Saturday, May 13, 2017

Comey, chaos … crisis? Trump enters new territory after most explosive week yet - Guardian

Comey, chaos … crisis? Trump enters new territory after most explosive week yet

Ill met by moonlight, a dozen reporters and cameramen peered into the darkness. Where was Sean Spicer? The press secretary had given a TV interview at 9pm then disappeared behind an awning, apparently conferring with colleagues. Journalists waited on the drive. The White House glowed behind them. “This is so weird,” one said. “It’s like hunting a dog and then killing it.”

A couple of minutes later Spicer emerged on a path running along a fence and hedgerow. He was caught in a blinding light and asked the cameramen to turn it off. “Relax, enjoy the night, have a glass of wine,” he said jocularly. Spicer then spent 12 minutes trying to explain why Donald Trump had taken the most explosive decision of his young presidency: axing the director of the FBI.

But the rationale that Spicer presented – that Trump had been acting on the recommendation of the attorney general and his deputy – was shredded by the president himself two days later. He had already decided that James Comey must go regardless of the recommendation, Trump said, because he was a “grandstander” and “showboat”.

The man who sealed his fame by telling reality TV show contestants “You’re fired!” had now done it to America’s top law enforcement official, creating a public relations catastrophe. Comey was only the second FBI director to be dismissed. Not since Richard Nixon had a US president fired the person leading an investigation bearing on himself.


Trump threatens ex-FBI head Comey with possible 'tapes' of conversations
Read more
That investigation is examining Russian interference in last year’s election with potential Trump campaign collusion. The removal of Comey prompted accusations of a cover-up, warnings of a constitutional crisis, and comparisons with the Watergate scandal that brought Nixon down. The president fuelled the fire by suggesting he had “tapes” of his conversations with the FBI director.

Even for Trump, the inveterate rule-breaker, it was outrageous new territory. It prompted anew the question: just how much is the Republican party able and willing to tolerate? “With an approval rating of 35%, he’s a liability in the 2018 elections, not an asset,” said Rick Tyler, the former communications director for Senator Ted Cruz, a rival of Trump in the party primaries. “At some point they’re going to have to tell the president: shape up or ship out.”

Less than a week earlier, Trump had welcomed dozens of Republican House members to the Rose Garden at the White House to celebrate the passage of a healthcare bill. It seemed to be a moment of respite, of getting on track, of making peace with the party. “Hey, I’m president!” Trump said. “Can you believe it?”

There was no hint of what was to come. Contrary to Spicer’s explanation, Trump had decided Comey’s fate long ago. He was, according to multiple US media reports, angered by the FBI’s director’s dogged pursuit of the Russia investigation, ease in the media limelight (FBI directors are supposed to keep a low profile), insouciance when it came to White House leaks and failure to back the president’s allegation of wiretapping against Barack Obama.

Sean Spicer in the darkness on Tuesday night.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Sean Spicer in the darkness on Tuesday night. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP
Last weekend, it seems, Trump decided to pull the trigger. The Washington Post reported: “At his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, Trump groused over Comey’s latest congressional testimony, which he thought was ‘strange,’ and grew impatient with what he viewed as his sanctimony, according to White House officials. Comey, Trump figured, was using the Russia probe to become a martyr.”

When he returned to the Oval Office on Monday, Trump summoned attorney general Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein and told them to make the case against Comey in writing. With Sessions having recused himself from the Russia investigation over his contacts with the Russian ambassador, it was left to Rosenstein to do the heavy lifting in a memo that cited the FBI director’s mishandling of last year’s Hillary Clinton email investigation.

On Tuesday afternoon, Trump called senior members of both parties to inform them of his decision. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, told him: “You are making a big mistake.” But the president went ahead anyway. There have been many political earthquakes since Trump was sworn in on 20 January but this hit a new spike on the Richter scale.

