We can't say much now except that what's released does not provide justification to investigate the sitting president or his associates. The memos do provide value though and give insight for the historical record. They supposedly provide a candid record of the interactions between two of the key men in what is sure to become an extraordinary event in American history. My take on the memos is that they are honestly written. In The House Oversight's Panel with James Comey, I wrote that Comey came off as genuine and that we should lay off attacking him following his unilateral decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton. As more evidence and rumors emerged surrounding that event, I began to consider that advice to be the single worst conclusion ever made on this blog. All indications are Comey intentionally squashed the investigation, which remains true to this day. And yet, I still get a sense of sincerity out of Comey. Is this just making the same mistake a second time - the hallmark of the fool?
Comey portrays an obsession with integrity, which seems like it's genuine. He is either dedicated to the principle, or he's an extraordinary actor. I lean towards the former. Comey is genuine within his particular mindset. He pens these memos and strives to write them as objectively as possible, and has a guilt-free conscience that he acted with integrity. But, as the oversight chairmen note in their summary of the memos, Comey didn't seem to consider what it means that he wrote the memos in the first place. For example, he testified that he had strong concerns about AG Lynch's ability to handle the Clinton email case after her clandestine meeting with the accused's spouse. And yet, he did not document his interactions with her. There seem to be no other similar memos written, except those regarding Trump.
They read like they were written as described: quick & hurried recollections jotted down before the memories of the specifics could fade away. They are simple with little eloquence, almost in the way you can imagine a teenager recounting an interaction. I said this and he said that and then I said this and he said that... What editorialization exists is mostly to provide clarity more than persuasion. He describes Trump as (in my words) domineering in conversation, brusk and impetuous, drifting through various topics that came to mind but circling around to hit the same ideas numerous times. Is that a defamatory depiction? Well, no. It's the same way Trump came off in his campaign speeches, which were maddening enough to watch even after I was an avowed Trump supporter. Imagine how disorienting this may have been to the Comey, the excruciatingly methodical prosecutor. If Comey was writing with bias, then why would his descriptions ring so true with other observations, and why wouldn't they actually contain incriminating allegations?
The memos underscore a huge gulf in personality styles between the two men, which we first discussed in Comey: Square Peg in a Round Hole, which was written last year in response to the initial media reports on the leaked memos. (Nunes has repeatedly expressed frustration that he couldn't get access to memos that the New York Times has had forever). Comey is a square. He's technical, methodical, analytical, precise. He's not an android...much more like Spock. Dedicated to logical process, but still half human. He is liable to trap himself into bubbles where the logic computes, but doesn't necessarily reflect the larger picture. Spock had Kirk to bail him out with applied human intuition, but Comey was the captain of his ship. He's slippery, but in a technical sense, and he's quick on his feet and genuine because he's already justified his actions to himself. Trump is round, playing the games of politics and leverage.
Let's dig into the memos a bit. (Linked in their entirety above.)
At the conclusion of our session, the COS [Priebus] asked whether there is anything we haven't mentioned that they should know of that might come out. I said there was something the Clapper wanted me to speak to the PE [Trump] about alone or in a very small group. COS asked whether the groups of COS, VPE, and PE was okay or I wanted to be alone. I told him it was up to the PE, who quickly said he and I would meet alone.Comey reports about the allegations in the peepee dossier to Trump, and then:
I said I wasn't saying this was true, only that I wanted him to know both that it had been reported and that the reports were in many hands. I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write that the FBI was the material or [redacted] and that we were keeping it very close-hold. He said he couldn't believe they hadn't gone with it. I said it was inflammatory stuff that they would get killed for reporting straight up from the source reports.There is so much here that, combined with other testimony given by Comey, makes it apparent that Comey's meeting with Trump was instigated by Clapper. Comey says he believed the president had a right to know about the intel against him, but apparently he did not have the right to know it came from Democrat-funded opposition research. Why? Comey never explains. Why should the president know a bit of it? Why not all, or, since Trump's campaign was under investigation, none? How did Comey know that CNN had the dossier? From Clapper, of course. Sara Carter reported last month that Clapper leaked the dossier to CNN. Comey's memo ties it together. Consider this story run shortly after the affair, and ask yourself who "a senior US official" might be. Clapper leaked the memo to CNN, then duped Comey into briefing Trump to lend the story credibility, then leaked the meeting to the press. FBI briefs Trump on damaging foreign intel dossier is a little easier to sell than Democrats write damaging paper about Trump.
In the next memo, in a conversation which Comey termed as chaotic, they hit on numerous subjects, often repeatedly.
