Ex-FBI director James Comey's testimony is critical in determining whether President Trump tried to obstruct justice, a former US federal prosecutor tells DW. Comey is testifying before the Senate.
On Thursday, all eyes and ears in Washington will be on these twoImage: Reuters/J. Lo Scalzo/G. Cameron
Advertisement
DW: In the ongoing Trump-Comey-Russia saga, how important is former FBI director James Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee?
A look back at must-see-TV congressional hearings
Viewing parties and even drinking games were expected during ex-FBI head James Comey's testimony before a US Senate committee. It's not the first time a congressional hearing proved worthy of prime time TV.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Images/S. Applewhite
A hearing made for TV
Former FBI head James Comey is expected to testify before the US Senate Intelligence Committee and provide details on his conversations with US President Donald Trump. The president reportedly pressured Comey to "let go" of an investigation into presidential adviser Michael Flynn and requested the FBI chief's loyalty. It's not the first time millions gathered to watch live testimony.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Images/S. Applewhite
'Have you no sense of decency?'
In 1954, millions of Americans watched the Army-McCarthy congressional hearings - the first to be nationally televised. Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy (above), a strident anti-communist, faced accusations of having sought preferential treatment. A lawyer famously asked the belligerent McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency?" McCarthy's popularity plummeted as a result of the hearings.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Photo/W.J. Smith
Miltary brass tops daytime soaps
American broadcasters ABC, NBC and CBS carried the 1987 congressional testimony of Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, in which he detailed his role in the Iran-Contra affair. NBC estimated 55 million viewers watched North admit to having lied about the illegal sale of arms to Iran to finance Nicaraguan rebels. The broadcast attracted five times as many viewers as the popular "General Hospital."
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
Two weeks of Watergate
The US was riveted to the two-week-long broadcast of the May 1973 Watergate hearings. A Senate team led by Sam Ervin (far right) grilled administration members on then-President Nixon's role in the break-in and cover-up at the Watergate hotel. A poll reported 71 percent of Americans watched the hearings live, with 21 percent watching for 10 hours or more. Nixon's support subsequently tanked.
Sexual harassment allegations during Supreme Court nomination
During the 1991 confirmation hearings for then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, attorney Anita Hill gave hours of testimony that her former boss at the Department of Education had sexually harassed her. Thomas denied all allegations and was eventually confirmed in a 52-48 vote. The hearing's live broadcast - watched by millions - helped bring workplace sexual harassment into public debate.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/A. Sachs
Cigarettes are not addictive but...
...I wouldn't want my kids to smoke them. That was the view of seven tobacco executives who testified before a House committee in 1994 related to tobacco regulation. The hearing was televised by CNN and drew an overflow audience to the hearing's location in the Rayburn office building. The testimony marked a significant shift in the American public's perception of the health risk of smoking.
Image: picture alliance/AP Images
Clinton's impeachment - not a TV hit
The House voted on December 19, 1998, to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying under oath and obstructing justice in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Clinton was acquitted after a 21-day trial followed in the Senate. But the Pew Research Center reported that a mere 15 percent of Americans watched segments of the proceedings.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/C-Span/AFP
Eleven hours and 4 million viewers
In October 2015, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Select Committee on the deadly 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. It was the second time she faced Capitol Hill questioning on the subject. Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN all broadcast the hearing, with a reported 4 million viewers tuning in to those channels during the 11 hours of proceedings.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa
8 images1 | 8
Alex Whiting: His testimony will be critical. Because the question of whether President Trump committed obstruction of justice in his interactions with Comey will turn on the details of what Trump said to Comey exactly and the context and circumstances under which those conversations took place. The details of all of that will be critical to making an assessment of whether Trump violated the law because to make that determination you have to look to see whether Trump did something to try to impede the investigation, but also what his intent was.
The law requires that you show that he had a corrupt or improper intent, meaning that he wasn't dismissing Comey because he thought Comey was doing a bad job for example, but dismissing Comey in order to stop the investigation. Making those assessments requires a very detailed and careful analysis of all of the circumstances of the interactions. And that's why Comey's testimony, in which he is expected to give detail about those interactions, will be critical to an assessment.
Probably the most anticipated question is whether Comey will publicly confirm what has been reported, namely that President Trump asked him to end the FBI's investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's ties to Russia. What do you think Comey will say on this issue?
Harvard law professor Alex WhitingImage: Harvard University
I don't want to speculate about what he might say. But given the detail of the information that has already come out about Comey's version of that conversation and the fact that Comey apparently wrote a memo about that conversation that was apparently read to reporters who wrote about the conversation I would imagine that the testimony will track the line of that previous information, but provide more detail. You are right, that conversation, based on what we know so far, looks to be the critical conversation. But even there, it is going to be important to get more detail about what exactly Trump said and how he said it and how Comey understood the words.
Some people are suggesting that perhaps Trump was just trying to put a good word in for Flynn and not obstruct the investigation, but try to in a way assist the investigation. Most people don't read the conversation the way it has been described. It looks instead rather than an effort to end the investigation, but making the determination between those various possibilities what Trump was doing and what he intended to do will require more detail about the words he used.
Who is James Comey?
From endorsing enhanced interrogation to investigating Russia's alleged election-tampering, the ex-FBI director has contributed to the divisive political landscape in the US. DW examines the man behind the headlines.
Image: Getty Images
A divisive figure
The seventh in a lineage of FBI directors with law degrees, James Comey has shaped politics in the US as the head of the law enforcement agency. But who is the man behind the headlines? From prosecuting an American celebrity to refusing to sanction the NSA's mass surveillance program, DW explores the contentious life of James Comey.
