The mess Trump's made of "Comey-gate"

Head-spinningly dysfunctional, the Trump White House piles one self-inflicted disaster on top of another, each more damaging than the last.   Right now, the press is dealing with Comeygate, a subset of Russiagate.  Underlying the importance of all is the threat to our democracy, our balance of powers, and the very Constitution itself.    Here's what some pundits are saying:

________________

A distinguished trio of legal and ethical scholars, Laurence Tribe, Richard Painter, and Norman Eisen, (USA Today).

". . . What the president did . . . . was a challenge to the very premises of our system of checks and balances precisely because it violated no mere letter of the law but its essential spirit. No one, not even a president, is above the law. . . . 

", , , [I]t is exceedingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that the president is seeking to cover up wrongdoing . . . ; that he is prepared to lie . . . to perpetrate just such a coverup;  and that the wrongdoing . . . is nothing minor or of merely tangential relevance to his office but, on the contrary, may involve collaboration with our Russian adversaries in attacking our democracy at its core."

__________________

From an interview with NBC's Lester Holt, President Trump gave his version of a dinner meeting with FBI Director James Comey shortly after the inauguration.  Trump told Holt that Comey requested the meeting to let him know of his wish to continue in his job.   Trump says he asked Comey during the dinner conversation whether he (Trump) was personally under investigation, and Comey told him he was not.  Trump also said this exchange occurred twice more, in two subsequent phone calls;  and both times he asked, Comey told him he was not the subject of investigation.  That's Trump's version.

From speaking with associates of Comey, who feel free to speak on his behalf now that he is no longer with the FBI, Michael Schmidt of the New York Times reports Comey's version:  One week after Trump's inauguration, Comey was summoned to the White House for a one-on-one dinner with the new president.    During that dinner, which appears to be the same one Trump referenced, Comey told his close associates that Trump asked Comey for a pledge of loyalty to him.  Comey explained to the president that the country would be best served by an independent FBI and Justice Department.   He told Trump that he would pledge his honesty, but he would not pledge loyalty to him in the conventional political sense.  Trump was not happy with this answer and later pressed him further for a pledge of loyalty.  Comey would go no further than giving his "honest loyalty."

James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, has identified himself as one that Comey confided in about that dinner invitation -- because Comey was uneasy about it.   He referred to it as "being summoned" to the White House and did not want to go but felt he had to.   Clapper said Comey did not want to create the appearance of compromising the integrity of the FBI.   Schmidt also quotes other sources Comey talked with as saying it would have been totally out of character for Comey, as well as FBI tradition, for Comey to talk with a president about whether he was being investigated.   None of them think the president's version is credible.

Oh, and by the way, this is the first I've heard this:   Schmidt reports that this dinner was held on January 27th, the night after Acting AG Sally Yates warned the White House Counsel about Michael Flynn's vulnerability to blackmail by the Russians.   What interesting timing for the president to request a pledge of loyalty from his FBI Director.

_________________

From Alex Ward at Vox News:  In the Lester Holt NBC interview, Trump essentially admitted that he had "fired Comey over the Russia investigation."   He also acknowledged asking Comey on three different occasions whether he was personally being investigated, and (according to Trump, although it's a dubious claim) that Comey had told him he was not.   Trump has retaliated by calling Comey a "showboat" and a "grandstander" on national television;  and he sent out a tweet that Comey had better hope that there is not a tape of their conversation, a not so thinly veiled threat.

Arguably, there are grounds here for charging that the president's firing Comey and threats constitute obstruction of justice and abuse of power -- which could be enough for impeachment.

__________________

Jim Hoagland at the Washington Post wrote that:  "The Trump presidency now poses an existential threat to many of American's most vital institutions.  He has tried to tear down to his own tawdry level the intelligence community, the FBI, the media and the federal judiciary"

________________

Dean of American senior journalists, Dan Rather, who covered the Watergate scandal, wrote this:  "Future generations may mark today as one of the dark days in American history, a history that may soon take an even more ominous turn.   President Trump's sudden firing of FBI Director James Comey . . . should concern every American.  The independence of our law enforcement is at the bedrock of our democracy."

