Inside Trump's White House

by Doug Wead

  One of the memos regarded a West Wing meeting in February 2017. Comey said that President Trump had asked him to stay in the Oval Office alone. The president wanted to talk about Michael Flynn, who had served as national security adviser to President Trump.

  Comey claims the president said, “He is a good guy, he has been through a lot.” Flynn had been fired for misleading Vice President Pence about private phone conversations with the Russian ambassador. The vice president had looked bad, innocently defending Flynn. The national security adviser had to go.

  According to Comey, President Trump said, “I hope you can find your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”14

  MICHAEL FLYNN: A CASUALTY OF A POLITICAL WAR

  Lieutenant General Michael Flynn had a distinguished career and a rocky relationship with the Obama administration. He had served in command positions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Early in Obama’s second term, Flynn had risen to head the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It was the Pentagon’s chief intelligence agency, tasked with collecting information and analyzing the military capabilities of other nations. Heading the DIA is one of the highest positions in the US government’s intelligence community.

  Flynn disagreed with the Obama White House. Obama’s national security team and others in the intelligence community felt that the death of Osama bin Laden signaled the end of the radical Islamic terror threat. Flynn was seeing the reports of the rise of ISIS and disagreed with the “cut off their head and they will die” strategy. Flynn believed America was fighting against an ideology, not an individual leader. When President Obama called ISIS the “JV team,” Flynn said it was a mistake.

  In 2014 Michael Flynn was asked to resign from the DIA. Reports were that Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, was behind pushing Flynn out.15 Flynn became a vocal critic of Obama’s foreign policy. In the fall of 2016, in the middle of the presidential race, Flynn was one of the few former national security officials to openly support Donald Trump. He gave a speech at the Republican National Convention.16

  Michael Flynn had also crossed swords with James Comey’s FBI. Flynn had picked up the cause of Robyn Gritz, a former FBI agent with fifteen years of counterterrorism experience. She had filed a lawsuit claiming that the FBI had discriminated against her because she was a woman. Several other women agents made the same claims to Congress that male agents were given preference at the FBI. Gritz claims that the FBI ran her out of her job and revoked her security clearance for minor time card violations. Flynn publicly praised and defended Gritz: “She was one of the really, to me, bright lights … she was really a real pro.”17 It was a poke in the eye of Comey’s FBI team.

  During the presidential transition in late 2016, Flynn spoke by telephone with Russia’s ambassador to the US. The subject of US sanctions placed on Russia by the Obama administration after the election was discussed. The Department of Justice, still staffed by Obama appointees, claimed Flynn had possibly violated the Logan Act.

  The Logan Act, passed into law in 1799, was meant to prevent private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments against official US diplomatic positions. In over two hundred years, no one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act, probably because there are First Amendment questions with the law.

  In any case, General Flynn was not acting as a private citizen in the phone calls with the Russian ambassador. He was part of the presidentelect’s transition team. It is standard for transition officials to interact with officials of foreign governments. It had occurred in some degree or another under every modern presidency. There was no Logan Act violation.18

  Nonetheless, on January 24, 2017, four days into the Trump administration, Comey had two FBI agents visit Flynn at the White House to ask him about those phone calls.19 One of those FBI agents was Peter Strzok, the married man whose mistress and fellow FBI colleague, Lisa Page, had asked him for assurance that Donald Trump would never be president. Strzok was the agent who had written to Page that he had just gone to a southern Virginia Walmart where he could “SMELL the Trump support.”20 Strzok had cryptically corresponded with Page about an “insurance policy” to guarantee that Trump would be taken out.

  Under normal circumstances, if the FBI wanted to interview a member of the president’s staff, it would notify the White House Counsel’s office. The White House would have had a lawyer present. Flynn was assured that he did not need a lawyer and so met alone with the agents.21

  Comey now claims that Flynn lied about the content of those phone calls.22 Congressional testimony by Strzok indicates that at the time he did not feel Flynn had deliberately lied to them. Lying to the FBI is a federal offense. It was on the lying charges that Flynn was later indicted and pled guilty.23 At the time of this writing, there is a chance that Flynn may change his plea, since his attorneys were not given the potentially exculpatory evidence of what the FBI agents at the meeting felt at the time, including their belief that Flynn had not deliberately lied.

  THE REVENGE OF THE FBI

  FBI director James Comey had written a memo about his January 2017 Oval Office conversation with the president. They had discussed Michael Flynn; the president said he hoped that Comey could go easy on the war hero. Comey had carefully shared his memo with others at the FBI. He made two copies: one kept in the FBI files, and one kept at home. After he was fired, Comey no longer had access to the FBI files. He sent one copy of the memo to a friend of his, a law professor at Columbia University, and asked him to “share the substance of the memo—but not the memo itself—with a reporter.” This was done on Tuesday, May 16, 2017.

