When you think of James Comey and dinner, his January 27 solo soiree with Donald Trump is what probably comes to mind. And we know that he came away from it feeling uncomfortable, being alone with Donald Trump. When you think about it, who wouldn’t?

One of the things that I like about Comey, and something that gives him considerable credibility, is that that he seems to be a very good “creep detector.”

Fast forward to Comey’s personal life. He is the father of five children. Now, imagine him asking one of his children to invite his or her new significant other to the house for dinner. If you’re that significant other, you might think that it would be really scary to meet with the former director of the F.B.I. That’s the down side of it.

But if you’re one of Comey’s kids, it has to be a terrific reality check. Because one thing that we’ve learned from Comey with his recent testimony before Congressional committees is that he is an incredible judge of character. So, if you bring your friend to dinner at the Comey’s and afterwards you ask dad what he thinks of the friend, you’ll probably get an answer that is worth listening to.

All of this is to say that Comey is a true foil to Donald Trump and many of those in his administration. The pathology of Trump is well documented. Sometimes we get inured to it. But it’s not just him. It’s so many of his associates – Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, and Corey Lewandowski. But near the top of this list has to be Jeff Sessions.

Sessions is not just the prototypical politician from the old Confederacy who is morally challenged with issues of race, human rights and economic rights. He seems to have fundamental problems with logic and clear thinking, as witnessed by his confirmation testimony under questioning from Al Franken.

If you’re Comey and you’re in the middle of a world with Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions, you have to rely on yourself and those who you know and trust to try to make sense out of what is weird and bizarre. His testimony clearly reveals that was his modus operandi.

Our nation is very fortunate to have had the likes of James Comey and Sally Yates as holdovers from the Obama Administration. Where would we be now if they had not been in office to put the brakes on this fast and furious and unguided administration.

We can talk about legalisms until the cows come home. But the bottom line is that the first requisite for someone in public office may be to have a solid connection with reality. We can be thankful for the one hundred nine days of Comey in the Trump Administration as well as the ten days of Sally Yates. It’s a badge of honor to be fired by Trump.

The post Guess who’s coming to dinner: Comey appeared first on Occasional Planet.

All of us strive for perfection; none of us achieve it. But some come closer than others and James Comey seems to be one who has those special characteristics that make a human being about as good as it gets. His June 8, 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee demonstrated his many strengths. The key may be the way in which he skillfully applied situational ethics to complicated issues.

No longer hamstrung with the constraints of still holding public office, Comey was able to give reason to his seemingly unfathomable public engagement with the Hillary Clinton e-mail issues.

Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) asked Comey, “Let me go back if I can very briefly to the decision to publicly go out with your results on the email. Was your decision influenced by the attorney general’s tarmac meeting with the former president, Bill Clinton?”

COMEY: Yes. In an ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the justice department.

Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in open setting is that at one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a “matter,” which confused me and concerned me. But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the (Justice) Department if we’re to close this case credibly.

This is the first time that I have heard that former Attorney-General Loretta Lynch may have been applying pressure to Comey to downplay the FBI investigation of the e-mails. I think that I mistakenly assumed that Bill Clinton crossed the Phoenix tarmac to try to influence Lynch and she could find no polite way to ask him to leave. Whether that meeting influenced her or not, it became clear to Comey that the AG’s office would inaccurately downgrade the investigation by calling it a “matter” rather than the investigation that it actually was.

Some might say that the Director of the FBI has no business pre-empting the Attorney-General. It is true that that the FBI gathers information for Justice Department and standard protocol is for a spokesperson for the Justice Department to announce decisions on prosecutions. But Comey was concerned that Lynch had a political motivation to not prosecute Clinton. Comey preferred that a non-prosecution be the result of insufficient evidence rather than political preference. The way he announced the non-prosecution on July 5, 2016 seemed awkward, because it was. But he wanted the decision to close the case (at least before Anthony Weiner’s laptop), to be one based on the same standards as other decisions to not prosecute cases.

It obviously hurt Hillary Clinton that Comey made the announcement rather than Attorney-General Lynch. But it seems that Lynch forfeited the right to make that call. It probably would have been good if Bill Clinton had never crossed the tarmac, but wittingly or unwittingly, Lynch gave the Clintons what they wanted. Comey felt that he had to do what he did not want to do, influence the election.

Comey’s honesty also came through when he said that he used non-legalize language to describe his concerns about Donald Trump. “I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document. That combination of things I had never experienced before, but had led me to believe I got to write it down and write it down in a very detailed way.” In Comey’s mind, the situation required him to do what he had not done for two previous presidents – write contemporaneous memos to document the meetings.

Throughout his testimony, Comey referred to common sense. That is not a legal term, but it is a human term. He rose above the restraints of his office to utilize good judgment. That is a rare occurrence in Washington and must be fully appreciated.

