By John Cassidy
The first four months of the Trump Administration have generated many real headlines that could have appeared first in a satirical publication such as the Onion or The New Yorker’s own the Borowitz Report. But the headline that appeared on the Times’ Web site on Friday afternoon may have been the most bizarre yet: “Trump Told Russians that Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure from Investigation.”
The story that ran under the headline, by Matt Apuzzo, Maggie Haberman, and Matthew Rosenberg, was based on “notes taken from inside the Oval Office” during President Trump’s now notorious meeting, last week, with the two Sergeys—Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, and Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to Washington. (In case your mind has snapped after the past few days of news meld, a quick reminder: that was the meeting during which Trump gave the men from the Kremlin classified information about an isis bomb threat.) Here is the second paragraph from the Times’ story:
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Note, first, the dilemma presented to the Times’ headline writers. What bit of this quote should they prioritize?
Even by Trump’s standards, calling Comey a “nut job” was startling. It was no secret that he didn’t like Comey—a couple of days after dismissing him, he publicly referred to him as “a showboat” and “a grandstander”—but Trump here wasn’t shooting the breeze with one of his billionaire friends, or golf buddies, or even NBC News’s Lester Holt. He was talking, during an official meeting from which he had barred the American news media, to two representatives of a foreign government that tried to disrupt last year’s U.S. election.
In such circumstances, the “nut job” bit of the quote surely deserved its own headline. Or did it? What about Trump’s statement that the firing had relieved the “pressure” he faced? As they say in the legal trade, this went to the question of intent. If Trump were ever to be impeached on the grounds that he had attempted to obstruct justice, the manner in which he fired Comey would surely figure prominently in the charges.
Immediately after Comey’s dismissal, the White House put out a cover story that Trump wasn’t its instigator—that he merely accepted a recommendation from Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General. But Trump pretty much demolished that justification during his televised interview with Holt last week, in which he said he had intended to axe Comey regardless of Rosenstein’s recommendation. He also told Holt that that the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation was on his mind when he made the decision.
On Twitter, my colleague Jeffrey Toobin said Trump’s words to Lavrov and Kislyak were “close to a confession to obstruction of justice.” Certainly, it is hard to read the remarks and not conclude that Trump, in offing Comey, had intended to shut down the Russia probe—or, at the very minimum, to influence it in such a way that his political prospects would be improved.
And there was another reason that the second half of Trump’s quote was so newsworthy. It provided more evidence, if any were needed, that he is delusional or ignorant about how the American political system works. After he fired Comey, did he really believe that people in Washington, particularly the former F.B.I. director and his allies, would stand by quietly and accept such a blatant abuse of Presidential authority?
Evidently, Trump did think this, and so did many of the people around him. According to news reports, the one White House adviser who questioned the wisdom of the Comey hit was Steve Bannon, who was concerned about the inevitable backlash. Even twenty-four hours after the act was done, Trump appears to have been oblivious to this danger. Hence his blithe boast to the Russians: “That’s taken off.” (As in, off the table.)
Two more Trump shockers, then—appearing just when Trump was leaving town on a nine-day trip to the Middle East and Europe. Ultimately, the Times’ headline writers decided to combine the news items in one headline. A fitting coda to a truly nutty week.
No comments:
Post a Comment