Since the last Bulletin on October 7, several of Trump’s new lows arose in the course of the impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives. That saga could itself perhaps be regarded a one giant new low. There are, however, particular aspects of that process deserving of individual recognition. Those aspects, involving witness intimidation and stonewalling, are considered in Nos. 11 and 12 below. In addition, there are two significant incidents unrelated to impeachment that demanded inclusion: Trump’s blundering disregard for military discipline and his vulgar savaging of Lisa Page. Those new lows are Nos. 13 and 14.
No. 11. Witness Intimidation. The inquiry into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine spawned an extraordinary series of attempts by Trump at witness intimidation. They began with his assertion that anyone who provided information to the whistle blower was “almost a spy,” even implying that execution might be an appropriate response:
Basically, that person never saw the report, never saw the call, he never saw the call — heard something and decided that he or she, or whoever the hell they saw — they’re almost a spy, I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy.” You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.
As for the whistleblower, Trump not only issued vitriolic tweets but insisted, as his Republican enablers on Capitol Hill still do, that the whistleblower should be required to testify—a demand that has no legitimate purpose, but is calculated solely to endanger the whistleblower and to intimidate other potential whistleblowers.
Finally, one of Trump’s more blatant attempts at intimidation came when he posted a tweet attacking Ambassador Marie Yovanovich during the very moments she was testifying before the House Intelligence Committee. We may be grateful that, while Yovanovich regarded the tweet as intimidating, she had the strength of character to disregard it.
No. 12. Stonewalling Congress. While past presidents have sometimes resisted Congressional demands for information, none ever engaged in the kind of massive stonewalling that Trump has employed in the past two months. At his direction, the administration has continuously asserted extravagant and unsustainable claims of privilege to deny access to witnesses and documents. In connection with the investigation of the House Intelligence Committee into the Ukraine matter, Trump has blocked the testimony of central witnesses such as John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney and withheld reams of documents. When Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified before the Intelligence Committee, in defiance of a direction not to appear, he pointed out that attempts to refresh his recollection had been significantly hampered by the State Department’s refusal to allow him access to pertinent records.
Apart from the Ukraine investigation, Trump has blocked testimony of his former White House Counsel, Don McGahn, asserting not only executive privilege, but “absolute testimonial immunity” (a claim that was rejected by the courts on the only previous occasion it was asserted). In rejecting the current claim, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote:
Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings. This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control. Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, as citizens of the United States, current and former senior-level presidential aides have constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, and they retain these rights even after they have transitioned back into private life.
Trump has also attempted to block access to his tax returns and other financial records, attempts that have already been convincingly rejected by federal courts of appeals in the District of Columbia and in New York. In the most recent such ruling on Tuesday, upholding a subpoena on Deutsche Bank for Trump financial records, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held:
The committees’ interests in pursuing their constitutional legislative function is a far more significant public interest than whatever public interest inheres in avoiding the risk of a chief executive’s distraction arising from disclosure of documents reflecting his private financial transactions.
Whether the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority bolstered by Trump appointees Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, will come to Trump’s rescue remains to be seen. It may be that, however the Court ultimately rules on the merits, it will grant stays during litigation that will defer resolution past the election. On the other hand, as I have previously suggested, it could be that the institutional instincts of Chief Justice John Roberts will thwart the creation of the judicial moat Trump has sought to construct.
No. 13. Interference with Military Discipline. On November 15, President Trump pardoned a former Army officer serving a 19-year sentence for murdering two civilians, and another officer, accused of killing an unarmed Afghan, and he reversed the demotion of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, after a trial. According to a report in the New York Times, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy had argued that the president’s action “would undermine the military code of justice, and would serve as a bad example to other troops in the field.”
Trump’s decision to reject the advice of Esper and McCarthy appeared to be a consequence of extensive support for the accused individuals emanating from Fox News. (It is an open question as to whether Fox News is more dangerous as a shaper of public opinion or as a shaper of presidential opinion. Strong arguments can be made for both.) The announcement of Trump’s actions drew widespread criticism in the media, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. For example as reported in the Military Times, the former Marine Corps Commandant, retired Gen. Charles Krulak, released a statement asserting that the president’s actions amounted to circumventing the military legal system and that it “relinquishes the United States’ moral high ground.” As Krulak explained:
Disregard for the law undermines our national security by reducing combat effectiveness, increasing the risks to our troops, hindering cooperation with allies, alienating populations whose support the United States needs in the struggle against terrorism, and providing a propaganda tool for extremists who wish to do us harm.