He touched on my future at various point. The first time he asked "so what do you want to do," explaining that lots of people wanted my job ("about 20 people"), that he thought vey highly of me and had heard great things, that the people of the FBI really liked me, but he would understand if I wanted to walk away given all I had been through, although he thought that would be bad for me personally because it would look like I had done something wrong, that he of course can make a change at the FBI if he wants, but he wants to know what I think. There was no acknowledgement by him (or me) that we had already talked about this twice.
He replied that he needed loyalty and expected loyalty. I did not reply, or even nod or change my facial expression, which he noted because we came back to it later.These are the kinds of statements Trump's opponents will jump on as proof of obstruction. Trump demanded loyalty, Comey didn't promise it, and was eventually fired. They interpret that as Trump demanding investigations against him ceased, and firing Comey for not complying. But the rest of the text does not support that notion. Comey never indicates he got that impression. In fact, he recounts that Trump floated the notion that Comey should investigate Trump to clear his name. Repeatedly, Trump badgered Comey to say in public what he was saying in private - that Trump was not under investigation. He asks Comey to clear his name either by investigating him, or letting it be known that Trump was not under investigation. He was suffering politically by a dark cloud where much of the public mistakenly assumed Trump was under FBI investigation. It's certainly a fair request.
[...] he asked again about "your guy McCabe" and whether he was "going to be okay." I again affirmed Andy's ability and professionalism and said the President and said the President would come to see and benefit from both.Trump is worried that his campaign attacks on the Deputy Director have made an enemy out of him. Trump need not worry, as we now know from the Page-Strzok texts that McCabe was already working against Trump. Comey always affirms Andy's integrity. But we know from the recent OIG report that McCabe lied to Comey about leaking the existence of the Clinton Foundation investigation to the Wall Street Journal. Already we know that Comey has been duped twice by those around him, from above and below. Trump would end up making McCabe the acting director when he fired Comey.
Also, note here, but also generally in the memos, that Trump is frequently interested in personal dynamics more than technical assessments. The memos show that he really is a politician.
He then went on to explain that he has serious reservations about Mike Flynn's judgment and illustrated with a story from that day in which the President apparently discovered during his toast to Teresa May that [redacted] had called four days ago. Apparently, as the President was toasting PM May, he was explaining that she had been the first to call him after his inauguration and Flynn interrupted to say that [redacted] had called (first, apparently). It was then that the President learned of [redacted]'s call and he confronted Flynn about it (not clear whether that was in the moment or after the lunch with PM May). Flynn said the return call was scheduled for Saturday, which prompted a heated reply from the President that six days was not an appropriate period of time to return a call from the [leader] of a country like [that]. This isn't [some shithole] we're talking about"). He said that if he called [some example country] and didn't get a return call for six days he would be very upset. In telling the story, the President pointed his fingers at his head and said "the guy has serious judgment issues." I did not comment at any point during this topic and there was no mention or acknowledgement of any FBI interest in or contact with General Flynn.This memo was written after the Flynn transcripts had already been leaked and Flynn interrogated by the FBI. (Presumably Trump would know about this?) Whatever your thoughts on Comey, let's be very grateful for his memos. They are enlightening. Consider Trump's statement "if someone did that to me I'd be very upset." That is called empathy. The left doesn't understand Trump at all, and assume he has none of that trait. But he is a skilled politician and negotiator. He deeply considers the position of the other party, which he then uses to try to figure out how to gain leverage.
Interestingly, it turns out Trump had already lost faith in Flynn for matters unrelated to the Russian phone call scandal, which wasn't really a scandal at all. Perhaps that was all just a convenient excuse to dump an NSA he'd determined to have "serious judgement issues." Flynn noticed a comment Trump made wasn't factually correct, and made the effort to offer a correction. (Remember what we said about Comey being subject to little logic bubbles.) Indeed, Flynn was technically correct, and was attempting to increase the honest understanding of some event. But in the bigger picture, he:
- Interrupted a toast between the leaders of two of the most powerful nations on Earth.
- Contradicted the President in front of his counterpart, in an early diplomatic event.
- Informed the PM she wasn't, in fact, the first to call. Trump certainly would have rather seen the error slide at that point, and probably May too.
- Revealed that he bungled the handling of the president's first victory congratulation from a foreign head of state.
- Was annoyingly aspy in a diplomatic setting. Sir, that is not technically correct...*pushes up glasses*. The president-elect was hard at work on the social dynamics with America's primary ally, using empathy to find her viewpoint and figure out how he could leverage her to favor America's policy goals. And this numbskull is interjecting about technicalities.
In a single sentence Flynn made five serious blunders. After that, Trump was disturbed at having promoted a man with such poor judgement, and cut him loose at the first chance. The memo shows that Trump is primarily oriented on political and social dynamics, and doesn't tolerate his modus operandi being derailed.
