DOSTOEVSKY, TRUMP AND "THE RUSSIA THING"
In his opinion piece yesterday, EugeneRobinson introduces a telling concept: “’the consciousness of guilt’ – that he was acting in a way no innocent person would act.” (“Trump seems to be staging a coverup. So what’s the crime?” WaPo May 11, 2017) This notion put me in mind of Dostoevsky’s epic exploration of guilty behavior in “TheBrothers Karamazov” in the person of Smerdyakov, the murderer of the Karamazov paterfamilias. Smerdyakov is caught offguard by the intensity of guilt he experiences following the murder. Thinking he could simply put the act behind him, a distraught Smerdyakov finds himself unable to stop gruesome images of the crime from haunting his consciousness, eventually driving him to suicide.
Trump seems to be similarly haunted by “this Russia thing.” Despite abundant smoke, Trump has repeatedly denied the existence of fire in his relations with the Russians. Perhaps he can be excused from “protesting too much,” given the persistence of the press in bringing up the subject. But what is telling are the instances when, without prompting by the press, Trump linked “this Russia thing” to the firing of FBI Director Comey.
The Trump administration initially took pains to exclude the FBI’s Russia investigation as an underlying cause for Comey’s dismissal when Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered Comey’s controversial handling of the Clinton e-mail server investigation as the implausible pretext for firing him. However, even as he cited Rosenstein’s rationale in his letter dismissing Comey, like Smerdyakov haunted by his crime, Trump could not resist including mention of the Russian investigation in a calculated non-sequitur: “I greatly appreciate your informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.” This seems to be a transparent attempt to forestall any inference of a connection between the Russian investigation and Comey’s dismissal. Such a connection would raise the question of “obstruction of justice” as a motive for the dismissal. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense, as cited in the articles of impeachment for both presidents Nixon and Clinton.
Exhibiting an almost childlike propensity for free association, in his interview yesterday with NBC’s Lester Holt, Trump again linked “the Russia thing” to Comey’s dismissal: “I had already decided to fire Comey. . . And in fact, when I decided to do it, I think to myself, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost the election.” Ooops. In one fell swoop Trump contradicts the Rosenstein narrative and raises the question of obstruction of justice.
Trump then goes on to describe the three occasions on which he alleges Comey told him he was not being investigated – once over dinner, and twice during telephone calls, one initiated by Trump and the other by Comey, according to Trump. His description of these events only deepens the inference of a guilty conscience prompting his actions. The first occasion was during a dinner requested by Comey, according to Trump. “He wanted to stay on as the FBI head, and I said, we’ll consider, we’ll see what happens, but we had a very nice dinner, and at that time he told me, ‘You are not under investigation.” This account is flatly contradicted by the New York Times (“In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.”)
The Times states: “Only seven days after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as president, James B. Comey has told associates, the FBI director was summoned to the White House for a one-on-one dinner with the new commander-in-chief. . . The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him. Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense. . . . By Mr. Comey’s account, his answer to Mr. Trump’s initial question apparently did not satisfy the president, the associates said. Later in the dinner, Mr. Trump again said to Mr. Comey that he needed his loyalty. Mr. Comey again replied that he would give him “honesty” and did not pledge his loyalty, according to the account of the conversation. . . . A White House spokeswoman on Thursday disputed the description of the dinner by Mr. Comey’s associates,” The Times concludes. Unfortunately, like “the boy who cried wolf,” the White House protestations lack credibility.
Describing one of the two telephone conversations, Mr. Trump says he asked Comey, (with uncharacteristic deference): “I said, ‘If it’s possible, will you let me know am I under investigation?” He said, ‘You are not under investigation.’”
This fixation on the FBI investigation – Trump’s repeated dismissing of U.S. intelligence reports of Russian interference in the 2016 election, the firing of Deputy AG Sally Yates and U.S. Attorney Preet Baharara, his persistent inquiries of whether he was under investigation, the alleged demand for Comey’s “loyalty,” the casual mention of “the Russia thing” as he made up his mind to fire Comey and the very act of firing Comey to expedite the prompt conclusion of the investigation – all bring to mind Dostoevsky’s description of the unwanted intrusion of thoughts of the crime and the desire to end their torment in Smerdyakov’s guilt-ridden conscience.
The picture of Trump now taking shape in my mind, at least, is one of a blindly ambitious, self-absorbed, childlike, insecure man, unaware of his limitations and the complexities of his office, suddenly finding himself in over his head and hounded by the press over an issue weighing on his conscience and threatening to destroy his presidency. While I reject everything Trump stands for, nonetheless, I’m starting to feel sorry for him.