OK, NOW Is It Watergate?
President Donald Trump’s astonishing firing of FBI director James Comey on Tuesday afternoon raised throughout Washington the inevitable question: Is this Watergate? While Watergate was sui generis and is likely to remain so, Trump’s metastasizing crisis, and Washington’s reaction to it, make for a discomfiting reminder of that period. And suddenly it seems increasingly possible it could end the same way.
As it did during Watergate, in the spreading Trump scandal, all of Washington fixates on the latest development, virtually to the exclusion of what had preoccupied five minutes earlier. Thus the firing of Comey, for the moment at least, displaced the city’s and the national media’s obsession since as long as the day before with the question of it took so long for Trump to fire Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, his national security adviser, after the acting attorney general at the time, Sally Yates, informed the White House counsel that Flynn had been compromised by Russia.
As the stunning news of Comey’s firing spread through Washington on Tuesday evening, the reactions were similar to those when a previous president fired his chief investigator: astonishment, a kind of ghoulish humor, plus deep unease at a president behaving so far outside of traditional norms. The fear that permeated the Washington atmosphere during Watergate hasn’t quite developed, but some of the elements of the story—in particular, a vindictive president seeming out of control—are in place for that to happen as well.
Like Richard Nixon, Trump has a propensity for ridding himself of those who presented a threat to him. Nixon’s elimination of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, even if he had to fire a couple of attorneys general until he got to a Justice Department official, Robert Bork, who would carry out the deed, was the point at which the word “impeachment” began to be on people’s lips. Until then the idea was too outsized and even alarming to consider. No president had ever been removed from office by the constitutionally designated congressional act of impeaching (the House) and convicting (the Senate) a president. (Until Newt Gingrich employed impeachment frivolously against Bill Clinton, the term inspired awe.) Cox was demanding that Nixon turn over the tape recordings of his Oval Office conversations, which Nixon was – understandingly, as it turned out – of no mind to do. Comey was seeking information possibly at least as damning, and perhaps worse. We can get too used to a question until it returns in full force: What if the president, or his close associates, colluded with a hostile foreign power to win the office?
If, as it appears, Trump fired Comey because he was investigating two very dangerous matters— possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia’s effort to tilt the presidential election in Trump’s favor, and whether Trump had had business or other dealings that obligated him to Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin—he bought himself a heap of trouble.
The pretense that he fired Comey over his epic mishandling of Hillary Clinton’s private email server was just that—another Trump fish story that he might have thought that his followers, at least, would swallow. Firing his chief investigator could well amount to obstruction of justice, one of the offenses for which Nixon was on the verge of being removed from office when he resigned instead. (That’s the problem with cover-ups; they tend not to work and they only get the perpetrator in more trouble.)
Yates, whom Trump fired at the end of January, ostensibly for refusing to defend Trump’s benighted first travel ban, also presented a threat to Trump. After she testified before a Senate subcommittee on Monday of this week, it seemed possible that Yates’s firing was also based on other grievances on the president’s part. After all, in bringing to the White House the highly discomfiting charge that Flynn had been compromised by Russia— and then lied to the vice president about it—she pushed a step closer to Trump the possible answer to the dangerous question: Why was he so oddly solicitous toward Putin?
Though Cox’s dismissal was expected once the special prosecutor announced on Saturday, October 30, 1973, that he wouldn’t obey Nixon’s order that he cease trying to obtain the tapes, the execution of it seemed irrational and frightening. It felt like we were living in a banana republic. Trump’s utterly unexpected firing of Comey felt similar. Was the president losing his grip? Had he now gone too far to survive in office? What was so important that he took an action so extreme and also possibly fatal to his presidency?
Even before he fired Comey, Trump was taking on the Watergate-like aspect of the beleaguered president. Charges and not groundless suspicions were coming in from various directions and the leader of the world’s most powerful country seemed to be striking out in various directions, flailing—issuing bizarre statements or having them issued on his behalf, serially ridding himself of turbulent priests. Just the previous day, Trump tweeted no less than six times about Yates and James Clapper, the former intelligence chief who also testified during Monday’s hearing.
Yates put front and center the question of what took him so long—nearly two weeks—to get rid of Flynn after she’d warned the White House that he could be blackmailed for misleading Vice President Mike Pence, and put on the record her interactions with White House Counsel Don McGahn, who dismissively asked her why the Department of Justice would care if White House aides were lying to one another.
