There are a lot of ways to lie. That was the upshot from Thursday’s dramatic Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, where former FBI Director James Comey spent the better part of three hours recounting the latest chapter in the 1960s political thriller that is our ongoing national nightmare. The hearing uncovered new ground when Comey described President Donald Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Michael Flynn investigation and implied that there was a greater scope to the underlying Russia investigation than previously thought. It also exhibited the many flavors of falsehoods.
The tutorial began the day before the hearing, when the Intelligence Committee prematurely released Director Comey’s written testimony. That seven-page submission detailed presidential intimidation in a dramatic first-person chronology of dinners and telephone calls between a wooing President Trump and a reluctant Comey. The testimony described a series of efforts by Trump as both president-elect and president to pressure the then FBI Director into engaging in deceit in its subtlest form—lying by omission. Continue reading
We keep waiting for the dust to settle, but Donald Trump refuses to stop kicking it up. Although his ceaseless motion reveals more with every whirl, it’s hard to see exactly what’s going on right in front of us through all the grime. No doubt the effort is worth it. Determining what’s accurate with high precision is a worthwhile endeavor. Determining the reasons for his policies and pronouncements, the people most influential in his thinking, and the costs of his actions is critical to a righteous, small “d” democratic opposition. Provable, specific facts are the component parts of any indictments or articles of impeachment, and Trump’s totalitarian truthiness must be met with honest, ethical reporting. But in striving for the perfect truth, let’s not lose sight of the obvious. This lesson keeps popping up in a few critical, and often overlooked, ways. For even before we know the whole truth, we often know enough to distinguish right from wrong from immoral. Here are three obvious truths that appear to be getting lost in the distracting thrashing of the Trump administration. Continue reading
Everyone is talking taxes these days, and not just because the deadline for filing individual tax returns came and went this past week. Last Saturday, administration opponents marched in Washington and other cities to protest President Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns. Last month’s battle over the American Health Care Act turned in part on the budget consequences of repealing the Affordable Care Act’s redistributive taxes on high-income individuals. New polling suggests that Americans of both political parties are increasingly concerned about how few taxes corporations and the wealthy pay. And now, congressional Republicans have promised to pass a comprehensive tax reform bill for President Trump’s signature that will both simplify the tax code and reduce taxes on most Americans.
It’s unclear whether Republicans will make another go at trying to pass health care reform before taking on taxes. The intricacies of the budget reconciliation procedure required to get around a senate filibuster will play a part in the decision, though the President, with typical off-the-cuff bluster, announced a tax bill would be forthcoming this week. But regardless of the order, the whole agenda is doomed. While the contradictory Republican politics on healthcare has attracted most of the attention, the difficulty of harmonizing GOP dogma with the practicalities of tax reform are just as stark. What Republicans talk about when they talk about “tax reform” (perhaps the title of Paul Ryan’s frighteningly bad Raymond Carver adaptation) is quite different, and far more unpopular, than what the rest of us understand it to be. Continue reading
The seemingly pointless infighting between professional Democrats and its grassroots activists over the direction of the party has many liberals concerned. If the party is united in opposition to President Trump’s agenda, his controversial executive and judicial appointments, and his very presence in the Oval Office, why would its members turn to infighting and bickering about the way forward? After all, it’s not just Trump that connects Democrats of all stripes. Even after a deeply disappointing electoral defeat in November and the predictable media handwringing about out-of-touch, Eastern elites that followed, there has been surprisingly little dissent from the basic tenets of party orthodoxy as laid out in the 2016 Democratic platform. Protecting health reform, reducing income inequality, increasing taxes on the wealthy, combating climate change, passing criminal justice reform, expanding worker protections and LGBT rights. There remains no serious divergence from this agenda.
And yet…things are not so harmonious. Continue reading
As the remarkable story of President Trump’s secret ties to Russia unfolds each day, it is hard not to think back to the day last summer where a press conference about a different investigation, with a different potential target, and an undoubtedly different outcome became the center of the political universe. On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey took to his high podium to deliver a statement about his organization’s criminal investigation into potential mishandling of classified information by former Secretary of State and then-presumptive Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton. As Comey himself admitted, it was “an unusual statement.” He both gave “more detail about our process than [he] ordinarily would” while “not coordinat[ing] or review[ing] [his] statement in any way with the Department of Justice.” Intense public interest and importance, he said, justified his departure from protocol.