ACLU: Trump's order not worth a suit.

[Prepared last week, but urgent news crowded it out.]
 Copy of a twitter message from the ACLU.
___________________________________________
ACLU National   @ACLU

"We thought we'd have to sue Trump today.  But it turned out the order signing was an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome.

    5:42 PM - 4 May 2017"
___________________________________________
Rumors said that Trump was going to sign an Executive Order on "religious freedom," which would allow religious-affiliated entities (like schools, hospitals) to refuse service based on religious objection (gay marriage, trans identity).

The ACLU was poised to file a lawsuit against Trump for government endorsement of discrimination.   But the actual order Trump signed turned out to be a big nothing.   All it does is ask that government agencies be a little more lenient in allowing churches to engage in politics without risking their tax-exempt status -- a rarely enforced law anyway.

An ACLU spokesman said what Trump signed "was, in essence, just a way to pander to religious conservatives."   But Trump is trying to make up for his lack of legislative success by padding his list with relatively meaningless and unobjectionable EOs.

Ralph

Trump's EO discriminates against atheists

Last week, we were concerned about the prospect that Trump's Executive Order on "religious liberty" was going to allow discrimination against GLBTQ people.  What Trump finally signed had nothing to do with such issues;  it was about allowing churches to openly advocate for political candidates.

But now the EO has been challenged anyway.   The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin that argues that it would selectively benefit religious organizations in that it allows them to endorse political candidates without risking loss of their tax-exempt status.

They're right.   This is another sop to the religious right.  What the EO does is to weaken the 1954 Johnson amendment that restricts all tax-exempt organizations from campaigning for, or against, particular candidates for public office.

In his Rose Garden signing ceremony, President Trump said this:
   "This executive order directs the IRS not to unfairly target churches and religious organizations for political speech. . . .  No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors.  We are giving our churches their voices back."

In its lawsuit, the Freedom From Religion Foundation goes further, claiming that the order not only directs the IRS to leave religious organizations alone, it applies "a more vigorous enforcement standard to secular nonprofits."

Trump did make a campaign promise to evangelical groups -- and it was even written into the GOP platform --  that they would "get rid of the Johnson Amendment."    Trump's comments make it very clear whom they were doing it for:  religious groups.    And it doesn't get rid of the Johnson amendment;  it simply tells them not to go after religious organizations.

Religious conservatives paint themselves as victims, when it fact the Johnson amendment is not about religion;  it's about tax exempt status.   You can't be a tax exempt organization -- including a secular school, an art museum, or a scientific assembly -- and be overtly political for a particular party or candidate.  In effect, Trump's Executive Order, gives religious organizations a political advantage that it does not also give to secular organizations.

Maybe the ACLU will need to reconsider its decision not to sue -- "for now" is what they said.  Because now the law would discriminte against secular, non-profit, tax-exempt groups.   And it does it even more blatantly -- because it violates an actually stated prohibition in the Constitution's Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.

Stay tuned.    And thanks to Mary Papenfuss  of Huffpost for the reporting I relied on.

Ralph

Late night updates on Comey firing

It's hard to keep up with this unfolding story.  There were updates all during the day yesterday, which I had already written in the longer post below.   Then last night more started coming out.   Here's what I've been able to grab hold of.  There are three posts for today -- and may be more to add come morning.

1.  In general, it's widely known now that the Trump/Russian investigation has been heating up in the last few weeks.  Updates that Comey had been getting from staff jumped from weekly to daily.   Comey asked for additional resources and personnel, just days before he was fired.  The Wall Street Journal reports that things are leading to potential evidence involving Trump's own business dealings.

2.  Reuter's News Service is reporting that Comey had told associates that Trump, Sessions, and Deputy AG Rosenstein had tried to get Comey to brief them on what he would testify to the Senate;  and he refused, which was quite proper for him to do to maintain his independence, especially given that Sessions had recused himself.