It was the case of Chief Petty Officer Gallagher that would have the most dramatic repercussions. Gallagher had submitted a request to retire and the Navy established a review board to determine whether he would be allowed to retire as a Seal, retaining the Trident pin that Seal members cherish. Trump intervened with a tweet insisting that that Gallagher be allowed to retain his Trident pin. Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer, who was appalled by this and previous interventions in the case by Trump, attempted to fashion a compromise through discussions with the White House. For his pains, Spencer was then fired on the stated ground that he had failed to keep the Secretary of the Navy informed of those discussions. More fundamentally, however, the problem was Trump’s willingness to undermine principles fundamental to an institution in pursuit of his personal and political aims. As David Ignatius wrote:
Pentagon leaders are fuming about Trump’s intervention to overrule military justice. A nation that loves its military should be outraged, too. Just as Trump subverted his diplomats in Ukraine, he’s now sabotaging his admirals and generals. This must stop.
No. 14. Vulgar Savaging of Lisa Page. On December 2, Lisa Page broke her silence to respond to two years of verbal assaults by Donald Trump. Few readers will need to be reminded that Page was an FBI lawyer who, in 2016, exchanged text messages with a senior FBI counterintelligence agent, Peter Strzok, that were critical of then candidate Donald Trump. A June, 2018 report by the Department of Justice Inspector General described the messages as deeply troubling, but found no evidence that bias had affected the work of Strzok or Page.
It is hardly surprising that Trump would be angry at Strzok and Page, but in his case it became an obsession, resulting in endless references to the pair in tweets and speeches. Throughout, Trump seemed peculiarly gripped by the fact that, during the time Strzok and Page were exchanging the offending texts, they were engaged in an extramarital affair. Given Trump’s own colorful sexual history, he is about as unlikely a champion of marital fidelity as one can imagine. Nevertheless, Trump’s tweets reveal that their affair somehow struck a prurient chord in his mysterious psyche. The effect on Trump was particularly true as to Page, with Trump even bestowing on her the “official” title, “FBI Lover.” As Amber Phillips noted in the Washington Post, “Trump does not strike out at Strzok quite the same way. He has tagged Strzok as “lover,” but not nearly as frequently, according to a review of Trump’s speeches, interviews and tweets on Factba.se.” Phillips went on to point out that Trump “has a long and ugly history of attacking women and people of color he apparently feels threatened by with centuries-old stereotypes, trying to make them seem less credible.”
Trump’s attacks on Strzok and Page sank to a new and nauseating depth at a rally in Minneapolis on October 11. He took that occasion to mock them by appearing to simulate an orgasm while crying out, “I’m telling you, Peter, she’s going to win. Peter. Oh, I love you so much. I love you, Peter.” “I love you too, Lisa. Lisa, I love you. Lisa, Lisa, oh God, I love you, Lisa.” Readers who have not seen this performance, and wish to, may find it here. It was this event that finally persuaded Page that she could remain silent no longer and led her to give an interview to the Daily Beast.
In reading Page’s interview and watching the video, I was struck by the fact that I didn’t recall having previously read anything about Trump’s theatrics in Minneapolis. Going back and checking, I found there had not been much mention of the vicious portrayal of Strzok and Page. Rather, news stories on the Minneapolis rally focused on other unattractive aspects of Trump’s speech–an attack on Somali refugees In Minnesota and a crude swipe at Joe Biden: “He was never considered a good Senator. He was only a good vice president because he understood how to kiss Barack Obama’s ass.”
Reflecting on Trump’s assault on Strzok and Page, and the fact that it had gone almost unnoticed at the time, I could not help wondering what kind of country we have become. Has our culture become so coarsened that such bizarre behavior by a President is not even newsworthy? If that is so, heaven help us.