose wish to deconstruct the norms of our governmental processes could hardly be more destructive. Further, based on what is best described as malignant narcissism, he seems incapable of shame or remorse. The result is his blustering and bullying attitude when things do not go his way or there are attempts to challenge his statements. That he can lie and deny responsibility for statements is part of his attempt to push the limits as far as he can.

As responsible citizens, we must continue to point out his irresponsible and dangerous behavior to hold him accountable.

Marc R. Inver, Lafayette Hill

Trump Must Be Impeached. Here's Why.


By Laurence H. Tribe, The Washington Post

14 May 17

The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice.

The remedy of impeachment was designed to create a last-resort mechanism for preserving our constitutional system. It operates by removing executive-branch officials who have so abused power through what the framers called “high crimes and misdemeanors” that they cannot be trusted to continue in office.

No American president has ever been removed for such abuses, although Andrew Johnson was impeached and came within a single vote of being convicted by the Senate and removed, and Richard Nixon resigned to avoid that fate.

Now the country is faced with a president whose conduct strongly suggests that he poses a danger to our system of government.

Ample reasons existed to worry about this president, and to ponder the extraordinary remedy of impeachment, even before he fired FBI Director James B. Comey and shockingly admitted on national television that the action was provoked by the FBI’s intensifying investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia.

Even without getting to the bottom of what Trump dismissed as “this Russia thing,” impeachable offenses could theoretically have been charged from the outset of this presidency. One important example is Trump’s brazen defiance of the foreign emoluments clause, which is designed to prevent foreign powers from pressuring U.S. officials to stray from undivided loyalty to the United States. Political reality made impeachment and removal on that and other grounds seem premature.

No longer. To wait for the results of the multiple investigations underway is to risk tying our nation’s fate to the whims of an authoritarian leader.

Comey’s summary firing will not stop the inquiry, yet it represented an obvious effort to interfere with a probe involving national security matters vastly more serious than the “third-rate burglary” that Nixon tried to cover up in Watergate. The question of Russian interference in the presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign go to the heart of our system and ability to conduct free and fair elections.

Consider, too, how Trump embroiled Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, despite Sessions’s recusal from involvement in the Russia investigation, in preparing admittedly phony justifications for the firing on which Trump had already decided. Consider how Trump used the vice president and White House staff to propagate a set of blatant untruths — before giving an interview to NBC’s Lester Holt that exposed his true motivation.

Trump accompanied that confession with self-serving — and manifestly false — assertions about having been assured by Comey that Trump himself was not under investigation. By Trump’s own account, he asked Comey about his investigative status even as he was conducting the equivalent of a job interview in which Comey sought to retain his position as director.

Further reporting suggests that the encounter was even more sinister, with Trump insisting that Comey pledge “loyalty” to him in order to retain his job. Publicly saying he saw nothing wrong with demanding such loyalty, the president turned to Twitter with a none-too-subtle threat that Comey would regret any decision to disseminate his version of his conversations with Trump — something that Comey has every right, and indeed a civic duty, to do.

To say that this does not in itself rise to the level of “obstruction of justice” is to empty that concept of all meaning. Obstruction of justice was the first count in the articles of impeachment against Nixon and, years later, a count against Bill Clinton. In Clinton’s case, the ostensible obstruction consisted solely in lying under oath about a sordid sexual affair that may have sullied the Oval Office but involved no abuse of presidential power as such.

But in Nixon’s case, the list of actions that together were deemed to constitute impeachable obstruction reads like a forecast of what Trump would do decades later — making misleading statements to, or withholding material evidence from, federal investigators or other federal employees; trying to interfere with FBI or congressional investigations; trying to break through the FBI’s shield surrounding ongoing criminal investigations; dangling carrots in front of people who might otherwise pose trouble for one’s hold on power.

It will require serious commitment to constitutional principle, and courageous willingness to put devotion to the national interest above self-interest and party loyalty, for a Congress of the president’s own party to initiate an impeachment inquiry. It would be a terrible shame if only the mounting prospect of being voted out of office in November 2018 would sufficiently concentrate the minds of representatives and senators today.