For what it’s worth, I don’t find the answer to the question of why it took so long to fire Flynn very elusive: Trump didn’t want to fire him. And so he didn’t do so until word of Yates’ warning appeared in the press. Trump’s extravagant praising of his ousted national security adviser may have seemed odd under the circumstances—in a press conference on February 15, two days after firing Flynn, Trump called him “a wonderful man,” and even on Tuesday White House spokesman Sean Spicer was calling Flynn “a good man.” These comments had the air of coming from someone who feared that Flynn would let drop something he had on him. After all, Flynn was his chief foreign policy adviser and he had had numerous questionable dealings with Russia, including talking to the ambassador about the sanctions that the Obama administration had just imposed in retaliation for Russia’s hacking during the election campaign. When Flynn asked for immunity in exchange for testifying before congressional committees looking into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia Trump made a show of encouraging him—lest we think that such a prospect perturbed him. And, as it happened, shortly before Comey was fired, CNN reported, subpoenas were issued against some of Flynn’s former business partners. The idea that Flynn has something on Trump—just as Putin may—is the most logical explanation as to why the president was reluctant to cut him loose or get on his bad side.
Russia is the thread binding together these seemingly disparate events. The president has been noticeably agitated whenever the subject comes up Russia is a “fake” story, he tweeted on Monday, and, following Yates’ testimony, a “total hoax.” And it turns out that Trump has just hired a Washington law firm to send a letter to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee, which held Monday’s hearing, stating that he has no connections with Russia. Trump was responding to subcommittee chairman Lindsey Graham’s statement that he wants to examine Trump’s business dealings with Russia—the existence of which was hinted at during Clapper’s testimony.
Trump has said a riot of things about his connections with Russia and Putin, or lack thereof: For a time in the past he insisted he’d never phoned Russia—whatever that was supposed to mean; that he’d met Putin, that he hadn’t met him; that “When I went to Russia with the Miss Universe pageant, [Putin] contacted me and was so nice. I mean, the Russian people were so fantastic to us.” He claimed he’d met Putin during a joint appearance on “60 Minutes”—until it was revealed that each had been in his own country at the time.
A statement by his son Eric years before was largely overlooked until the younger Trump son denied it on the morning that Yates was to testify: A golf writer had quoted Eric as telling him in 2014, about funding for the Trump family company’s various golf courses, "We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia." Donald Trump, Jr. more famously said a few years ago, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets." In the past, Donald Sr. had bragged of his connections with Russian oligarchs: In Moscow in 2013, he addressed a group of potential investors and later boasted, “I have a great relationship with many Russians, and almost all of the oligarchs were in the room.”
USA Today has written that the wealthy Russians Trump dealt with included numerous figures with ties to organized crime. Russians have purchased a large number of condos in New York’s Trump Tower. In February of this year, Trump told reporters, “I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we’ve stayed away. And I have no loans with Russia. I have no loans with Russia at all.” Trump’s chronically loose relationship with the truth doesn’t always get him in trouble, but when it comes to his dealings—or, as he now claims, lack thereof—with Russia, his various versions of reality could be far more than troublesome to his presidency.
While Trump’s firing of Comey had an air of impulsivity, according to reports from Politico ’s Josh Dawsey and others, though it was known to a very few, Trump had been considering the move for a week. But clearly the White House was little prepared for the angry and somewhat bipartisan reaction to it. And here, too, is another parallel to Watergate: Nixon had wanted to get rid of Cox and had raged privately about him to aides, furious that the special prosecutor was beyond his control. Trump was reportedly infuriated by Comey’s publicly confirmation of the FBI’s investigation into his campaign’s possible collusion with Russia and he was also known to be angry, that Comey wouldn’t support his charge that Obama had had him wiretapped—a charge of Trump’s invention. As in the case of Watergate, the inconceivable keeps becoming actual.
The Trump people aren’t very original. A few hours after Comey was fired, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Fox News that the press hadn’t paid enough attention to the Trump administration’s achievements while it was paying too much to the investigations into Trump and Russia. “It’s been going on for a year,” she said. “There’s nothing there… it’s time to move on.” In a press conference in September of 1973, Nixon chastised the media for paying more attention to Watergate than to his administration’s accomplishments. In his State of the Union address in 1974, he said, “One year of Watergate is enough.” Meanwhile, Nixon officials urged the press to stop “wallowing in Watergate.”