  Just as Comey later said was his intention, the strategic leak of the memo triggered the special counsel investigation into all things Trump, including, eventually, the whole false saga of Russian collusion.

  Here’s how Comey later explained it: “I decided that I would prompt a media story by revealing the president’s February 14 direction that I drop the Flynn investigation. This might force the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor.”24

  Just as Comey hoped, Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI, was appointed as a special counsel, and the Mueller investigation began. They were coming after Donald Trump and they were going to take him out.

  Usually, an investigation into public officials is overseen by the attorney general of the United States. That is why Obama’s attorney general Loretta Lynch had oversight of the “Midyear Exam” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

  Why was a special counsel needed in the investigation of Donald Trump? Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions, formerly a Republican senator from Alabama and an early Trump supporter, had recused himself from all matters regarding the Trump campaign and Russia.

  The president felt blindsided by Sessions. “He should not have recused himself almost immediately after he took office,” the president said at a Rose Garden event. “And if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office, and I would have quite simply picked somebody else.”25

  The newly announced special counsel, Robert Mueller, James Comey’s longtime colleague and friend, promptly began to assemble his team.

  The media quickly dubbed it the “Dream Team”26 or the “All-Stars,”27 terms usually reserved for sports. Andrew Weissmann was singled out for praise as part of the Enron corporate corruption task force.28 Many articles failed to mention that several of the Enron convictions were overturned by the US Supreme Court for incorrectly applying the law. Weissmann went on to become general counsel of the FBI under Robert Mueller and later a law school professor in New York City.29

  Other members of Mueller’s team were clearly partisan and did not inspire confidence. Thirteen of the seventeen attorneys were registered Democrats. One of them, Jeannie Rhee, had been on Hillary Clinton’s legal team, for lawsuits related to her email scandal. Rhee had also represented the Clinton Foundation. Many had donated to Demo
cratic campaigns, and Andrew Weissmann had attended the 2016 Clinton Election Night party at the Javits Center.30 Mueller also hired Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who served until their text messages came out during an FBI inspector general investigation. They were quietly moved to other jobs at the FBI.

  In a very sensitive and politically charged investigation, one would think Mueller would have made every effort to form a team that would, at least, appear unbiased. It does not seem that was important to Mueller.

  Donald Trump would pay a big price for firing James Comey. The revenge of the former FBI director would be costly, not only to the president, but to the nation.

  CNN STRIKES BACK

  For twenty-two months, including over the stretch of the midterm elections when Democrats took back the majority in the US House of Representatives, new “revelations” would surface. Each was greeted by the media as the impending end of the Trump presidency. Time after time, the stories would prove to be untrue.

  On December 9, 2017, for example, CNN offered a breathless, sensational report declaring that during the 2016 presidential campaign Donald Trump Jr. had been sent an email giving him access to the WikiLeaks emails stolen from the Clinton camp. This, before they had gone public. Had the Russians helped it along?

  As the journalist Glenn Greenwald later wrote in The Intercept, “Within an hour, MSNBC’s Ken Dilanian, using a tone somehow even more unhinged, purported to have ‘independently confirmed’ this mammoth, blockbuster scoop.”31

  After agitated, hyperventilating news anchors expounded on this crime for hours it was finally learned that the timeline on the purported email did not match the reported claim. The email was sent to Donald Jr. days after the same information had been made available to the general public.32

  According to Greenwald, “CNN and MSNBC deleted most traces of the most humiliating story from the internet, including demanding that YouTube remove copies of their own telecast.”33

  Another story held that Anthony Scaramucci, a one-time Trump ally and a short-lived director of communications for the president, was reportedly under investigation for ties to an entity called the Russia Direct Investment Fund. Surely this showed Trump-Russian collusion! It was also fake news. The next day CNN apologized to Scaramucci. Three CNN journalists were forced to resign.34

  The Guardian reported that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, had been visited by Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort at the Ecuadoran embassy in London, where Assange had lived since seeking asylum there in 2012. They had met not just once, according to the news source, but three times! Numerous media sites picked up this news. Surely this was proof of collusion. But this story was also false. Assange was being watched by British law enforcement and multiple worldwide intelligence agencies. There was no Manafort connection. The Guardian never followed up on the story and did not answer requests asking from where it had come in the first place.35

  Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, would testify that Donald Trump knew in advance about the infamous “Trump Tower meeting.” A meeting that had been asked for by a Russian attorney during the election. Supposedly she would give the Trump campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton from Russian sources. Campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump Jr. had met her in Trump Tower. She talked about an entirely separate issue—Kushner even texted his assistant asking her to get him out of the meeting because it was a waste of time. President Trump had long said that he knew nothing about the meeting.

