TRUMP AND RUSSIA AFTER COMEY

The much anticipated fired FBI Director’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee has come and gone. There is little doubt that he had a stunning impact taking the obstruction of justice case against the POTUS one step further while elaborating on the Russian interference  into the American Presidential election. He more than hinted that this whole cause celebre may be “a very big deal”.  

His intervention follows the devastating impacts of fired Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates, former Head of US Intelligence, General Clapper, who has maintained that Watergate pales into comparison with Russiagate and former CIA Director Brennan all who testified before Congressional Committees. They left no one in doubt as to the incompetence, negligence and sloppiness of the Trump Presidency at best and criminality at worst. Comey's submission to Congress was not his first. He had already informed them months ago that the FBI was conducting a probe into Russian intervention into the Presidential election as well as possible collusion between them and the Trump campaign. (It is well worth noting the stabilizing role public servants are playing in these uncertain times).

Comey never delivered a knock out blow because it is, at this stage, largely a case of “he said - he said”. However, it was in the issue of credibility, where the former Director made most of his gains, consolidating his reputation as an honest broker in contrast to Trump’s well known penchant for “alternative facts”.

Comey laid down clear markers on several issues, all of which made Trump all that more vulnerable politically and legally. There are a number of separate but related issues in the current investigation now being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. There is the probe into the Russian espionage into the American Presidential Election in order to assist the Trump effort. There is an enquiry into whether there was any collusion between the Republican nominee’s campaign and the Russians and if so was there any quid pro quo for the Russian help. There are criminal probes into the behavior of Trump operatives, such as Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn that may or may not necessarily relate to Trump and his campaign. Finally, newly announced, was the fact that the Special Counsel would be looking into whether Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice. 

TRUMP AND RUSSIA

What is now unequivocally accepted by the bipartisan committee, and only really being questioned by Trump and Putin, is that the Russians orchestrated a highly effective espionage operation in an attempt to influence the American election in favor of Trump. Trump’s credibility takes a knock every time he fails to get with the program and outright condemn the Russians. He takes the absurdity to further limits by cozying up to Putin and his operatives. 

It was common cause that this Russian attack was an egregious violation of American’s sovereignty and Comey confirmed that anyone colluding with the Russians was guilty of a crime akin to treason. While several members of the POTUS’S  operatives had contact with the Russians, a large number of which were unreported to the relevant authorities, Trump was still sticking to those who were still part of his Administration. These included his son in law Jared Kushner and Attorney General Jeff Sessons. In a similar vein the President asked, (or at least “hoped for”), Comey to drop the Investigation into his fired Security Advisor, Mike Flynn.

While the President’s romance with Putin and Russia, at the expense of America’s traditional allies, was not the principle subject of this hearing it was the elephant in the room. Added to that was the unchallenged report that Trump had told Russian Ambassador Kyslak that he had got rid of the “nut job” Comey and that made it easier for him to deal with Russia.  Without laboring the point further, Trump had exhibited ample behavior signifying that he resented the Russian investigation into its alleged espionage. When push finally comes to shove, Trump’s bizarre position will come back to haunt him. This particularly so if he or members of his crew are found to be in collusion with the Russians.

COMEY’S CREDIBILITY AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY

Comey is a seasoned, polished, informed, intelligent, politically savvy and well respected witness to Congressional Meetings. Prior to the hearing he shrewdly presented a publicly released document of nine interactions between him and Trump that had caused him concern. The document itself read like Don Corleone warning the law enforcement officer how things were going to work now that he had come to town. It chronologically outlined the four month pressure the President had exerted on Comey. This written testimony allowed that all the questions could relate to interpretation as to what the words meant and Comey’s perception of the President’s behavior.

The diary served many other purposes. Specifically it allowed the fired Director to explain how it had come about that he had written contemporaneous memos following each of the interactions. It was not lost on the Committee that contemporaneous notes of meetings had significant legal weight, just short of corroborating evidence. The import of these records was heightened by the fact that he had shared them with others. The explanation for the writing of contemporaneous notes, a practice which he had never before resorted to with either Bush or Obama, was because of the nature and circumstance of the interactions. Most telling was that he did so knowing the “nature” of the Commander in Chief and in the belief that he may lie as to what had transpired. It was not the only occasion that he called the President a liar at the hearing. This is pretty damning stuff and remember this was a conclusion he derived at in January 2017.

The prepared statement on its face provides a prima facie obstruction of justice case. It detailed that Trump, who was to say the least unhappy about the Comey led Russian investigation, the refusal of the FBI Director to publicly remove him from the cloud of suspicion and who would not aver loyalty to him, then fired him with the stated reason that it was the Russia issue that lead to his decision. He confirmed this rationale in his as discussion with the Russian Foreign Minister that his intention in ridding himself of the “nut job” was to make it easier for him to negotiate with the Russians,

Comey concluded unreservedly that he was fired because of the way he had conducted the Russian investigation. 