The crude method of dismissal also caused disquiet. Shortly before Spicer’s manoeuvres in the dark on Tuesday night, the FBI director had been addressing staff in Los Angeles when news of his termination flashed up on TV screens. At first he laughed, thinking it was a prank, the New York Times reported, but then his staff intervened, he stopped speaking and, in a side office, learned it was no joke.

Analysis 'You are terminated.' The three letters that ended James Comey's career
Read the letter Donald Trump sent to the FBI boss, as well as those from Trump’s attorney general and his deputy, plus our explanatory notes
Read more
When the Guardian asked Spicer why the dismissal had not been done in person or by phone, as is customary in most walks of life, he said only that a message had been sent by hand to FBI headquarters and electronically. Some commentators felt the rushed nature of the deed and basic lack of courtesy spoke volumes.

A political novice governing by gut instinct, Trump appeared to have made arguably his biggest misjudgment yet. He seemed to think that Comey’s unpopularity on both sides of the aisle (Clinton has blamed him for her loss) would make it a win-win for him; instead it was a spectacular lose-lose. He told Justice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News: “I guess I was a little bit surprised, because all of the Democrats, I mean, they hated Jim Comey. They didn’t like him. They wanted him fired or whatever. And then all of a sudden, they come out with these glowing reports. Look, it’s politics.”

Charlie Sykes, a conservative author and broadcaster, said: “It’s stunning they didn’t think it would be this controversial. It’s an example of his ignorance of American political history and the norms and traditions of the system.”

What he failed to consider was the Russia question. Reports emerged that Comey had been accelerating the investigation and seeking more resources as he became increasingly concerned about evidence of collusion. Democratic senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said: “I think the Comey operation was breathing down the neck of the Trump campaign and their operatives, and this was an effort to slow down the investigation.”

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told HBO: “If there was no ‘there there’, James Comey would still have a job.”

On Tuesday night, Democrat after Democrat lined up to use the word Nixonian and draw parallels with the so-called Saturday Night Massacre when, in 1973, Nixon sought to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor leading the Watergate investigation, triggering resignations and then Cox’s dismissal. Many demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into Russiagate.


Donald Trump's first 100 days: a guide to the successes, the failures – and the tweets
Read more
Republican elders were also dismayed. Bill Brock, a former labour secretary under President Ronald Reagan, said: “It was either way too late or way too early. The FBI as an organisation is sacrosanct in this country: non-political, non-partisan, with brilliant people working for it, and I hate to see it being dragged into this mess.”

The following morning, Trump lived up to his reputation for spectacle beyond the likes of Scandal or Veep. Of all the days, he hosted Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and ambassador to the US Sergei Kislyak. American media did not have access to the meeting but photos taken by a Russian state news media photographer were posted online. A White House official was quoted by CNN: “They tricked us. That’s the problem with the Russians – they lie.”

And then, when US media did gain access to the Oval Office, they found not Lavrov but a surprise visitor: 93-year-old Henry Kissinger, who was secretary of state under Nixon. It was either coincidence, or evidence of a particularly dark sense of humour.

The White House stuck to its line until Thursday: that Trump had fired Comey based on Rosenstein’s recommendation and because he had lost the confidence of FBI colleagues (many FBI members disputed this). But then the president gave an interview to NBC News that blew this out of the water. “Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey,” he said.

Startlingly, Trump also revealed that Russia was a factor in his thinking. “When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, 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’ve won.’”

James Comey, the FBI director, had been addressing staff in Los Angeles when news of his termination flashed up on TV screens. He thought it was a prank.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
James Comey, the FBI director, had been addressing staff in Los Angeles when news of his termination flashed up on TV screens. He thought it was a prank. Photograph: Cliff Owen/AP
And, Trump told NBC News, he had asked Comey – over dinner and in two phone calls – whether he was personally under investigation, and was told not. During the dinner, according to an associate quoted by the New York Times and Associated Press, Trump asked for Comey’s loyalty, implying a possible obstruction of justice. Trump has denied this.