  The Cohen story was also incorrect. Michael Cohen would testify that Donald Trump did not know about the meeting in advance. The source of the story had been Lanny Davis, Cohen’s attorney and a defender of Bill Clinton during his impeachment. Compounding the error, CNN denied that Davis was their source for the bad information. Davis later confirmed that he had indeed, been CNN’s source.36

  Despite all of these false reports, or perhaps because of them, Robert Mueller was raised to the level of mythic hero. A hero who could slay the dragon. Roman Catholics use votive candles with images of various saints during times of devotion and prayer. Votive candles with the image of Robert Mueller were marketed online.37 Saint Robert would slay the Trump dragon!

  The December 1, 2018, Christmas episode of Saturday Night Live featured the women of the cast singing a parody of “All I Want for Christmas Is You.” With a picture of Robert Mueller in a Santa cap descending behind them, the ladies sang that they just want one thing for Christmas: “Mueller please come through / because the only option is a coup.”38

  DEMOCRATIC EXPECTATIONS

  As the top Democrat and current chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Representative Adam Schiff of California had been the point man for the Democrats throughout the investigation. In December 2017, he appeared on CNN’s State of the Union.

  “The Russians offered help,” Schiff said of the Trump team. “The campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not,” Schiff said. “Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, will be Mueller’s question to answer.”39

  A year later Schiff’s confidence had grown incrementally. “There’s clear evidence on the issue of collusion,” he said in a CNN interview on January 10, 2019. “But whether it amounts to conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, I think, we still have to wait for Bob Mueller’s work.”40

  On November 17, 2018, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal told MSNBC host Chris Hayes, “The evidence is pretty clear that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” Hayes asked if it really was that clear. “The evidence is there,” Blumenthal insisted. “Whether they have enough of it to bring criminal charges is another issue.”41

  A few days before Mueller delivered his report, the Connecticut Democratic senator delivered an ominous prediction. “There are indictments in this president’s future,” Blumenthal told MSNBC. “They’re coming. Whether they’re after his presidency or during it.”

  CNN interviewed Representative Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York and the House Judiciary Committee chairman, on November 30, 2018. Nadler saw collusion. “The fact that Manafort and Trump Jr. met with Russian agents who told them they wanted to give them dirt on Hillary as part of the Russian government’s attempt to help them, and that they said fine,” Nadler said. “I mean, it’s clear that the campaign colluded, and there’s a lot of evidence of that. The question is, was the president involved?”

  From the beginning, one of the strongest Democratic Party voices for impeachment had been that of Representative Maxine Waters of California. At a town hall meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation in Washington, Waters urged activists to press for impeachment. “Here you have a president,” Waters said, “who I can tell you, I guarantee you, is in collusion with the Russians to undermine our democracy. Here you have a president who has obstructed justice and here you have a president that lies every day.”42

  With the Mueller report pending, there was a bandwagon of expectations developing. A Newsweek headline declared “Why Donald Trump Jr. Will Be Indicted by Mueller … And Will Help to Ensnare His Father.”43

  Lanny Davis, the former Clinton lawyer and counsel for Michael Cohen, was publicly promoting the same idea. “I do suggest, respectfully, that Donald Jr., based upon signing a hush money check for his father—out of a trust fund, by the way, that was set up to prevent any money being spent that would help Donald Trump while he was president—out of that trust fund is where the Donald Jr. check was written, that is a crime.”44

  Meanwhile, Natasha Bertrand, a journalist for The Atlantic, insisted that Donald Trump Jr. was privately telling friends that it was going to happen. She made her remark following an appearance on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. It happened during an online-only segment aired live on YouTube after the show.45

  “I think that Don Jr. is probably in more immediate jeopardy,
” said Ms. Bertrand. “He has been telling his friends and associates that he expects to be indicted, and he’s been saying that for the last couple months.”46

  I was interviewing Donald Trump Jr. during this time and asked him about reports that he feared indictment. Was he worried? He laughed and rolled his eyes. “Well, why don’t you refute it?” I asked.

  “We did. We said it was one hundred percent false. Do you think anybody wants to hear that?”

  I eventually found a story with Don’s refutation. “A spokesman for Mr. Trump, 41, disputed the reporter’s comments.”47 But the insistent perception of the American national media and their allies in the Democratic Party was that Don Trump Jr. was headed to prison.

  THE MUELLER REPORT LANDS WITH A THUD

  Finally, on March 24, 2019, twenty-two months after beginning, the Mueller investigation issued its report. The investigation had lasted three months longer than the entire Trump presidential campaign they were examining. Reports on its cost varied and depended on the bookkeeping methods, but a Washington Post story showed expenditures of $16.7 million in its first ten months alone.48

  The report read, “The investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”49

  There were no new indictments.

  A prosecutor who can supposedly indict a ham sandwich couldn’t find anything on Donald Trump.

  A headline in the New York Times proclaimed, “A Cloud over Trump’s Presidency Is Lifted.”50 Two CNN personalities admitted on air that Trump “had been vindicated.”51 But this burst of fairness wouldn’t last long. Soon enough, the media would be back with new outrage, but the fact that it would be reported at all was stunning.