James Comey�s congressional testimony is going to be yuuuge!
Even as news stories of numerous interactions between Russia and associates of President
Donald Trump have continued to break on a frequent basis, congressional Democrats have
become more circumspect in their rhetoric about the subject. On Sunday, Virginia�s
Sen. Mark Warner told CNN that while there is �a lot of smoke� in terms of contacts,
�we have no smoking gun at this point.� In large measure, that is because any legal
prosecution or impeachment actions would have to rely upon real documentation or sworn public
statements. Thus far, those things do not exist.
But fired FBI Director James Comey�s upcoming public testimony before the Senate Intelligence
Committee may provide a way of bringing together the numerous threads of the Russia scandal
in a way that becomes a historical moment.
�There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that�s not necessarily
evidence,� Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, said on CNN last month.
The sheer volume of information involved with tracking the Trump-Russia story and the way
that some aspects of it can be easily conflated or misunderstood has also made the story much
more difficult for the public to follow. That�s why, as Paul Rosenberg wrote on Sunday, this
scandal is probably best compared with the Iran-contra controversy of former President
Ronald Reagan than with former president Richard Nixon�s Watergate scandal. The complexity
of both affairs should give pause to Trump opponents since neither Reagan nor then Vice
President George H. W. Bush were ever charged with any sort of criminal behavior.
Nonetheless, the Iran-contra scandal had its share of riveting moments that could have
turned into something bigger, one of which was the multiple days of congressional testimony
from then Lt. Col. Oliver North, the Reagan administration�s National Security Council
staffer who was at the center of a scheme to sell weapons to the government of Iran
and then transfer the money to a Nicaraguan anti-communist militia.
Thus far Trump-Russia scandal has not had anything remotely as visually gripping as
the arrogant North admitting to deceiving Congress or a sweaty and shifty Nixon lying
through his teeth on TV. Overwhelmingly, the news that�s been broken thus far has been
by well-sourced and intrepid print reporters disclosing details that the administration
wants kept quiet.
The closest to such thing that�s happened so far was Trump�s May admission during
an interview with NBC anchor Lester Holt that he had fired Comey because the agency wouldn�t
wrap up its inquiry into alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
�When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, �You know, this Russia thing with
Trump and Russia is a made-up story,�� Trump volunteered to Holt.
This Thursday, Comey�s congressional may prove pivotal.
Or it might not.
None of the Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans come close to being in open opposition
to the president and they are almost certain to lean heavily on a June 2 National Review
essay by former U.S. Assistant Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, arguing that there is a great
distinction between �pressure� and �obstruction of justice.� As part of that argument, Senate
GOPers will certainly refer to previous testimony that Comey gave May 3 to a routine congressional
oversight hearing, stating that he had not received any pressure from his superiors at
the Department of Justice to rein in the Russia investigation. If he admits that Trump asked
him privately to end the inquiry, more partisan Republicans are likely to accuse Comey of
having committed perjury.
It�s a specious allegation, however, considering that when he was asked about �pressure,�
the original question was only in reference to the Department of Justice, not the White
House.
More clever Republicans are likely to make some version of McCarthy�s point:
No one in America knows the law of obstruction better than Comey, who has spent much of the
last 30 years as a high-ranking federal prosecutor and the federal government�s top cop. He
is well aware that pressure is not obstruction. In this instance, moreover, Trump�s exertion
of pressure was relatively mild: He did not deny Comey the freedom to exercise his own
judgment; the president expressed hope that Comey�s judgment would be exercised in Flynn�s
favor. Any of us who has ever had an overbearing boss is familiar with this kind of prodding.
It can be unpleasant, even anxiety-inducing. But Comey is a big boy, he has a history of
not being intimidated by presidents, and what we�re talking about here is not exactly
the rack.
This is no doubt why Comey did not resign, and did not report to the Justice Department,
his FBI staff, or Congress, that he had witnessed � indeed, been the victim in a sense � of
an obstruction of an FBI investigation. Let�s stipulate that Comey has an outsized conception
of what an FBI director�s degree of independence from his political superiors should be. He
may therefore be convinced that Trump�s browbeating on Flynn�s behalf was terribly
inappropriate. That still doesn�t make it obstruction . . . not even close.
Democrats, meanwhile, will likely focus on the private conversations that the fired FBI
director had with the president about Russia as well as chats he may have had with other
administration officials.
While Comey is said to have wanted his testimony to be a public matter, how much he will be
able to answer curious senators� questions remains in doubt. In this regard, a fireworks-filled
hearing is likely to mean that Comey has said much of the same things during his interviews
with the investigation team of special counsel Robert Mueller, himself a former FBI chief.
But if Comey is quiet on Thursday, that could be a much worse indicator for Trump.
In either case, expect Comey�s first congressional appearance since his firing to present the
Trump-Russia story so far into a framework that is more compact and easier to follow.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét