Day: June 7, 2017
Obstruction
It is clear in former FBI Director Comey’s written testimony that he thought President Trump tried to obstruct the investigation of his former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. Comey quotes the President:
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
What is slightly less clear is whether Trump was trying to obstruct the investigation into his own contacts with the Russians.
As Comey explains in his memo, it is standard procedure to assure a target of a foreign intelligence operation that the target is not under investigation, only the attempt to influence or blackmail him. That is what Comey says he did, more than once, in connection with the dossier a former British intelligence agent had prepared on Trump’s Russia connections. Trump couches all his comments about himself in terms of removing the cloud from his presidency by making it known to the public that he himself was not under investigation, which is arguably not obstruction unless that intent can be demonstrated.
Comey did not tell Trump that his and his campaign’s connections to the Russians were not under investigation. That is now the objective of Special Counsel Mueller’s efforts, as a result of Trump’s firing Comey. Trump presumably did not understand the distinction between a counter-intelligence investigation in which he was the target of a foreign operation and one in which his own activities might be at issue. He is not a guy who readily perceives such fine distinctions.
According to Comey’s testimony, Trump’s concerns in several conversations revolve primarily around his own public image and Comey’s personal loyalty. Neither of those surprises. The conversations sound more like a Mafia boss squeezing a subordinate than a president talking to an independent agency chief responsible for prosecuting crimes. Comey reports Trump saying,
“I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I [Comey] didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence.
That must have been fun!
In my experience, smart US government officials are assiduously respectful of the judicial process. They do not try to interfere to affect their course unless given an explicit opportunity to answer questions, testify, or provide a deposition. Trump’s behavior was out of order, but proving it was criminal obstruction would require evidence of intent, which is not yet available with respect to the President’s own interactions with the Russians, even if it would be pretty easy to assume it.
Comey’s testimony is prepared with admirable skill, literary style, and forethought. I doubt anyone will get much more out of him in the oral testimony tomorrow. This is a man capable of discipline, restraint, and good judgment, even if he behaved badly towards Hillary Clinton. Trump would be well-advised to rethink tweeting spontaneously tomorrow, or tweeting at all. Anything he says might be used against him in a court of law, as his tweets on the travel ban will be.
Of course I won’t mind if the President shortens his time in office. He has already done major damage to the US healthcare system, American alliances, and the international system. He would gladly sell us out to the Russians if provided the opportunity. I wouldn’t want to obstruct his self-destruction.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Uncharted territory
All eyes are on testimony today by National Intelligence Director Coats and Acting FBI Director McCabe as well as tomorrow’s appearance former FBI Director Comey concerning the President’s efforts to obstruct investigations into his links to Moscow. Coats and McCabe have already disappointed, by refusing to talk about their conversations with President Trump. I’d have been surprised if they did. President Nixon charted this territory more than 40 years ago, with consequences. The truth will out, one way or another.
At the same time, the Middle East is once again entering uncharted territory.
Qatar has long been at odds with the Kingdom, mainly over Doha’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood and for Al Jazeera, a mainstay of broadcast news and talk in the Arab world. Apparently encouraged by President Trump’s plea to cut off terrorist financing, the Saudis neglected their own culpability in allowing resources to flow to terrorists and have turned the screws instead on Qatar, breaking diplomatic relations, cutting off trade and transport, and compelling Gulf Cooperation Council members to follow suit. Then today the Islamic State attacked the parliament building and a monument to Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran, in a transparent effort to heighten sectarian conflict.
President Trump’s gullibility in swallowing whole the Kingdom’s allegation that blocking Qatari financing for the Muslim Brotherhood would be a big win against terrorism has to make them worry. But Doha is unlikely to evict the large American air base it built and hosts, if only because that would leave Qatar even more isolated. Qatar’s only places to turn are Iran, with which it shares a gas field in the Gulf, and Turkey, which is reportedly rushing troops to the emirate. Saudi Arabia has supposedly issued a long list of demands. When that is not met, an effort to topple Qatar’s emir, while perhaps not the Kingdom’s strongest suit, may well be where things are headed.
The attack in Iran, following on ISIS attacks in London, Baghdad, and elsewhere suggests the Islamic State is well-launched on its post-caliphate phase. Mosul has mostly fallen. Kurdish and Arab forces are investing Raqqa. Free Syrian Army and regime-allied forces are racing for Deir Azzour and Bukamel on the Iraqi border. ISIS will be going underground and into the desert, looking for opportunities and trying to inspire homegrown attacks in many different countries. That presents no serious military threat, but it strikes fear and loathing into more people than ISIS’s rule in Mosul and Raqqa. That is terror’s main purpose, which President Trump seems happy to amplify with his travel ban and other gross over-reactions.
The net result is a tangle. Washington is backing the Kingdom, even though Riyadh’s actions are splitting the Gulf Arabs and weakening the united front against terrorism and Iran that President Trump claims to have created last month. At the same time, the Islamic State has attacked Iran, which blames the attack on its sworn enemies, Saudi Arabia and the US. Iran is an enemy of the Islamic State (though not always of Al Qaeda), which would put it on the same side in the fight against ISIS as the US, but don’t expect anyone in Tehran or Washington to acknowledge that. In the Middle East, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. In uncharted territory, some rules of thumb don’t apply.
RSS - Posts