But whether it is devotion to principle or hunger for political survival that puts the prospect of impeachment and removal on the table, the crucial thing is that the prospect now be taken seriously, that the machinery of removal be reactivated, and that the need to use it become the focus of political discourse going into 2018.

 

Burnt by the Donald

by Dana Milbank

I’m often asked if I think President Trump will make it through all four years of his term.

My stock reply: The better question is whether we will survive the next four years.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he does make it to 2020 without impeachment, or the 25th Amendment, blocking his path. Trump has a long history of walking out of disasters unscathed. It’s those around him — the Sean Spicers of the world — who are destroyed.

Alas, poor Spicer! I knew him well.

He was one of the top Republican flacks in town, affable and quick-witted, always happy to dish with reporters off the record. I liked him. I still like him — or at least that Spicer I knew before he answered Donald Trump’s call.

The Spicer who strode into the White House briefing room Monday afternoon I did not recognize. He scanned the room, unsmiling. He furtively checked his watch. He recited a long opening statement carefully and flatly, as if reading from a science textbook. And he had absolutely nothing to say.

President Trump’s hint that he taped conversations with Jim Comey? “I was very clear that the president would have nothing further on that last week.”

The Russia probe generally? “The president’s position's been very clear.”

And everything else: “I think I’ve made it very clear. …He made it very clear. … It’s been made very clear.”

Spicer was studiously dour and clearly wasn’t enjoying himself. He was puffy, pinched, and pale. And little wonder: Trump has sucked the lifeblood out of him.

The president turned him into a national punchline on his first day on the job, forcing him to provide “alternative facts” about the inauguration. On Friday morning, Trump confirmed for the world what was widely suspected: Spic-er doesn’t really know what’s going on. “As a very active President with lots of things happening, it is not possible for my surrogates to stand at podium with perfect accuracy!” Trump proclaimed.

The next day, Saturday Night Live did its latest sendup of the hapless spokesman. This time Melissa McCarthy’s Spicer hid in the bushes, attacked reporters, and rode his motorized podium in search of Trump, vainly seeking assurance that he hadn’t been lied to. Alec Baldwin’s Trump tried to grope and kiss McCarthy’s Spicer.

“Is this like The Godfather when you kiss me and no one ever sees me again?” the Spicer character asked.

“Yes,” the Trump character answered.

It’s a matter of time until life imitates sketch. Washington is abuzz with speculation about when Spicer will be shown the door, but it doesn’t really matter. His credibility, and his dignity, have already been defenestrated.

He will soon be added to the heap of unhappy people who cast their lots with Trump and were repaid with misery.

Trump entities have filed for bankruptcy protection six times. Investors, lenders, and workers took hits — and Trump moved on. Trump was caught on tape boasting to Billy Bush about sexually assaulting women — and Bush lost his job. Corey Lewandowski and Paul Manafort poured themselves into Trump’s campaign and were unceremoniously dumped.

The carnage has increased since Trump came to Washington. National security adviser Michael Flynn is out and potentially in legal trouble. The FBI’s Comey arguably handed Trump the election — and learned of his dismissal from TV. As my Washington Post colleague Abby Phillip documented, Vice President Pence has been “unflagging in his loyalty,” only to be made “the public face of official narratives that turn out to be misleading or false.” Trump humiliated Steve Bannon by publicly downplaying their association. Trump repaid House Speaker Paul Ryan’s loyalty by winking at calls for Ryan’s ouster. Attempts to defend Trump by aides Reince Priebus and Kellyanne Conway and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have left them sounding clownish. Trump takes what he can from each of his aides and allies and then moves on.

It would seem that time is near for Spicer, who started Monday’s briefing 45 minutes late and, in the minutes that followed, avoided answering questions by saying no fewer than 22 times how very “clear” he or Trump had been about this or that.

At the end of the lifeless performance by the beleaguered spokesman, what was clear is this: His utility to Trump has diminished. And, as many a Trump loyalist has discovered, you are useful to Trump until you are not — and then you are cast aside.

I’m often asked if I think President Trump will make it through all four years of his term.

