Despite President Trump’s spin that former FBI Director James Comey somehow was a liar who also vindicated him at yesterday’s hearing (a defense that makes little sense), the consensus is that yesterday’s testimony has not cleared the president, and in fact, has raised more questions about his attempts to influence the FBI. We begin today’s roundup with analysis from The New York Times:
There is an aspect to public servants like Mr. Comey that Mr. Trump and his administration seem unable to comprehend, to their peril — a dedication to their roles that places service above any president’s glory. [...]The F.B.I.’s mission, Mr. Comey declared, “is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.” Let’s hope that the principles he articulated, and those who hold them, guide this investigation in the days ahead.
Here’s Eugene Robinson’s take:
Comey was unabashed about accusing Trump and his administration of telling “lies,” and said he began the practice of immediately making notes after talking with the president because “I was honestly concerned he might lie” about the conversations. He said he had no such concern about the veracity of the other two presidents he served, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. [...]
Investigators and the public will have to decide whether they believe Trump, who lies all the time, or Comey, who has a flair for the dramatic but also the bearing of an oversized Boy Scout. That’s a pretty easy choice.
And now for some rare kind words about members of Congress: Overall, the senators questioning Comey behaved in a manner that could be described by such last-century terms as “bipartisan” and “patriotic.” The Democrats’ questions tended to be somewhat more accusatory toward the president, the Republicans’ questions somewhat more exculpatory, but there was a welcome air of sobriety about the whole thing. At this point, any examples of grown-up behavior should be recognized and praised.
Ryan Cooper summarizes where we’re at:
It's obvious to anyone with eyes to see what's happening here. Trump wanted to use the FBI as his own personal goon squad — one that would drop investigations into Trump himself or any Trump associates (every one of which should be assumed to be corrupt to their very marrow until proven otherwise) on cue. The flip side of that coin, which would have almost certainly come if Comey had been a loyal stooge, is abusive investigations into enemies of the regime.
Denials from the White House that this is what Trump was doing are utterly non-credible. It is known that the president lies constantly, that he has no respect for institutional norms, and that he is using the presidency for personal enrichment.
Joan Walsh at The Nation, meanwhile, takes apart the GOP defense that this was just innocent conversation:
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie tried to reassure MSNBC: “What you’re seeing is a president who is now very publicly learning about the way people react to what he considers to be normal New York City conversation.” Normal New York City conversation? For mobsters, maybe. Mafia dons expect loyalty; presidents know the FBI director operates independently from the White House.
Comey told McCain that he interpreted “that thing” as a reference to their early conversations about “loyalty” and Comey’s remaining in his job, as though Trump had done him a favor by keeping him on. But Comey said he couldn’t be sure. None of us can.
What we can be sure of, unfortunately, is that Comey’s testimony won’t move the GOP toward action to rein in Trump. It gives the rest of us a little bit more insight into what independent counsel Mueller may be seeing; it may give us hope that the investigation will hit its targets. But this process is likely to move slowly, as long as GOP leaders, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, defend Trump’s Comey coercion as the actions of a neophyte who “was new at this” FBI-independence stuff. They’ll defend him until he hurts them more than he helps, and who knows when they’ll decide that will be?
Amy Zegert at The Atlantic dives into the news cycle and explains how we cannot let such blockbuster testimony be normalized:
Comey’s testimony delivered a “shock and awe” campaign, FBI-style: calm, cautious, and candid, at once stoic and relatable. It was as though Comey were trying to reach through our television sets and shake the body politic into our collective senses.
And yet, his shock and awe testimony may not shock and awe for long. The biggest story of the day is how unlikely this is to remain the biggest story. In all likelihood, after the Twittersphere dies down, partisans will retreat to their respective corners and business as usual will return to Washington.
Why?
Because of something called the “normalization of deviance:” the more frequently exceptional things happen, the less we think of them as exceptional. Over time, we become desensitized to events that fall far outside the normal range—often with disastrous consequences.
Evan Osnos at The New Yorker highlights the low bar Republicans are setting for the president:
It is a remarkable measure of where the President stands, less than five months into his term: his party is seeking to defend him on the basis that his secret plea to the F.B.I. director, to abandon an investigation of a friend, did not rise to the level of an explicit order.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, in a separate appearance shortly after Comey’s comments, tried to define downward what the President is expected to understand about the law. He told reporters that Trump “wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols” of what is appropriate in terms of discussions with the F.B.I. director. As a bulwark against disgrace, it’s a narrow spit of dry land—the “stupidity defense,” as Nicolle Wallace, a Republican commentator who is critical of the President, said on NBC.
Michael Daly, meanwhile, analyzes the Russia portion of Comey’s testimony:
How can Trump talk about making America great again and try to dismiss such subversion as just Fake News concocted by a bunch of sore losers?
As Comey and virtually everybody else in the know asserts, the Russian effort was the realest of news. “There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever,” Comey declared.
On a final note, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin argues the evidence so far suggests deliberate obstruction by the president:
President Trump appears to be guilty of obstruction of justice. That’s the only rational conclusion to be reached if James Comey’s opening statement for his planned testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Thursday, is to be believed. The lurch of the Trump Presidency from one crisis to the next scandal produces a kind of bombshell-induced numbness, but that should not prevent us from appreciating the magnitude of Comey’s statement. [...]
There is, of course, much more to know about this story. Did Trump use other government officials to try to stymie the Russia investigation? During an Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday, senators pressed Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, and Admiral Mike Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency, about their contacts with Trump on the issue; they refused to answer. They may eventually tell what they know—as, surely, will others. But the story is now complete in its outline, if not its details, and Trump’s culpability is clear to anyone who cares to look.