By Jon Hysell
When we first learned Russia, a leading adversary, successfully intervened in a presidential election, possibly with the collusion of the victor my first reaction was ‘this attack on American democracy is a national security issue that is much bigger than politics and parties.’ We all need to protect our way of life from outside attack.
So, Trump’s reaction to this mess has confused me from the start. As a candidate, he dismissed the informed opinions of 17 intelligence agencies as fake news. As president, he tweeted in March “…Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!” and on May 8 he tweeted “The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?”
Since he feels so strongly that the suspicions about his campaign are baseless to prove his point why isn’t he pushing for an aggressive investigation with all the resource at his disposal? Rather than try to tamp down suspicions, he has inflamed them by impeding efforts to get to the truth.
His most egregious attempt to scuttle the effort to find the truth was the precipitous May 9 decision to fire then Director of the FBI James Comey. It should be obvious to us all why there are questions and concerns about the timing and the inconsistent explanations for dumping of the man who was leading the investigation – the man who had just asked for more resources for the probe.
This move created a breath-taking conflict of interest in Trumps favor. Immediately, emotional partisans called this a Nixon-like constitutional crisis. As a moderate Democrat, I didn’t immediately see it that way. Rather, I felt the way the Department of Justice and Congress reacted to this decision would either protect us from or precipitate a Constitutional crisis.
Sadly, the answer arrived immediately. The attorney general – who has already recused himself because of his role in the Trump campaign – calmly went along. By authoring a rationale for Trump’s decision after the fact, the deputy attorney general undermined his own integrity. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said that critics should “suck it up and move one.” The Senate majority leader excused it all in a speech on the Senate floor.
If we can no longer count on an independent Justice Department or legitimate oversight from Congress, can we trust in our institutional checks necessary to constrain any president but especially this president? The fact that this question is legitimately raised should frighten reasonable people. I hope raising this question galvanizes patriots to decide how they need to act to protect our democracy.
Any president, especially Trump, needs to be restrained by Constitutional checks and balances. Without them any president, especially Trump, can easily pose a danger to our fragile democracy. Why do I say especially Trump?’ President Trump believes that that all actions can help build his brand. To me that certainty places his personal interests above the interests of our country. Yet, most everywhere I look I see obsequious Republican support even for his most outrageous positions and decisions. This seems to be a quid pro quo for power and future access to power.
Trump has made a fortune and achieved unexpected political success by viewing larger issues through the lens of how they affect him. During his campaign, Trump promised he would turn the focus from himself to the American people. Did he honor his promise? His dismissal of former FBI Director Comey answers that question. We need to ask ourselves whether he is seeking the best possible management of the FBI or is instead trying to protect himself and his campaign staff from the inquisitive eyes of investigators.
I am beginning to doubt if there is enough bipartisan will to stand up to this unfettered, self-dealing, constitutionally challenged president. If there is not, prosecutors will not be free to make decisions without interference from the White House. The search for the truth will fail. It seems Trump has nearly crushed that independence — with the willing support of the leaders of the DOJ and leaders of the majority party. For me, there remains no question that an independent counsel must be appointed to lead the examination of Russian attacks on our country.