My stock reply: The better question is whether we will survive the next four years.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he does make it to 2020 without impeachment, or the 25th Amendment, blocking his path. Trump has a long history of walking out of disasters unscathed. It’s those around him — the Sean Spicers of the world — who are destroyed.

Alas, poor Spicer! I knew him well.

He was one of the top Republican flacks in town, affable and quick-witted, always happy to dish with reporters off the record. I liked him. I still like him — or at least that Spicer I knew before he answered Donald Trump’s call.

The Spicer who strode into the White House briefing room Monday afternoon I did not recognize. He scanned the room, unsmiling. He furtively checked his watch. He recited a long opening statement carefully and flatly, as if reading from a science textbook. And he had absolutely nothing to say.

President Trump’s hint that he taped conversations with Jim Comey? “I was very clear that the president would have nothing further on that last week.”

The Russia probe generally? “The president’s position's been very clear.”

And everything else: “I think I’ve made it very clear. …He made it very clear. … It’s been made very clear.”

Spicer was studiously dour and clearly wasn’t enjoying himself. He was puffy, pinched, and pale. And little wonder: Trump has sucked the lifeblood out of him.

The president turned him into a national punchline on his first day on the job, forcing him to provide “alternative facts” about the inauguration. On Friday morning, Trump confirmed for the world what was widely suspected: Spic-er doesn’t really know what’s going on. “As a very active President with lots of things happening, it is not possible for my surrogates to stand at podium with perfect accuracy!” Trump proclaimed.

The next day, Saturday Night Live did its latest sendup of the hapless spokesman. This time Melissa McCarthy’s Spicer hid in the bushes, attacked reporters, and rode his motorized podium in search of Trump, vainly seeking assurance that he hadn’t been lied to. Alec Baldwin’s Trump tried to grope and kiss McCarthy’s Spicer.

“Is this like The Godfather when you kiss me and no one ever sees me again?” the Spicer character asked.

“Yes,” the Trump character answered.

It’s a matter of time until life imitates sketch. Washington is abuzz with speculation about when Spicer will be shown the door, but it doesn’t really matter. His credibility, and his dignity, have already been defenestrated.

He will soon be added to the heap of unhappy people who cast their lots with Trump and were repaid with misery.

Trump entities have filed for bankruptcy protection six times. Investors, lenders, and workers took hits — and Trump moved on. Trump was caught on tape boasting to Billy Bush about sexually assaulting women — and Bush lost his job. Corey Lewandowski and Paul Manafort poured themselves into Trump’s campaign and were unceremoniously dumped.

The carnage has increased since Trump came to Washington. National security adviser Michael Flynn is out and potentially in legal trouble. The FBI’s Comey arguably handed Trump the election — and learned of his dismissal from TV. As my Washington Post colleague Abby Phillip documented, Vice President Pence has been “unflagging in his loyalty,” only to be made “the public face of official narratives that turn out to be misleading or false.” Trump humiliated Steve Bannon by publicly downplaying their association. Trump repaid House Speaker Paul Ryan’s loyalty by winking at calls for Ryan’s ouster. Attempts to defend Trump by aides Reince Priebus and Kellyanne Conway and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have left them sounding clownish. Trump takes what he can from each of his aides and allies and then moves on.

It would seem that time is near for Spicer, who started Monday’s briefing 45 minutes late and, in the minutes that followed, avoided answering questions by saying no fewer than 22 times how very “clear” he or Trump had been about this or that.

At the end of the lifeless performance by the beleaguered spokesman, what was clear is this: His utility to Trump has diminished. And, as many a Trump loyalist has discovered, you are useful to Trump until you are not — and then you are cast aside.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Comey's firing puts the GOP Congress in cross-hairs of history


When I think about how rarely we interact socially with politically unlike-minded people, I am amazed at how much we've segregated ourselves into political tribes.  Moreso than during the decades in which I grew up, it seems our political views correlate with so many life choices that we barely interact with non-members of the tribe.  
 
This is not a viable blueprint for a democratic society, and it's getting worse, so it's hard to foresee a happy resolution to these divisions.  I try to do the right thing, and I try my best not to be hateful, egocentric or petty -- in other words, generally to live my life in precisely the opposite way that the so-called-and-hopefully-soon-to-be-ex-president lives his. 
 