Nixon was a much more intelligent man than Trump, but both men made a fateful mistake: They grossly underestimated the public reaction when they took desperate measures to remain in power. The one thing we can be sure of thus far is that Trump has intensified the already strong bipartisan concern, spoken and unspoken, about his holding an office that many don’t think he is fit to hold, even if the demands of party politics prevents Republicans from saying so in public. How fateful Comey’s firing is for Trump we cannot yet know, though we do know what happened to Nixon. Whatever the details—however it might come about—by his own actions, Trump has increased the possibility that his presidency might meet the same fate.
Elizabeth Drew is author of Washington Journal: Reporting Watergate and Richard Nixon’s Downfall.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/10/trump-fire-fbi-comey-watergate-nixon-215121
Tags
Who is online
53 visitors
A bit of a read, but fantastic and well worth the small effort! Very well written!
Trump, if he really was as intelligent as he claimed to be, has had multiple chances to make this all go away, mostly by not starting it in the first place However he has repeatedly insisted on managing this as he would have if he were still the CEO of a company instead of being in Washington as a politician. The fact is that now it is a huge and out of control forest fire that is going to consume him and his administration and all he seems to be able to do is to pour more fuel on it.
Anyone who has seen any of the clips of the Lester Holt interview saw a scared man acting like a school boy in front of the principal. Hands clasped between his knees most of the time and leaning forward, obviously and blatantly lying over and over again. He called James Comey a "show-boater" and a "grand-stander" and already both Senator's Richard Burr and Mark Warner have pushed back very strongly on.
Right now it's like watching a plane that's already been shot up, is on flames and just about to start it's tailspin.
NBC news is just reporting that the White House has dropped a potential Presidential visit to FBI headquarters after they were informed by officials at the FBI that the President would not be greeted "very warmly" there.
He has pissed off the intelligence community and now the FBI....
I can see all the cooperation that he'll be getting from them.
The NY Times is now reporting that an associate of Comey's said that during the dinner Comey had with Trump, Trump twice asked Comey to "pledge his loyalty" to him. Comey told Trump he would be honest with him always, but declined both times to "pledge his loyalty" to him. Does Trump think that the head of the FBI has to pledge a personal loyalty oath to Him? What system of government does he think we have here in America? What is this? The Mafia?
The oath of the offices they all hold seem to be missing anything about loyalty to any other entity other than the constitution.
"..and will do the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Unless these knuckleheads slipped one in on the entire nation. There ain't no loyalty oath required to Donnie.
Pretty soon the protests will be a daily event.
Resist fascism.
Anyone who is current on the events regarding Trump, Comey, Rosenstein, et al …
Still care to debate me on the issue of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE on the part of the Trump, etc. ?
If you'll bring something other than pronouncements, claims of fake news and ad hominem comments, let's list do it.
White House says firing James Comey will help bring Trump-Russia investigation to end 'with integrity'
Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she thinks the US president has encouraged the FBI's Russia investigation
_______________________________________________________
Stupid is as stupid says/does!
An honest Congress would not hesitate to call this admission of obstruction exactly what it is.
r
ld
ebate me on the issue of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE on the part of the Trump
Are you serious?
The head of the Fbi just testified today that Trump has never interfered in the investigation and that he has all the resources that he needs. There are no allegations that he lied, threatened or bribed witnesses (the actual actions you need to sustain an obstruction of justice charge)
Read this excerpt and take heed, you are being manipulated with buzz words that bear no relation to reality:
e probably seen or heard hundreds of remarks about how Donald Trump only ran for President in order to get rich(er). I’ve been critical of some apparent conflicts of interest myself but the idea of seeking the Presidency for the purposes of gaining wealth would be an idiotic business model. (The same type of things were said about Bush 43 and Cheney. If money were their focus, they never would have gone back into politics.) It’s the sort of scheme that could only appear reasonable in a cartoonish television show.
The hysteria over the firing of FBI Director Comey is another example. People are saying that Trump fired Comey because he was getting too close to the truth about…something. They can’t say exactly what that something is, but it involves the Russians and is, of course, evil. It is a theory born from melodrama though.