COMEY’S DEMEANOUR 

In the deliverance of his testimony Comey appeared measured, circumspect, not prone to exaggeration and honest to a fault. As a prosecutor he is more than aware of the weight the Judge accords to the demeanor of the witness. Besides his contemporaneous notes and sharing of testimony at the time of the interactions, Comey’s desire for transparency was reinforced by his call for the production of the Trump tapes. In the three hour long discussion he stated clearly what was his interpretation and what was fact. The FBI Director admitted, for example, in not challenging Trump directly he had not acted courageously. He volunteered leaking the Flynn story to the Press via a friend as he could not be sure that there would be a thorough investigation unless a Special Counsel was appointed. 

He was congruent and did not duck difficult questions such as the reasoning behind his actions relating to Hillary Clinton’s e - mail investigation. He argued, plausibly and with evidence, that he was fearful that Loretta Lynch, the then Attorney General was in cahoots with the Clintons and that the integrity of the FBI was at risk. Although questions remain as to his judgement in that matter where his action impacted the election his integrity could not be questioned. Finally he came through as the public servant defending the FBI and its independence and claimed that Trump had defamed him and the FBI with lies. 

Trump has denied much of what Comey has alleged and has yet to go under oath and have his statements tested. It is also telling to note that the jury in this instance, the whole Senate Investigation Committee, vouched for the probity of Director Comey. The latter circumstance is very unlikely to be repeated in the event that the Committee is asked to vouch for the POTUS. Every fact checker points to him being a chronic pathological liar. 

As might be expected Trump declared victory, harping on one fact in Comey’s statement that confirmed that he Trump, had been informed three times that he was not under investigation.  A circumstance that apparently does not exist today. There was a categorical denial as to the allegation that the POTUS asked Comey for loyalty or to drop the Flynn investigation. The President’s counter attack once again focussed on the fact that there were Comey leaks rather than on the substance of the Russian investigation.

THE STATUS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.

* The obstruction of justice investigation is potentially the nearest to completion and Trump is in deep jeopardy if there is any corroboration on Comey’s version of the saga. While there are several legal authorities who believe there is already enough evidence to go forward with what would amount to impeachment charges on obstruction of justice, the Special Counsel is unlikely to proceed with the predominant evidence being based on “he said, he said”. Of significance is the fact that Special Council Mueller has hired lawyers who were involved in previous impeachment proceedings. Hanging out there is the possibility that Trump appointees, Directors Rogers and Coates are forced to reply as to whether they were approached by Trump to persuade Comey to downplay the Russian investigation. There have been several reports to that effect. They inexplicably and repeatedly refused to answer that question in both open and closed Senate Intelligence Committee hearings. As it is obvious that Rogers and Coates didn’t leak the story themselves, they had to have told others who did. 

*  The how and the where of the Russian intrusion into the American elections has been ongoing for over a year. This is the central enquiry. One has to assume that there is a stack of data that has been assembled on that matter. The Steele document which outlined what the Russians may have on Trump is obviously a source the Feds have used and Comey would only discuss that in closed session. The question remains as to whether or not the likes of example, Mike Flynn, Jeff Sessons, or Paul Manafort or even Trump colluded or were in the know. To the nation this is the most important issue. If there was American collusion then in the words of Jim Comey, “That is a very big deal”.

*  The criminal proceedings arising out of this trial such as lying to the FBI, failing to report foreign meetings or money on security applications also have to be near completion. However in the complex world of prosecutions depending what is going on in the central Russian investigation there could be plea bargaining and immunity offerings in the works. Flynn has asked for immunity in exchange for a “story he has to tell”. Thus all these enquiries will probably be concluded together. Mueller, who has a reputation for thoroughness, will leave no leaf unturned to present as comprehensive conclusions as possible.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

The obstruction of justice charges which would result in impeachment are in effect political in their nature. No impeachment proceedings have ever gone ahead against a President if his Party controls the House. It also needs overwhelming public support, which in practical terms means for Republicans to support it, Trump’s approval ratings have to tank. They have recently consistently broken through the forty percent mark - the latest poll indicating a thirty - four percent approval rating. Nate Silver of Five Thirty Eight has also produced a significant statistic that threatens Trump’s viability. He has shown that of the group that support Trump only half of those that formerly “strongly supported” Trump do so now. More compelling will be the results of bye elections particularly in Georgia. If the Republicans lose the panic will be overt.

What is not going to sit well at the end of the day is the fact that Trump has not once enquired as to how the investigation into Russian interference is going. This is a matter which the whole Intelligence community is ad idem on - that Russians represent an ongoing threat to the democracy of America and their behavior is a threat to our very way of life. Rather Trump panders to the Russians and brags that he has fired the very person that lead the investigation into their treachery in the country that he is the President of. 

This all begs the real question, “What have the Russians got on Trump for him to behave in this fashion?”. The answer may lie in the question Director Comey refused to answer at the open hearings relating to a Russian Bank. There has to be a very big story behind Trump not only ignoring a flagrant attack on American democracy by a major adversary but also fraternizing with them. In addition firing the Country’s chief policeman so as to facilitate his relationship with this totalitarian enemy.