Editorial: Trump's improper bid to influence Comey probe
It is entirely natural that President Donald Trump would value loyalty from his key subordinates.
Any of us would, and the reality is, few leaders can afford to countenance disloyalty if they are to lead effectively.
But true leaders don't just expect loyalty. They inspire it.
That is a distinction that seems, based on the early returns of the Trump's presidency, lost on him.
To quote the president, "So sad."
Former FBI Director James Comey finally testified Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and while there was added flavor in the delivery, the gist of what he had to say wasn't all that new. We've all heard word of Comey's uncomfortable interaction with Trump for weeks now, largely because of Comey's own now-acknowledged leak of the notes of his conversations with the president.
But let there be no doubt: Just because we'd heard it before, and despite the sidelight debates about the ways Comey responded, it doesn't make his central allegation any less stunning or troubling.
On Valentine's Day, Comey testified, Trump directly asked him to drop the investigation into fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's relationship with Russia's ambassador to the United States.
"He then said, '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,'" Comey testified, adding he wrote detailed records of his meetings with Trump, something he didn't do with former President Barack Obama, because he was concerned Trump "might lie" about the discussions.
On Friday, Trump tweeted that Comey's testimony was "total and complete vindication." It is one thing for Trump's lawyer, who hadn't been in the room, to deny Comey's allegation about Flynn as well as Comey's account that Trump asked for loyalty. This is what lawyers do. But how can the president describe the testimony itself as vindication? It is the sort of fake spin the president tends to engage in that, frankly, actually makes Comey's testimony more believable.
According to the testimony, Trump, ushering others out of the room, tried to intimidate the FBI director into dropping an investigation into a key associate. And apparently fired him because he was investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether Trump's campaign colluded in that meddling. That is not vindication!
Based on Comey's account, the president didn't make his "request" based on information that might exonerate Flynn.
He made this request, it would appear, based purely on his personal ties with Flynn, his assessment that he knows him well enough to know he is "a good guy."
When a president makes such a request to a subordinate, it isn't really a request. The president is the most powerful person in the world. Imagine the pressure to comply.
If Comey's account is true, and it rings with a powerful sense of credibility, Trump's attempt at influencing his investigation was clearly inappropriate.
President Richard Nixon was forced to resign when the smoking gun tape recording exposed an eerily similar attempt to cut off an investigation of Watergate.
The president's apologists seem focused now on turning the debate into one about Comey, his lack of fortitude in confronting the president and leaking his account of discussions the president put into play with his own tweets. These are side debates that, frankly, distract from the real questions.
Those real questions are serious: What has Russia's involvement been in the 2016 election? Did the Trump campaign collude in that meddling? And has the president attempted to shut down the investigations into these legitimate questions?
Sen. Mark Warner described the matter correctly: "Let me be clear. This is not a witch hunt. This is not fake news. It is an effort to protect our country from a new threat that will not go away anytime soon."