He then pivoted to the Russians wanting an apology from Bill O'Reilly. I said I had seen that and O'Reilly's reply, which was to "call him in 2023." The President the said that O'Reilly's question about whether he respected Putin had been a hard one. [sentence redacted]. He said he does respect the leader of a major country and thought that was the best answer. He then said, "You think my answer was good, right?" I said the answer was fine, except the part about the killers, because we aren't the kind of killers that Putin is. When I said this, the President paused noticeably. I don't know what to make of it, but he clearly noticed I had directly criticized him.If he doesn't know what to make of it, then he should re-read his own memo from the week before, when he recounted the story of Flynn losing the president's confidence. Comey: Square Peg in a Round Hole suggested that Comey's discomfort in talking with Trump was that Trump speaks power talk, but Comey does not. That post provides a link to Vinkatesh Rao's brilliant pop-pyschology blog series on the matter, but the essence of power talk is that simple innocuous statements convey multiple layers of meaning.
The context for this discussion was Trump's interview with Bill O'Reilly, where Trump said he respected Putin as the leader of a major nation. When O'Reilly countered that they were killers, Trump responded, "There are lots of killers. You think our country is so innocent?"
It's a controversial statement. The prevailing orthodoxy in this country is that America is, in fact, innocent, and only kills for the most noble of reasons, like to liberate oppressed people or to stop the advance of global communism. In reality, America tends to go to war for her own interests and sells it to the American people wrapped in cloaks of virtue. I agree with Trump's take, but it is a hazardous political statement. Particularly it has the risk of alienating the kinds people he tries to appeal to: military, police, and red-blooded middle America. He respects Comey (based on the number of compliments in their interactions) and sees him as a representative of those people. He wants to hear approval, of course, but also he's bothered that his statement may have been damaging and wants feedback.
If Comey applied empathy he would have understood the president's situation and worked to steer him in the most effective manner. It is evident that Comey didn't think highly of the response. Well, does he have some insight into what the rank-and-file in the FBI would think about it? That's what Trump's really after. A political answer to convey that would be something in the form of I'm on your side, but some people who will misunderstand it as.... This shows an understanding of the predicament, a desire to provide assistance, and gives gentle criticism indirectly through a hypothetical other. But Square Comey is far too literal for all this, and tells the president just exactly what he personally thinks. The part about the killers was not fine. He's just flat out rejected the president. We are not the kinds of killers the Russians are. It just dismisses Trump's point that foreign affairs are a dirty business no matter who plays, even us. Remember how Flynn was able to jam numerous blunders into a single statement? Well Comey did too, by engaging in moral grandstanding to contradict his boss's boss's boss in his own office, missing the point of the question, demonstrating a naive grasp of world affairs, and bungling an opportunity to exert influence on the most powerful man in the world. Oops.
He notices Trump pause, and assumes it's because his ego had been slighted. Likely that's true, and would be true for most people. Trump has ample capacity for pettiness, to be sure. But Comey was a political appointee in one of the most powerful posts in the world. If he wasn't prepared for Trump's disposition and ready to maneuver around it, he's failed at his job. Comey puts himself into a bubble where as long as he's logically correct, he's okay. And if Trump can't see that, then he is a dangerous lunatic. It's quite likely Trump's pause was him thinking wait, this guy really is a moron after all. FBI Director Comey was suddenly Bad Judgement Jim.
The memos show only one additional one-on-one meeting between the two, in which Trump hardly lets Comey talk, lobbies him to lay off Flynn, and suggests stopping leaks by going after reporters. After that all communication is through phone. Comey is then fired at the first opportunity, when it is recommended by Rod Rosenstein. His fate was sealed not because of how he handled Clinton's case, and not because of ongoing investigations, and maybe not even because he refused to respond to the president's requests (a stretch). He was fired, at least in part, because the president wants to be surrounded by shrewd political operators, not pedantic technical dweebs.
Comey has gone on to more blunders in his media appearances and Twitter activity. He had no capacity to work with the unorthodox president. He seems to have been duped by people both above and below him. We can only guess how much of that went on. I have to wonder if his scandalous handling of the Clinton & Trump investigations resulted more from him being a tool than being evil. I still find my self kind of liking him, to the degree you can like a slippery lawyer who oversaw an attempted coup against the president you voted for. His sins are ambition - he propelled himself to a high-status political position when he should have maintained a more technical role - and a religious belief in his own integrity. He thought that as long as he did the rituals he was virtuous, but that closed him off into his bubble and lead to his demise. Smart guy, bad judgement.
To conclude the saga of the Comey memos is my favorite snippet:
I explained that he could count on me to always tell him the truth. I said I don't do sneaky things. I don't leak. I don't do weasel moves.He actually leaked the memo where he claims he is honest and doesn't leak. Incredible. CNN is claiming it wasn't technically a leak, and I'm sure Comey believes the same thing. He's forever cursed by the bubble of technicalities.
No comments:
Post a Comment