Comey’s statement was unusual for another reason. Despite finding no deceit or destruction of evidence, finding no intent to disclose classified information, and ultimately concluding that Clinton sent or received a mere 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains (plus six others found by examining e-mail fragments) containing classified information over a private server, he felt the need to publicly chastise his investigation target. Although determining that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges based on such meager evidence of intentional mishandling of classified information, Comey took time to make the damaging and debatable charge that Clinton had been “extremely careless” and speculatively ruminated that it was “possible” a hostile foreign actor had accessed Clinton’s communications.
Now we know that just weeks after Comey made these public statements about a confidential investigation, his FBI was actively investigating the far more explosive possibility that Clinton’s Republican opponent in the presidential race was intentionally conspiring with a hostile foreign power to influence the election in his favor. Continue reading
A host of insider tell-alls coming from within the White House have revealed what we knew would be the case—Donald Trump and his minions don’t know the first thing about running the Government. Two weeks ago, the New York Times described an executive branch led by a lonely man wandering the West Wing in his bathrobe and staffed by “a surprisingly small crew of no more than a half-dozen empowered aides with virtually no familiarity with the workings of the White House or federal government.” Last Sunday, the Washington Post detailed how one of Trump’s closest “friends” first privately, and then quite publicly, told the president that his chief of staff, Reince Preibus was “in way over his head.” That same day, the New York Times reported that the National Security Council was in a state of disarray: “Three weeks into the Trump administration, council staff members get up in the morning, read President Trump’s Twitter posts and struggle to make policy to fit them.” Now, Politico and other outlets are reporting that Trump is considering a massive staff-shakeup less than a month into his presidency, and that aides like Preibus and Press Secretary Sean Spicer may be out the door soon. Continue reading
Donald Trump’s selection of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy has left Democrats in a difficult position. On one hand, Judge Gorsuch is a qualified and conventional nominee on the conservative end of mainstream legal thought. Under a traditional understanding of the Senate’s constitutional role of providing “advice and consent,” qualified nominees without extreme ideological records should receive a prompt hearing and handy confirmation. Obstruction of Judge Gorsuch under these standards would upend the smooth functioning of the judiciary and politicize the Court, thus undermining public faith in a bedrock American institution.
On the other hand, these aren’t traditional circumstances. Continue reading
Days before the inauguration of our new president, Georgia Representative John Lewis and Donald Trump got into a bit of a dust-up. The details of the spat are unimportant; we demean a citizen’s responsibility to stay informed by equating Trump’s mean tweets with news. The president can be an insult comic on his own time. But though it got lost in the coverage of the furor it caused, Lewis’s initial comment was worthy of deeper consideration. In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Lewis remarked: “I don’t see this President-elect as a legitimate president.” In another year, a comment like this might be more easily dismissed as sour grapes. But not this time, with this president. Lewis was right to question Trump’s legitimacy, although not for the reasons he asserted. Continue reading
Earlier this month, two icons of the liberal arts gave a pair of heralded addresses to a rapt audience. Both speeches implicitly repudiated the incoming president while appealing to our better angels. In the first, the consensus candidate for greatest screen performer of our time spoke in moving terms about the country’s diversity and tolerance. A few days later, our country’s greatest living orator acknowledged the coming storm but assured the nation that its inner exceptionalism did, could, and would prevail. Together, the two speeches acknowledged our collective horror unbowed, offering the distraught a life-raft of hope. Yes, Meryl Streep and Barack Obama served up two heaping bowls of chicken soup to listless liberals hungering for reassurance. But it was just more empty calories. Continue reading
Remember that brief moment in the presidential campaign when we debated whether 2016 was shaping up to be a repeat of 1968? A few pundits noticed a real but overly simplistic parallel, which quickly drew attention and a slew of think-pieces in response, proclaiming that 2016 was not, in fact, 1968. It was early July, to be exact. Republicans were gearing up for their convention in Cleveland, one that most expected to be chaotic and perhaps violent (thus, holding the place of the Democrats’ 1968 convention in Chicago). A divisive GOP candidate in Donald Trump was poised to accept his party’s nomination on the backs of a racially charged primary campaign catering to white, Southern interests (recalling Tricky Dick Nixon’s rebirth aided by backroom deals with Strom Thurmond). There was then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort designing the GOP convention’s thematic purpose as “Make America Safe Again,” a pro-police message designed to reassure an agitated and threatened white middle-class (reminiscent of the populist, segregationist George Wallace’s divisive rhetoric). The 2016 campaign even pulled the same slogans right from the pages of history (or from the lips of Nixon himself): Trump spoke of a “silent majority” and “law and order” that would take back the country. Not to mention there were the striking parallels between Hillary Clinton and Hubert Humphrey—two high-minded, wonkish career politicians with ties to the hawkish and business interests of the Democratic Party too suspect for an embittered and emboldened, new left. Continue reading