Psyched to read “Donald Trump v. The United States” by my colleague @nytmike - now out!
Here are three interesting nuggets from my colleague @nytmike’s book which I haven't seen people picking up on yet elsewhere. (There's a lot more than these; anyone interested in this stuff should definitely get this book!)
1. When Comey in 2007 told the Senate & the public about the dramatic “Stellarwind" fight in Ashcroft’s hospital room 3 years earlier, he had been fighting stage 3 colon cancer and believed he would die soon and that hearing would be the last time he would testify publicly. 96-99
Thoughts: Comey's expansive public discussion violated norms for a law enforcement official but led Obama to make him FBI director. Perhaps a Greek tragedy here: did that experience fuel the norm-busting Clinton email presser, which arguably wrecked his legacy as director?
2. When Trump flirted with pulling Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination bc the judge mildly criticized his attack on a “so-called” judge for ruling against his travel ban, McGahn drafted a resignation letter. McGahn gave Gorsuch the letter as a memento after his confirmation. 154
Thoughts: That was VERY early on. McGahn’s hire-wire act to keep his job (& avoid legal trouble) so he could keep filling the courts with Federalist Society-style judges made him both the architect of Trump's clearest achievement & Mueller’s most important obstruction witness.
3. After NYT reported in March 2017 that Comey had asked DOJ to make a statement denying Trump’s false accusation that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower but DOJ refused, Sessions assigned Durham to open a leak investigation into Comey & had his own office, not the DAG, oversee it. 169
Thoughts: So John Durham (then just an AUSA whom Trump later made US attorney) has been carrying out politically-tinged investigations of FBI officials for Trump’s attorney generals from almost the start – not just Barr’s current investigation of the Russia investigators.
Parting thought: This book makes clear that McGahn’s lawyer William Burck is a very interesting guy and has been a big behind-the-scenes orchestrator of events. But there’s not just one nugget that shows that – you’ll need to read the book to appreciate it.
Oh one other parting thought: I've seen some people criticizing Mike for hoarding these kinds of nuggets in his book, rather than printing them months ago in the NYT. This line of criticism I think misses something I learned while writing two Washington books myself: /1
This presupposes there is a choice. But often you only learn things because you are researching for a book. People are more willing to talk for books because it seems more like history, and what they disclose will come out months or years later rather than the next morning. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The declassified Durham report annex shows the special counsel set out to prove the ‘Clinton Plan’ emails were real but decided they were fakes made by Russian spies.
It's amazing to see people talking about those "emails" as if they were real. Can people read?
Next in our reported-out 2025 Trump policy stakes series went up this a.m. and will be Sunday NYT front: the prospect of withdrawing the USA from or gutting NATO, abandoning Ukraine and a retreat from Europe. w/ @jonathanvswan & @maggieNYT
Gift link: nyti.ms/3uSNafa
We've been working on this series for 6 months & have been gratified lately to see others start to join in the conversation. We have been determined to stay grounded in what Trump & his truly close advisers have said & to add substantive reporting. Gift links to other chapters:/2
June 15: Trump plans to use the Justice Department as an instrument of vengeance against his adversaries, ending of the post-Watergate norm of DOJ investigative independence from the White House political control./3 nyti.ms/47RfJrQ
Seeing folks portraying it as a problem or gotcha that Garland appointed Weiss – a sitting US attorney – special counsel even though a 1999 regulation for special counsels has a provision that envisions them being appointed from outside government. Here's an explanation. /1
Takeaway up front: that part of the reg hasn't been understood to impose a controlling limit. It’s a tell that a commentator is not a credible & good-faith source of info if he doesn’t mention that Durham was *also* a sitting US attorney when Barr made him special counsel. /2
An attorney general’s legal authority to appoint someone to run a special investigation doesn’t come from the regulation. It comes from statutes enacted by Congress. Those laws don’t say that appointee has to come from outside government. /3
It occurred to me that one of the dishonest things about @marcthiessen’s column that I pointed out yesterday was actually even more egregious and is another affirmative factual error (a charitable word choice) that the WP should correct./15
When he backed his criticism of the FBI's decision to open a full investigation by misleadingly citing a passage about warrant renewal applications, Thiessen inserted "[the Trump campaign]” into a quote from the report. In context, "the target" instead meant Carter Page./16
Ironically, this comes in the same graph that falsely says the FBI presented a doctored email to the FISA court as evidence. That's wrong–it was not shown to the court–but Thiessen himself demonstrably presented a falsely doctored Durham report quote to WP readers as evidence./17
.@marcthiessen wrote a shoddy Washington Post column using as a foil the headline of my piece yesterday assessing how the Durham inquiry fell flat after years of political hype. (He didn’t engage with its substance, of course.) A dissection follows. /1 washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/…
As an initial matter, Thiessen got his start at a lobbying firm that included two named partners – Paul Manafort and Roger Stone – who were convicted of felonies in the Russia investigation & pardoned by Trump. He does not disclose that conflict to the WP’s readers. /2
Thiessen opens by insinuating that I am downplaying Durham bc I'm implicated in (his tendentious portrayal of) the media’s Trump-Russia coverage. Aside from whether he is accurately describing Mueller's complex findings, I wasn't part of the NYT’s Trump-Russia coverage team./3