Comey also repeated acknowledged that he “might be wrong” about recollections or even decisions that he made. That humility makes him an approachable human being with whom others can engage in non-threatening conversation.

In the past, when Comey has confused us, it was because he was never free to give full explanations. One June 8 he did. Not only did he acquit himself well, but he also made a good case for the logic of situational ethics.

The post Comey’s Situational Ethics Make Common Sense appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It becomes more apparent when Donald Trump goes into Tweet-storm mode, but it’s always there. This man has serious psychological issues which have nothing to do with politics.

It’s a total distraction to say, “The president thinks” or “The president now believes.” To try to understand the man, we need to examine his psyche first and his politics later. In fairness, we should do the same with everyone in politics.

Washington Post writer Chris Mooney awakened us years ago to the concept of “The Republican Brain” through his book by the same name. But it would be duplicitous to only examine the psychological make-up of Republicans and not Democrats. In fact, we should do so with anyone aspiring to a position of power, whether that be in politics or in the private sector.

Psychologists and psychiatrists have been reluctant to try to psychoanalyze politicians. The American Psychological Association established the “Goldwater Rule” which said that it is unethical for mental health professionals to try to analyze individuals whom they have not personally examined. That may make sense, but it does not make sense for the entire populace to refrain from assessing what they see as psychological strengths and weaknesses of people in public life.

At the top of the news now is Trump’s firing of F.B.I. Director James Comey. When the president changes his mind so many times about how it happened and why it happened, we must wonder what is going on inside his brain. Let me posit one theory about how he operates, and this is hardly unique one.

Like so many of us, perhaps all of us, Trump seems to be on the autism spectrum. One such indicator is having enormous insight into something while being clueless about others.

When it comes to insight, Trump seemed to understand the American electorate more than virtually anyone else in politics or punditry. He sensed that there was something that could be called the “Trump voter.” That person was generally white, not particularly well-educated, often angry and disdainful of complex answers to complex questions. Trump knew that he could win the Electoral College if he campaigned in areas where these people lived. He sensed that Hillary Clinton was not properly reaching out to potential supporters who could put her over the top.

But then there are the blind spots that a person on the autism spectrum has. Trump apparently had no sense of the optics of him bringing Henry Kissinger into the White House for a photo session the day after firing Comey. Kissinger is most identified with Richard Nixon and Nixon was “fire-happy” as witness the Saturday Night Massacre. On the same day, he brought Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak into the Oval Office. Comey had been investigating Trump campaign connections with Russia.

But back to the other side of the autism spectrum. Trump seems to know that how progressives and even the mainstream media feel about what he has done to Comey may have little, if any, impact on how the people who voted for him think about the firing. The erratic behavior of the president might be a non-issue because he still represents the anger that many of them harbor towards almost anything mainstream.

What’s intriguing is how “Trump the President” gets a pass from so many of his supporters. But if a person with Trump’s characteristic was their boss, their teacher, or even their brother-in-law, there would be little tolerance of his behavior. The “Trump person” would be directly impacting them in a way in which they could see and a way which they would not like.

The whole idea of talking about public persona in a way which includes psychological assessment is scary and frightening. But the costs of not doing it may be even more risky. If we make it open season on trying to psychoanalyze our leaders, we are essentially saying that it’s okay for us to do that with everyone we know, or even those we don’t know. But the cat is out of the bag. We do it.

As citizens, we may find it much more beneficial to ourselves and our country to pay less attention to the political Donald Trump or even the governing Donald Trump than it is to look at his psyche. At this point, there is good reason to conclude that he is the wrong person in the wrong office. The 25^th Amendment and impeachment process provide ways to deal with this. Nothing will happen without a few courageous Republicans. As David Gergen has asked, where is the next Howard Baker?

The post With Trump, it’s the psyche, not the politics appeared first on Occasional Planet.

At first I enjoyed it; Jeffrey Toobin on CNN going ballistic over the Comey firing. Then there was the normal outrage from Dana Bash and Gloria Borger. And then there were other legal analysts like Evan Perez and Pamela Brown who were more interested in putting together the pieces of the puzzle.

Most everyone agreed that James Comey performance as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation left something to be desired. Democrats are justifiably upset with him because even if Hillary Clinton was a poor candidate for president in 2016, Comey’s inappropriate public discussion of her e-mails likely cost her the election. Donald Trump has reason to be upset with him because he may be hot on the president’s trail for “all things Russian.”