Image: Getty Images
Taking down a celebrity
Serving as Manhattan's chief federal prosecutor, Comey rose to notoriety in 2002, when he led the prosecution of US celebrity Martha Stewart for securities fraud and obstruction of justice. Stewart, widely known in the US for her cooking and lifestyle shows, served a 5-month jail sentence following the highly-publicized case.
Image: picture-alliance/epa/J. Lane
Enhanced interrogation
In late 2003, Comey was confirmed as the US deputy attorney general, making him the second-highest-ranking official in the Justice Department. Serving under former President George W. Bush, Comey endorsed a memorandum approving the use of 13 enhanced interrogation techniques during the War on Terror, including waterboarding. He later said he lobbied to have the policy toned down.
Image: Getty Images/J. Moore
Mass surveillance
Comey has warned of the consequences of domestic mass surveillance, saying in March: "There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America." While serving as acting attorney general during the hospitalization of John Ashcroft in 2004, he refused to endorse the legality of the NSA's domestic surveillance program, even when pressured by the Bush administration.
Image: picture alliance/zb/A. Engelhardt
Obama's choice
In 2013, then-President Barack Obama nominated Comey to serve as the seventh director of the FBI. He received the nomination despite being a registered member of the Republican party. Later that year, he received congressional approval to takeover the office. In his installation speech, he said the bureau's work is founded on integrity. "Without integrity, all is lost," he said.
Image: Reuters
More Holocaust education
In 2015, Comey penned an op-ed on why he required new FBI special agents and intelligence analysts to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington. He said the reason was to have them understand the consequences of abusing power and to be confronted by the atrocities humans are capable of. "I believe that the Holocaust is the most significant event in human history," he said.
In July 2016, Comey announced that the FBI had found no evidence of criminal intention in Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as state secretary. But days before the presidential election, he issued a letter to lawmakers informing them of new emails deemed "pertinent to the investigation." He later said no evidence was uncovered. Clinton has since blamed Comey for losing the election.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Images/M. Altaffer
'You're fired'
On May 9, Trump sent Comey an unusual letter firing the FBI director, cutting short his 10-year mandate to lead the bureau. Given the ongoing FBI-led investigation into election-meddling by Russia, critics have warned that the move may amount to obstruction of justice for undermining the probe. Trump later appeared to threaten Comey over the existence of "tapes" of their conversations.
Image: Getty Images/A. Harrer
Trump-Russia nexus
Comey reportedly kept memos of interactions between him and President Donald Trump, which appear to implicate the head of state in attempts to obstruct a federal probe into Russia's alleged involvement in influencing the 2016 election. The day after US media reported on the existence of the memos, the Justice Department named a special counsel to lead the probe amid fears of White House influence.
Image: picture alliance/dpa/A. Shcherbak
Damning testimony?
In June 2017, shortly after being fired, Comey testified in Congress that he believed Trump fired him over the Russia probe. "I was fired in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change, the way the Russia investigation was being conducted," he told lawmakers. He has since released a book, in which he described Trump as a "mafia boss" who is "untethered to the truth."
Image: Reuters/K. Lamarque
10 images1 | 10
Do you expect Comey to directly accuse President Trump in any way or do you believe he will perhaps be more careful because there is also an ongoing FBI investigation headed by the new special counsel Robert Mueller and they had both reportedly talked before Comey agreed to testify?
I would not expect Comey to accuse President Trump of anything. I don't think Comey would think this is his job.
As you said there is now a special counsel who is investigating all of this and there are also investigations being conducted by Congressional committees. Comey will understand that his role at the Senate Intelligence hearing will simply be to provide information and not to make accusations.
Do you believe that there actually is something that Comey could say that would trigger an impeachment process, which is of course a political, not a legal process?
Even at this stage it is hard to imagine that we are moving toward impeachment in part because, as you say, impeachment is a political process and the Republicans still control the Congress. Impeachment is a dramatic event which is enormously disruptive to the American political system and it is not an outcome that anybody would push toward lightly. I think we are still not near impeachment. However, if Comey provides clear evidence which shows efforts by the president to obstruct or impede his investigation that will certainly add to the momentum towards political consequences.
Do you think this will be a largely partisan hearing where Democrats will try to go after the president and Republicans will try to go after Comey or do you expect a bipartisan line of questioning?
I think it will be a little bit of both. It's a political body that's polarized and has considerable division, so there will be moments of politicization and Democrats who are looking to take advantage and Republicans who are looking to damage Comey's credibility for political reasons. However, I think there will be a bipartisan center here because first Comey is a widely respected figure in Congress and I think he will be taken seriously and secondly because obstruction of justice allegations are serious and will not be taken lightly. I think there will be considerable bipartisan effort to try to get to the bottom of what happened.
What should people around the world who are not necessarily familiar with this whole process pay attention to in the Comey hearing?
The key thing here will be if Comey says that his interpretation of Trump's words either in the conversation that occurred regarding the dropping of the Flynn investigation or any other conversation that he reveals was that Trump was asking him to stop the investigation. That will be critical. If Comey understood the words that way that carries an enormous amount of weight and that would be significant evidence of an attempt to obstruct justice. Ultimately, if there is one thing to look for that is; how did Comey understand what was being said to him.
What would the consequences be if Comey would say exactly that in the hearing?
First, this would be politically very damaging for the president even if it doesn't ultimately reach impeachment. It would be an enormous blow and would undermine his legitimacy. Secondly, it would certainly add to the momentum for there to be consideration of impeachment. Obstruction of justice and interference with the justice process in the United States is a very, very serious allegation.
Alex Whiting is a former US federal prosecutor and a former lead prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where he was in charge of several high-profile cases. He is currently a law professor of practice at Harvard University.