But to be honest about it, my attempt to be such a model of temperance and charity is still, shall I say, more aspirational than achieved.
For a timely example of tribal division, the Inquirer published one of their topical side-by-side point-counterpoint pairs of op-eds, this pair of competing commentaries reflecting on the Comey firing.  Dana Milbank brings the progressive lens to the subject, Hugh Hewitt the so-called conservative one. 
 
Hewitt's position is the "so-called" conservative one because his take in this op-ed merely parrots the rump adminstration justification for the Comey firing and in doing so diverges from the reactions of more autonomous-thinking conservatives like Max Boot, David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, Bill Kristol, Steve Schmidt, Charlie Sykes and Rick Wilson.  That group agreed with Democrats that Comey was axed to impede the Russia investigation, and they found it ludicrously lacking credibility that rump tossed Comey for the latter's shabby and unprofessional treatment of Hillary Clinton.  
 
Meanwhile, Hewitt's op-ed parrots the original rump-spicer line, that the Deputy AG initiated the firing for cause.  That line was no longer even operative by the morning that my paper landed on my front walk with an op-ed that Hewitt had no doubt written and submitted before that official line was reeled back in following Rosenstein's threat to resign rather than be rump's personal fig leaf.  Old Rod refused to be left twisting in the idiot wind as the pretextual legitimizer of the new American despotism.   
 
Now Dana Milbank is nice, way too nice to have started his column by recycling Dan Akroyd's iconic abuse of Jane Curtin -- i.e., with the ever-popular "Hugh, you ignorant slut!"  For me, however, being a struggling wannabe of a nice guy, that would have been a too-faint damnation for putz-head Hugh, who hopefully will wear this dead albatross of a WashPo column around his obsequious and servile neck for a long time. Max Boot, like Hewitt a right-wing pundit who unlike Hewitt is daring to piss off some of his audience, said two nights ago on MSNBC that he was appalled at the subservience to rump of the "supine" GOP members of Congress.  If they are supine, Hewitt has been totally pancaked by his own mindless partisanship, like Wily Coyote under an ACME Co. safe the size of an outhouse, dropped on him by the roadrunner from the top of the cliff. 
 
Beep-beep indeed.  Hewitt can not unprint his words.  His intellectual cred has to be shredded, and for me that is triple-crème, max-calorie schadenfreude, because this guy, just like Utah's McCarthy-lite witch-hunter-in-the-House Jason Chaffetz, was so appalled by rump... before 11-8-16, after which he morphed into a rump surrogate.  That's why I have it in for Hugh Hewitt, whose embarrassment is the smallest of potatoes in the scheme of what I pray to God is the unfolding of the stepwise disintegration and demise of this would-be autocratic regime of a megalomaniacal Mafioso.  Rump's admission to Lester Holt that he'd fired Comey without regard for Rosenstein's and Session's opinions, that he did it cuz the, like, the Russia thing is a made-up narrative, was in his mind not an admission at all, it was an assertion of his massively powerful will, more powerful than the law or historical precedent because the people will love him even if he shoots some schmuck like Comey in the middle of Fifth Avenue.   
 
And so far the son of a bitch still has that going for him.  This morning the polling showed 84% of Repubicans supporting that extra-judicial termination.  Among Democrats, the figure was 9%.  Two different worlds of Americans looking at the same things through different lenses -- not to mention different media.  The critical point is that Repubican Congressmen who take their oaths of office to heart, however many that may be, face a deep and very public crisis in the tension between saving the rule of law in America and appeasing the 84%.  Dana Milbank in his column calls on them to do the right thing even if it would be unpopular with that 84%.  As Milbank points out, doing that would also mean bucking the so-called leadership of Mitch McConnell, a human Potemkin village with nothing but the levers of partisan machination behind the façade.
 
