fb-pixelTrump’s smoking gun - The Boston Globe Skip to main content
Opinion | Michael A. Cohen

Trump’s smoking gun

Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence, according to reports.
Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence, according to reports.

Monday night, the Washington Post reported the latest piece of evidence that the president of the United States directly sought to obstruct justice and shut down the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and the Russian government.

This newest revelation may be the most damaging of all, because it is almost precisely the same thing that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation nearly 43 years ago.

The Post story claims that Trump placed two separate calls to Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence, and Adm. Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, and asked them to “publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.”

Advertisement



These calls came a day after FBI Director James Comey had testified on Capitol Hill about the ongoing investigation.

But the Post story also contained this tidbit: in addition to the calls made by Trump to Coats and Rogers, White House officials allegedly “sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of intervening directly with Comey to encourage the FBI to drop its probe of Michael Flynn.”

According to the Post, the White House’s “line of questioning,” was, “Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter?”

Rewind 43 years to June 23, 1972, and a White House meeting between Richard Nixon and Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman. In that Oval Office discussion, Haldeman proposed to Nixon to ask the CIA to lean on the FBI to shut down its investigation into the Watergate break-in. Nixon concurs with this step, adding “that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don’t go any further into this case, period!”

This was the proverbial smoking gun; clear evidence that the president and his top advisers sought to obstruct justice and stop the FBI’s investigation into the Watergate break-in from moving forward. Two days after tapes of this conversation were released, Republican leaders went to the White House and told Nixon that for the good of the country — and to avoid the personal embarrassment of impeachment — he must resign the presidency. The next day he did.

Advertisement



How this differs from what the Trump team asked of top intelligence officials is hard to discern. One can argue that Nixon and his advisers sought to obstruct justice with a bit more panache. But the criminality was the same in both cases.

If it was an isolated example of Trump seeking to obstruct justice on the Russia investigation that would be one thing — but it’s literally the fourth claim of him doing just that.

We have the alleged Comey memos in which the former FBI director is said to have memorialized Trump’s Oval Office entreaty, “I hope you can let this go,” in regard to the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.

There’s the report that broke late last week — which the White House has not denied — of Trump telling the Russian foreign minister and Russian ambassador to the United States, “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Finally, there are Trump’s own comments in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt when he said that he decided to fire Comey after saying to himself, “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.”

Advertisement



What more evidence could possibly be needed that Trump has committed a high crime and misdemeanor? Whether the White House knew that it was breaking the law by trying to interfere in a criminal investigation or if the president is too clueless to understand what obstruction of justice means, it makes little difference. Either offense is disqualifying — or at least should be — for any president.

In non-bizarro America, there’d be little question of what would come next — articles of impeachment being introduced in the House of Representatives. But since we’re all currently residing in bizarro America, it’s just another news story about presidential abuse of power and obstructing justice . . . one that will hold us over until the next story about presidential abuse of power and obstructing justice.


Michael A. Cohen’s column appears regularly in the Globe. Follow him on Twitter @speechboy71.