3.  The Washington Post reported that 30 different sources, many in the White House, had said that Trump was very angry with Comey, even yelling at the TV monitor, and that this is what led to firing him.

Now, take a bit of comic relief (but still a serious political story), then go on to the longer update post below that (if you can stand more).'

We need a little humor.

From Seth Meyers' late night tv show:  Referring to the Republican health care bill passed by the House, and to Rep. Raul Labrador's defensive comment about people losing their health insurance, if it becomes law:  "Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care."

Meyers' quick comeback was this:  "That's like saying that nobody dies from falling out of a window;  it's the pavement that gets you."

Some loose ends on the Comey firing

1.  Multiple reports from reliable sources confirm that the Trump team did not anticipate a negative reaction to the firing of FBI Director Comey.   They believed that, because Democrats have been so resentful and critical of Comey about his handling of Clinton's email investigation, they would only be happy about this.

Boy, did they misjudge, probably from projecting what their own reactions would be, if things were reversed.   Only the political implications would matter to them.  Here's how one Democrat put it in a tweet:  "We aren't defending Comey.   We're defending DEMOCRACY."  Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, said that he was sad and frustrated by the news of Comey firing, like everybody else;  but that it also terrified him.

I am proud to say that Democrats are more concerned about the foundations of our democracy, the balance of powers that allow us to keep that democracy, and the vital principle that no one is above the law.   Even Donald Trump.

2.  The Justice Department's Inspector General is already conducting an ongoing investigation of Comey's judgment and conduct in handling the Clinton email investigation.   Wouldn't it have made sense to complete that;  and then, if indicated, fire him based on that?  It would have avoided the inevitable inference that the real reason for his firing was the investigation of the Trumpsters' relationships with Russians.   The obvious answer to that is that the real reason actually was to remove Comey from that investigation and intimidate the other investigators.

3.  The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes division for any documents they have that connect any of Trump associates with Russia.   Sen. Mark Warner, senior Democrat on this committee, made the request, citing the investigative dictum:   follow the money.   This is considered a sign of heating up of that committee's work.  Warner has also recently hired a top investigative staff member.   In addition, CNN reported Tuesday night that documents that Michael Flynn refused to give to the Senate Intelligence Committee have now been subpoened.  Associates of Flynn were also getting subpoenas, looking for financial records linking them and Flynn to Russia.   This news broke just hours before the Comey firing.

4.  On Wednesday morning, Trump had a scheduled meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Oval Office (bad timing, following the Comey firing).   Lavrov had just met with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.  Accompanying Lavrov was the Russian ambassador Kislyak.  But, as the website RawStory pointed out, US media was not allowed in;  we have pictures of the meeting only because a Russian photographer was allowed in the Oval Office and published them on Russian propaganda TV.

Now how is that for optics?   One day after firing the FBI Director who is investigating him and his associates for improper connections with Russians, he hosts in the Oval Office the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador to the US -- and doesn't allow the US media to cover the meeting.

5.  Here's an idea that is circulating.   The Senate should refuse to confirm a nominee for a new FBI Director until the Justice Department appoints an independent prosecutor for the Trump-Russia investigation.

6.  And while we're on the subject:   My first choice for that prosecutor would be Sally Yates.  It won't happen, because in a situation like this, both sides should feel that the prosecutor is impartial.   But Yates' integrity and professionalism is exactly what we need.

Ralph

Centrist wins big in French election

Emmanuel Macron, a political newcomer without a political party backing him, won the election for President of France with a vote of 66%, defeating the far-right Marine Le Pen who got 34%.

This feels like a defeat -- or at least a slowing -- of the global shift to the right that seemed to be sweeping across the West, beginning with Brexit, then Trump, and the growing power of nationalist far-right populism in France, with the backing of Vladimir Putin doing everything possible to undermine the European Union and NATO.

Going from a French Socialist President to a choice between a Centrist and a Far Right candidate was somewhat alarming.  And, in fact, Le Pen's party got twice the vote she did five years ago.  But this bigger-than-expected win by the middle at least appears to slow the momentum of the far-right movement.

Ralph