A few nights ago Stephen Colbert satirized memo-author Rod Rosenstein's after-the-fact pushback against the narrative that he'd initiated the firing.  Colbert displayed a mocked-up book jacket featuring Rosenstein's portrait under the title Threats of Courage.  Democrats are calling on Dep. AG Rosenstein to appoint a special prosecutor with a mandate to investigate the Russia-rump relationship and the attendant subpoena power.  So far, he resists, even though we might have expected that he'd lean toward an action that would belie his ethical and professional capitulation in writing the legally flimsy memo. 
 
So it keeps looking like the whole sustaining structure of the rule of law and democracy is left to Congressional Repubicans -- senators, really -- either to stand up for or to stand by while rump sells the pieces for scrap to the Russians.  They could start a process that might lead to the truth and with that an outcome that could bring healing to the gaping divides among the people.  That hope may be far-fetched, but at least the truth could save the American idea from autocracy.
 
Firing Comey
Will GOP recognize this threat to America?
DANAMILBANK
@Milbank
 
Mitch McConnell is no Howard Baker.
Baker, the late Republican senator from Tennessee and GOP Senate leader in the 1970s and 1980s, became a profile in courage when he put country above party during the Watergate investigation, famously asking, “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”
McConnell, who now occupies the high office Baker once held, had a chance Wednesday for his Baker moment. The night before, President Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey, the man overseeing the investigation into Russian interference in the election with potential Trump campaign collusion. Even many Republicans were aghast at the clumsy, Nixonian move that was plainly aimed at shutting down the probe.
Forty-five of 48 Democrats were at their desks Wednesday morning on the Senate floor, which was gravely silent — a measure of the gravity of the moment. Several Republicans were there, too. McConnell rose — and spoke about “Honor Flights” for veterans.
He then furnished more complaints about Obamacare. Then, by way of afterthought, he added a few words on the stunning events of Tuesday night.
“What we have now,” he argued, is “our Democratic colleagues complaining about the removal of an FBI director whom they themselves repeatedly and sharply criticized.” McConnell went on to argue that a new investigation “could only serve to impede the current work being done” to investigate the Russian interference.
Right. So calls for a more vigorous investigation would … impede the investigation. And people who previously criticized Comey can’t complain about the extremely suspicious manner in which he was fired. By that logic, those who criticized Abraham Lincoln’s military strategy were hypocritical to condemn John Wilkes Booth for shooting him.
McConnell’s small-mindedness would be funny if the situation weren’t so grave. This is a serious threat, not to Republicans but to America. A leading adversary successfully intervened in a presidential election — possibly with the collusion of the victor. And the man leading the investigation, who just last week asked for more resources for the probe, was instead fired by the man he asked (new Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein), quite likely on the president’s instructions.
There have been reports that grand-jury subpoenas were ready to fly, and public testimony raised new suspicions of collusion. We also know that Trump refused to take action when told his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was compromised with the Russians — until the matter blew up publicly. We also know that the firing (and now replacement) of the FBI director is under the auspices of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is supposed to be recused from the Russia probe because of his own Russia contacts.
And look at the man McConnell is protecting. Russophile Trump surrounded himself on the campaign with men tied to Russia: Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone, Flynn. And on Wednesday morning, the day after firing Comey, Trump gave a new display of his Russia-friendly ways. He sat down in the Oval Office with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and banned the U.S. media from the session; the only “media” present, apparently, was Tass, the Russian state-owned news agency, which published photos of the meeting.
During Watergate, there were many Republicans who bravely stood up to Nixon. Rep. Lawrence Hogan of Maryland, father of the current governor; Rep. M. Caldwell Butler of Virginia; Attorney General Elliot Richardson; Sens. Hugh Scott (Pa.) and Barry Goldwater (Ariz.), and others earned places of honor in history for that.
There are some who have the potential to play that role now. Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said the timing and reasoning of the firing don’t make sense, and he invited Comey to testify. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has called for a select committee to investigate and Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) for an independent commission. Sens. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), James Lank-ford (Okla.), and a couple of others, have raised questions.
Will they, like their predecessors 40-odd years ago, be able to recognize that Trump’s action Tuesday night and McConnell’s mindless defense of it are more a danger to country than to party?
As Democrats thundered about the need for a special prosecutor, Republicans quietly expressed unease and White House officials fabricated facts to justify Trump’s actions, the president took to Twitter. “When things calm down,” he wrote, everybody “will be thanking me.”
Sergei Lavrov and the Russians may thank Trump. But in America things won’t “calm down” —they can’t calm down — unless a few brave Republicans find the courage to set this right.
Dana Milbank is a Washington Post columnist.
 