Movies and television shows about government intrigue must use composite characters because a realistic depiction of federal bureaucracy would be impossible to fit into 48 minutes. Even if it were possible it would be so mind numbingly boring that no one would watch it. This means that in a television drama, firing Jim Comey could be a major chess move that would take the investigations off the board along with Comey.
That’s not how things work in the real world. Comey wasn’t investigating anything. A team of career FBI agents was and is still doing that. There is no real world scenario where simply firing Comey would substantially benefit Trump if the investigations were getting too close to exposing some hypothetical wrong doing.
I think a lot of leaders in Washington realize this is true but play it to their advantage. Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer wield the “stupidity of the American voter” like a weapon just as easily and cynically as Barack Obama and Jonathan Gruber did to sell Obamacare. Others—like Maxine Waters—I think actually believe the nonsense they peddle. Either way, strategies that require the public to analyze situations critically are no match for inculcated intellectual bigotry and a good cliché.
That's not a debate, Sean, it's Red State propaganda.
Trump and other White House people have made statements on tape/video that are incriminating and acts of obstruction.
Did you see what the he director of the FBI said?
It's impossible to debate, which is why only the lunatic fringe of the left is peddling this silliness. It's like debating a 9/11 truther.
Lying to the American people, which is what you can actually show, is not a crime. or Barack obama would be in jail right now,
instead of simply pointing out that trump acted stupidly politically and lied, you and the rest of the far elf overplay your hand with a farcical claim of criminal behavior. If you'd just stick to the facts, you could unite a large Segment of the country. Instead, by traipsing off into fantasy world, you scare off the reality dwellers of the world.
Instead, by traipsing off into fantasy world, you scare off the reality dwellers of the world.
You are the one in a fantasy world.
It's impossible to debate, which is why only the lunatic fringe of the left is peddling this silliness. It's like debating a 9/11 truther.
In other words, given Trump's statements on video, mockery is all you've got.
Sean, Trump has admitted that he fired the person investigating him (his presidential campaign) because he didnt like the person's public personality ("showboat") . If it is in time shown that there was anything to obstruct, he has obstructed it.
The truth of the matter is Trump decided to fire Comey, when Comey he was
telling a Senate panel that he has no regrets — despite feeling “mildly nauseous’’ at the thought that his decisions about a probe into Hillary Clinton might have affected the outcome of the election.
And then said that he fired him only because of the recommendations of Attorney General Sessions (who had recused himself from all things to do with the Clinton Campaign or the Russian Investigation, so he lied) and DAG Rosenstein. Or at least that's what he had all of the White House talking heads saying, including the VP. That story fell apart because the reason, Comey was too tough on Hillary Clinton, was a joke and now he says he was going to fire him all along, thereby making all of his spokespeople and the VP look like lying asses.
He's got his staff spinning in the wind. Can't wait to see this week's SNL. Expect a hilarious bit with Melissa McCarthy as Spicer hiding in bushes with the camera lights off to answer reporters.
She's the guest host this week. Karma!
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 , a felony offense is committed by anyone who “corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation in being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress .”
An accompanying code section, 18 U.S.C. § 1515(b) , defines “corruptly” as “acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement , or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information” (emphasis added). This is where obstruction of justice intersects with the false statements law. If you knowingly and willfully make a false statement of material fact in a federal government proceeding, you’ve potentially violated § 1001, and when you add an objective to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation, you’ve now possibly violated § 1505 as well. Perjury can intersect with obstruction of justice in the same way.
Under the statute, a “proceeding” can be an investigation. Section 1503 criminalizes the same conduct in judicial proceedings . So obstruction during an investigation might violate § 1505, while if that same investigation leads to a criminal prosecution, obstruction during the prosecution itself would violate § 1503. The individual also has to know that a proceeding is happening in order to violate the statute, and must have the intent to obstruct—that is, act with the purpose of obstructing, even if they don’t succeed .
Covers a lot of territory. If the FBI find something dirty on the Trump team , DT will be guilty of obstruction of justice and that will be engraved on his impeachment proceedings. If the FBI doesnt uncover some dirt, the obstruction charges will wither on the vine.
Still care to debate me on the issue of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE on the part of the Trump, etc. ?
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE is the bull shit charge cops use when they can't think of anything to charge someone with ...