With Jeff Sessions as Attorney-General, the Justice Department is tilting far to the right and we might call it ‘JINO” (Justice In Name Only). A special prosecutor seems to be the only way pursue the possible criminal transgressions, but the broader issue is whether the country, and particularly our leaders, have the capacity to deal with this in a rational, logical way. Here are a few points to consider:

1. Yes, Comey screwed up, but we all do. Don’t look at him as “Crown Jewel of Investigation,” someone who is as incorruptible as Inspector Lewis Erskine in the old F.B.I. television series. Like many of us, he seemed to have a penchant for vanity. In his case, he was talking “out of school” about things that would best have remained inside the Bureau. What he did to Hillary Clinton was enough to make him nauseous and to put the rest of the country at risk because of who is in the White House. What he did to Trump … was enough to get him fired.The bottom line is that a man with a ten-year term did not perform well on the job, and unfortunately for him and the country, it was all on public display.
2. The whole issue is grossly politicized because it involves individuals from each of our two major parties running for the top office in the land. What could be a better recipe for screaming voices. Couple this with the outrage of reasonable citizens at what is going on and we have a cacophony of sound that makes shouting the norm and reflection almost absent.
3. It’s not enough to want a special prosecutor. The person who might hold that position would have to be honest, fair and rational. That’s a tough bill to fill, and if it would happen, they would be at risk for being fired as Richard Nixon did two outstanding special prosecutors.It would be helpful if the likes of Jeffrey Toobin were providing us with lists of possible jurists (or non-jurists) who could set the standard for us for what we want in that prosecutor.
4. As important is it is to have the right person as special prosecutor, we also need the right person to head the F.B.I. After all, the F.B.I. would be the provider of information to the special prosecutor, information that would be essential for investigation and possible prosecution.We know that certain names in law enforcement who have been mentioned as possible new directors would be awful, most particularly Milwaukee Sheriff David Clark, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. What we need is for the names of capable candidates to be floated for public consideration.

If it is true that progressives are more facile at dealing with factual information than conservatives, then it is incumbent upon progressives to help keep the volume down and the analysis in high gear. We may be drowned out, but at the very least, we can lead by example.

The post Could we have a little silence and reflection about the Comey thing? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Rep. Chris Stewart, a Republican from Utah made this statement on Monday at the House Intelligence Committee, “Every media organization, every political organization, every government organization that I’m familiar with last fall thought that Secretary Clinton would be the next President of the United States.” and FBI Director James Comey replied “I think the Russians agreed”. The prevailing argument among spurned liberals is that Comey thought the election was close and some bias of his caused him to send his letter to Congress days before the election, knowing that it would shift votes to Donald Trump. But Comey’s statement seems to suggest that not only were the Russians sure of an impending Clinton victory, but so was Jim Comey. If Comey didn’t think Clinton could lose, then the argument about him purposefully trying to elect Trump becomes a little dubious. So why then did he send that letter to Congress?

Jim Comey needed to appear objective, because he was building a case for prosecuting Trump associates, and after Trump had threatened to appoint prosecutors to investigate Clinton during the campaign, he understood he needed to build credibility because he’d be accused of playing revenge politics for President Clinton. Which is understandable, because he’d be leading an investigation, after a very bitter election of the would-be President’s former opponent and whether or not his campaign committed treason.

Or so he thought, but as we know Hillary Clinton won the election and Donald Trump won the presidency.

The FBI had been investigating the Trump campaign and its connections to the Russians since July, and it seems likely that at some point in the fall, the FBI discovered some fire underneath all that smoke. Through that investigation, and leaked documents from intelligence agencies, we now know some things that we might not have known otherwise.

We know that Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, had been on the payroll of several projects aiding the interests of Vladimir Putin, as recently as May of 2016.

We know that a senior policy advisor, Carter Page, has financial interests in the Russian energy sector and contacted Russian officials on more than one occasion while employed by the Trump campaign.

We know that Trump confidante Roger Stone, had contact with Julian Assange and seemed to have foreknowledge on WikiLeaks document leaks.

We know that the hackers who stole information from the DNC and distributed other classified materials with the intent of helping Trump, did so at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

We don’t know to what extent the Trump campaign was involved in the Russian interference in this election or whether President Trump knew, and if he did when did he know it.

But Comey didn’t need the leaks to know what we’ve all slowly been piecing together in the last few weeks, because as Rep. Trey Gowdy said “I would hope that you had access to everything as the head of the world’s premier law-enforcement agency…So if you had it all, the motive couldn’t have been to help you, because you already had it.”

It would seem that Comey had intelligence linking Trump associates to Russia, had intelligence that Russia was intervening on behalf of Trump, and perhaps had intelligence pointing to collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign for months. Yet, none of that was revealed to us until it was much too late.

Despite taking a very active role in the election, Comey tried his best to appear as a non-political figure with no partisan loyalties. Comey after all was a Republican when he was appointed by former President Obama, a Democrat, to his current position. Commenting on Trump would give the appearance of the FBI being a tool of a Democratic White House, and when he did comment on Clinton many observers maligned Comey as just another part of the “vast right wing conspiracy” against the Clintons.