As the story dominated the news cycle of what was supposed to be a quiet week, Trump reached for Twitter. He posted on Friday morning: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” The White House refused to deny that Trump had made secret recordings.

The Democratic response to the week’s events was predictable; that of the Republicans less so. Trump was, after all, an outsider who staged a hostile takeover of the party in last year’s election. His relationship with Republicans on Capitol Hill remains fractious. It could have been a moment to emulate Howard Baker, a Republican senator from Tennessee who, during the Watergate investigation, took a stand and asked: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”

Indeed, in the first few hours, some critical voices emerged. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the timing and reasoning did not make sense. Senator John McCain called for a select committee to investigate and told security experts: “This scandal is going to go on. This is a centipede. I guarantee you there will be more shoes to drop.” Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona tweeted that he has spent several hours trying to find an acceptable rationale for the timing of Comey’s firing and could not do it.

But the centre held, at least for now. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, who have already swallowed numerous indignities for the sake of their legislative agenda, batted away calls for a special prosecutor and accused the Democrats of double standards.

Cabinet veteran Brock, 86, agrees. “I don’t think there’s any comparable situation with what President Nixon did,” he said. “The Democrats are clearly overstating the case. They said James Comey has lost all credibility. That is the height of hypocrisy and I find it totally repugnant. Let’s agree how we can move this process forward without playing the political card. I would welcome it if the president called for a special prosecutor.”

Conservative author Sykes described the Republican reaction as “a mixed bag”. He said: “It is significant the number of Republicans who are willing to distance themselves from the decision. There are some signs of cracks in the support.

“I’m personally disappointed in Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and I also think they’re making a mistake. This is going to be a distraction from the agenda and makes all their legislative programmes harder to get through. This has been the pattern: they’ve been willing to roll over because they think they’ll get their programme through but the price tag keeps going up. If it begins to dawn on them there’ll be a high cost next year [in the mid-term elections], that could change the calculation.”

The Comey firing led to renewed soul-searching in the conservative movement, which has ostensibly embraced Trump despite his uncertain values. Sykes added: “From the moment he was nominated, he posed an existential threat to conservatism. There was a time when conservatives would have been horrified at having a president who has so much contempt for the norms and traditions of government, or the separation of powers, or the rule of law. The fact they’re rolling over on this is defining test of conservatism.”

With a single, ill-considered and poorly executed act, Trump stunned Washington, sowed discontent at the FBI and inadvertently gave fresh impetus to two congressional investigations into Russia’s election meddling. It was a sobering reminder to Republicans about who they must wake up next to every day. They must live with the savaging of norms, the outlandish tweets, the profound unpredictability.

Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said: “Their destiny is something they embraced when they nominated him because Donald Trump is not a conservative.”

In a simple message to Republicans, he added: “You clearly made an assessment his brand of politics, or whatever you want to call it, was worth the risk, and now you have to account for it.”

Voters are unleashing their anger at Republicans on issues such as healthcare at town hall events. A Quinnipiac University poll, conducted before Comey was fired, found Trump’s favorability rating at an all-time low of 35%. And by a record 54%-38% margin, voters said they would prefer the Democrats rather than Republicans to control the House.

Paradoxically, the healthcare bill that was cause for euphoria in the Rose Garden could, through its effects in stripping health insurance from millions of people, cost the party more votes than the Comey saga. Trump may then find himself running out of friends fast. Principles are one thing; popularity another.

Since you’re here …
… we’ve got a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it. Advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

I read it fairly often and enjoy the variety of news and entertainment content. It never occurred to me that you wanted contributions, but I’d like you to stick around. Sometimes you actually have to pay for stuff you like. Go figure.
Mike L


If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure.