Trump's own endlessly babbling idiotic words will convict him. He has obstructed justice. However, unless there is an underlying crime he is protecting I don't think he will be charged.
On the other hand, he should be impeached for pure intellectual and ethical incompetence. His interview with NBC news today makes a nice exhibit A.
I think he has obstructed injustice ...
Petey, by his own words today he suggested that he fired the head of the FBI (who was investigating Trump) for trivial reasons ( he says Comey was a "grandstander"). Trump doesnt know how to keep his mouth shut. Of course he is going down, sooner or later. He will end up testifying against himself.
I think you're like those cops you denigrated earlier.
Denigrated ? Nah , I completely insulted them . And they deserve it ...
Amen AMac...
More than ever, I believe Trump will resign a la Nixon … unless issues like money laundering and related murders by Putin become an issue … then, it's … who knows what will happen.
The nay-sayers and apologists will laugh at this … I'll risk that possibility.
I too had deja vu over this mess. I was a teen back then but it left a scar. I felt better about it when the women marched. But the sentiment was still missing the passion of anti-nixon demonstrations. After today, I think its on the horizon Mr Mac...
I asked a family member about voting or protesting, which made you feel more empowered. The reply was protesting. Which made me very proud of her.
More than ever, I believe Trump will resign a la Nixon
I agree. This is a fire the can no longer be put out and I believe that he will be forced to resign or face impeachment and possible criminal prosecution. I can't see how is is no less guilty of obstruction of justice then Nixon was and that's what pushed him out.
Trump said in the interview on NBC that Comey asked for a dinner with him and asked if he could keep being the Director of the FBI (which is nonsensical since he was serving a ten year term) and that he (Trump) said that "We'll see" and then later in the dinner asked Comey if he was a subject of the investigation. At the very least that is an offer of a bribe. You can keep your job (wink, wink) if I'm not the subject of the investigation. In constructing his lie, Trump constructed one that had himself committing a crime. An impeachable offense at that. Not too smart.
When Trump was elected president I held out hope that he would put aside all the bombast, hubris and hyperbole and that prudence and reflection would begin to govern his behavior. Instead he is the same rash, delusional, loose cannon as before.
Everyday some form of crazy comes from him and his White House. Its only a matter of time before he goes too far and will have to be stopped before we have Armageddon. I hope when that time comes, and it will, that all those here who scoffed at those who are deeply disturbed by this man child “leader” will have the grace to admit their mistake.
Well Pat...you can hope...
have to admit , as an outsider politically I am soooooo enjoying watching the dervishes spin, and get absolutely NOWHERE, even with all the supposition and speculation . I fully agree that the 2016 election was corrupted and rigged so that a certain candidate would win , but it was already proven that It was the DNC that corrupted the election process and rigged it so a chosen candidate won. and because that candidate lost , even with the process rigged, the winner MUST have somehow "counter rigged it so he would win. because everyone knows once the DNC rigs something , they cant lose unless the otherside cheats and has outside help.
cant WAIT for ole "Chuckles " to suggest calling Putin (pompus braggart he is) himself to testify before congress and to come "clean". Of course with the promise of immunity , like other DNC staffers got.
with that , ill just wait and see what unfolds , and see what "smoking gun" evidence the unhinged can come up with. So far , there is NADA for evidence that can convict for anything , except maybe spitting on the sidewalk , but the slathering I have witnessed the last few days , I doubt there is enough bed space for all those that would be convicted.
Mark,
What the DNC did regarding its choice of Clinton at the expense of Bernie Sanders was dirty and unethical ... we agree.
But that was an internal matter and not anywhere close in importance to Russian meddling which may have determined the outcome of the election itself.
And the Obstriction of Justice is in conjunction with efforts to thwart, undermine and/or attempt to determine the outcome of the investigation into the Russian involvement and whether or not there was collusion with the Trump campaign.
Trump has already incriminated himself via statements he made to Lester Holt. It's on video. And every day he comes up with another ass-covering story about the Comey firing, he is deeper in the hole he has dug for himself.
Sessions and others may also be guilty of obstruction.
I will stand by my opinion on this ... I have had years of experience in adverse action protocol and know most ass covering when I see it. More often than not, it's the ass covering that brings down the culprit as the proverbial web of deception entangles its creator.
I like our debates ... We disagree with reason and civility. If only our elected officials would do the same.