I don’t imagine Comey wanted to comment on Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump unless he absolutely had to. The recent hearing showed a man who is deeply uncomfortable with making even the vaguest of political statements. But once it became clear, or at least most of us thought it had become clear, that Hillary Clinton was without a doubt going to become President, Comey made a judgement call. He decided that it was worth pissing off his future boss, if it meant that he’d get to see his investigation of the Trump campaign to fruition.

He’d found no criminal wrongdoing the first time he investigated Clinton, he knew that whatever files were on Anthony Weiner’s computer likely weren’t going to amount to the 18½ minutes of missing Nixon tapes. But he announced his re-opening of the investigation anyway. He probably figured that with a week left, voters had already made up their minds, and he had a sure-fire plan for saving face.

Sabotaging Hillary Clinton, in Comey’s mind, might’ve been the only way to maintain his legitimacy. Imagine if after the election, it was leaked that the FBI hid an investigation of Clinton in the final weeks of the campaign. Her presidency would be crippled, the FBI would lose the confidence of the public, he’d be removed from his post and justice would be delayed in the case of the Trump-Russia connection. Russia would intervene in 2018, 2020, or as long as they needed in order to get results. Jim Comey must’ve been cognizant of that. But Hillary lost in the biggest upset since 1948, and now Comey is in the awkward position of investigating the President of the United States of America who is much more powerful than if he were just a loser billionaire.

That’s the theory, Jim Comey was too confident in polling, tried to save America and maybe ended up handing the reins of government to a Russian puppet. There’s also the possibility that Jim Comey is just really bad at his job. Which, isn’t a total stretch of the imagination either. Whatever happened then doesn’t matter now, what matters is following the facts about Trump wherever they may lead.

And so far, they lead to the Kremlin.

The post Theory: Comey’s Pre-Election Letter Was Well Intentioned appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Having worked with high school students for the past 45 years, there are a couple of descriptors of life that involve the word “shit.” Some call it Murphy’s Law, but to students, the appellation “Shit happens” seems to have more resonance. And how better to describe the moment when then dog ate your homework than as an “Oh shit” moment.

A lot of progressives and even some Republicans are disturbed by FBI director James Comey’s letter last Friday to leaders of Congress stating that the Bureau was going to further investigate e-mails from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The reason is that they were found in an unrelated investigation.

Why did Comey send this letter at this time? After all, his one-time boss and former Attorney General Eric Holder had established a rule that investigations of political figures should not be announced within sixty days of an election, unless the circumstances were extremely unusual. The problem with Comey’s call last Friday was that he told the public just enough to say that he was further investigating e-mails, but he gave no indication of whether urgency or serious matters of national security were involved.

An even greater question is why Comey sent his letter without first running it by Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Standard protocol is for the FBI to investigate possible wrong-doing and then to recommend to the Justice Department whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant judicial review, or possibly even prosecution. The attorney-general is the director’s boss, something that J. Edgar Hoover did not recognize in his day but which subsequent directors have. What would give cause to Comey to move ahead as if he was a prosecutor without running the flag up the pole for Attorney General Lynch to see?

One explanation is that because the investigation involved Hillary Clinton, and because several months ago her husband, former President Bill Clinton, somehow positioned himself on the Attorney General’s airplane at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, perhaps Comey thought that Lynch had been compromised and could not be impartial in this investigation.

There may well have been substance to this line of thinking, but there is protocol for what to do next when such a development occurs. Rather than free-lancing it, the Director of the F.B.I. could have taken his information to top aides of Lynch who had not had personal contact with Bill Clinton. [Comey was an assistant Attorney-General in the George W. Bush administration]. They could have decided what to do next. Instead of following proper channels, Comey pulled an end run around the Justice Department and went directly to Congress.

There may indeed be circumstances in which government officials should not work within proper channels. The morality of what to do when in messy situations is never easy. But in this case, Comey was taking action without a “wing-man.” He was flying solo and the only person who could explain what he was doing was himself.

That is where it gets particularly sticky. The Director of the F.B.I. is not supposed to talk to the press about on-going investigations. So what we have here is a classic “Catch-22” situation. The Director chose to not follow established procedure and instead to take unilateral action. Perhaps it’s warranted. But how can anyone know when the Director is not allowed to, and has chosen not to, speak about the situation. In essence, the nation is being held hostage for reasons only known to the Director.

I do hope that this is an “Oh shit” moment for Director Comey. I hope that he is wishing that he had a “do-over.” From a global perspective, nothing short of the future of the United States is at stake. From a personal perspective, Comey is a man with what seemed to be an impeccable record who seems to have tarnished himself inaptly.

Perhaps if he just said, “Oh shit,” we would all understand.

The post James Comey’s “Oh shit” Moment appeared first on Occasional Planet.