Confidence in the FBI needs to be restored.
By Hugh Hewitt
Long ago, when I was a young special assistant first to Attorney General William French Smith and then to Attorney General Edwin Meese, the young staff would automatically stand up whenever William Webster, then head of the FBI, walked into a room. At Friday morning round-table briefings, when Webster spoke, everyone leaned in. He had the bearing, the competence, and the character of the nation’s top and trusted cop.
Last summer an old D.C. hand told me how shocked he was at then-FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to publicly discuss the Hillary Clinton email investigation and to walk the public through a hundred details of the case and then conclude she should not be prosecuted. Agree or disagree with that decision, he said, it’s not what the FBI does. Ever. Agents present facts to prosecutors. They may nudge or even push in one direction or the other, but they don’t decide. This former assistant U.S. attorney and then-senior official in numerous positions and companies, was not so much outraged by Comey’s actions at the time as puzzled, perhaps even shocked.
Apparently, new Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein shared exactly that view and expressed it succinctly in his three-page memo to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Confidence in the FBI would not come back until a new director was in place, and that, of course, requires that Comey be fired. Not a decision to be taken lightly, Rosenstein argued, but one he recommended that Sessions make. Sessions reviewed the recommendation, concurred and forwarded a joint recommendation to the president, who agreed.
Anyone who thinks this is connected to a cover-up of “Russian collusion” has to believe that both Rosenstein and Sessions would participate in such a corrupt scheme. I don’t. It is, in fact, absurd to think that. Reread the Rosenstein memo — a few times. There’s the story. Comey was wrong in July, wrong in subsequent statements, wrong as recently as last week, and refused to admit error. The story is a straight-line one, and it’s about Rosenstein.
In fact, just last week Comey said this in response to a question from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) about whether Rosenstein should appoint a special prosecutor in the Russian investigations: “That’s a judgment he’ll have to make. He is, as I hoped I was as deputy attorney general, a very independent-minded, career-oriented person, but it’d be premature for me to comment on that.”
That’s Comey on Rosenstein. Last week. Under oath.
Which doesn’t mean that questions about the investigation of Russia’s attack on our election are any less serious or the need for a thorough inquiry into charges of collusion between Russia and anyone in the many circles of President Trump is any less pressing. It just means that the FBI has to be led by someone like Webster to assure that both sides of deeply divided D.C. accept the results of all facets of the investigation.
Moreover, atlast week’s hearing Comey told Sen. Thom Tillis (R., N.C.) that there are 2,000 investigations into would-be “violent extremists” — half home-grown and in the “lone wolf” category, the other half in contact with foreign organizations (of whom about 300 are immigrants to the United States). That’s a massive threat. The FBI is the chief bulwark against it as well as against all cybercrime from abroad (government-sponsored and private criminal activity) and organized crime at home. The director simply cannot lack the confidence of the deputy attorney general or the attorney general.
So whom to turn to? Most definitely someone in the Webster mold, which means a current or former federal judge of stellar reputation for both character and competence, and perhaps with some charisma that could prove useful in rallying the FBI and the Justice Department. Someone like J. Michael Luttig, former Fourth Circuit judge and now-general counsel for Boeing, or U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, who has handled scores of terrorism cases. There are, in fact, plenty of superb candidates in the mold of these two that must bring stature and independence to the job.
But first we have to endure a few days of over-the-top takes from the always overwrought mainstream media. This isn’t the “Saturday Night Massacre.” There are no tapes, no subpoenas for presidential documents, no resignations from the Justice Department, but instead recommendations from the Justice Department. It’s four months into an administration, not four years. In short, the overwrought media has toppled into hysteria again.
Hugh Hewitt can be heard from 6 to 9 a.m. weekdays on WNTP-AM (990). He wrote this for the Washington Post.