What U.S. Military Need to Know About Their New Retirement Plan - TIME


Posted: 10 May 2017 10:20 AM PDT

The military’s introduction of its new Blended Retirement System leaves nearly all current service members in a quandary. Those with between one and 12 years of service must choose between the old and new retirement plans—and there is nothing easy about the calculation.
Why one to 12 years? Because on Jan. 1, 2018, all military personnel whose length of service is in that time bubble are eligible for either the old or the new programs. Both have pros and cons. Service members will have one year to make an irrevocable choice. About 88% of active-duty military—or 1.15 million service members—fall into this category.

By contrast, anyone who joined before 2006 is automatically grandfathered into the old system, a generous traditional pension with inflation adjustments. Anyone joining in 2018 or beyond will be enrolled in the new blended system, which features a scaled-back pension but adds up to a 5% match for personal contributions to the government’s massive 401(k)-like Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
The military just rolled out a calculator that service members can use to compare their options, which is labeled as the beta version of the Blended Retirement System Comparison Calculator. Some unofficial calculators are also available, including one from USAA, a financial services company that serves military families.
To choose wisely, those in the bubble years will need to take a hard look at their expected tenure in the military and their career earnings, as well as their ability to save and their stomach for taking a more active role in managing their own money. “There are a lot of ifs,” says Kathleen Brinkler, relationship manager with AAFMAA Wealth Management, a financial advisor for military personnel. “The new plan works if you contribute enough to get the full match, if you invest prudently, if you don’t take money out early, if you have enough time for your money to grow.”
In general, if you plan to stay in the military for a total of at least 20 years—and thus become eligible for the legacy pension—the old plan will be your best choice. This becomes clearer the closer you currently are to 12 years of service. Why? With fewer than 10 years left before becoming eligible for the legacy pension you probably will not have enough time to make up the difference by saving in the TSP. Besides, under the old plan you can still save in the TSP. You just won’t get the match.
Someone with just a year or two of service has a much tougher calculus. Many additional years of matching contributions and compound growth in the TSP can close the gap—and then some. But going with the blended program requires savings discipline and more hands-on attention. Meanwhile, at any length of service, if you suspect you may not stay at least 20 years, the new system is the obvious choice. It guarantees you will leave with some savings.
These are not absolute answers. Power savers—those able to save 15% or more of pay—might do better in the new plan in many cases. And keep in mind that military personnel are subject to involuntary layoffs, like everyone else. The Army announced a forced troop reduction of 8% just two years ago. If you choose the old pension plan and get downsized, you lose.
To understand the options, start with the legacy pension. A typical officer retiring after 20 years leaves with annual guaranteed income of about $53,000, which is indexed for inflation. Based on a 40-year retirement, that pension has a present value of about $1.4 million, according to AAFMAA calculations. Under the new blended system, the scaled back pension would provide $42,000 of annual income, which has a present value of about $1.1 million. So in rough terms anyone in the bubble years would need to save about $300,000 by retirement after 20 years for switching to the new system to make sense.
That’s a tall order if you have only eight to 10 years to save. Ross Cutler, an AAFMAA advisor, figures an officer would have to save a Herculean 26% of pay for eight years for the new system to make sense. That assumes a fairly conservative 6% average annual return. If he or she achieved average annual returns of 8%, which is reasonable, that officer still would have to save 24% of pay. The percentages are similar for enlisted members who earn much less.
Service members in the bubble years but with a longer time horizon–say, those who only recently joined–have a much clearer path to the new blended system. They would need to save only 6% of pay and achieve 6% average annual returns for the choice to make sense, AAFMAA figures. If they earned 8% on their money, they would need to save just 5% of pay.
Cutler says most service members are low-risk investors. And matching funds under the new system go into a fund that yields about 1%. So soldiers would need to understand the value of more aggressive investing, and be willing to switch the money to more appropriate long-term accounts. “Most retire from the service and have second careers,” Cutler says. “If they don’t touch the TSP they can extend the time horizon out to age 62, and it’s easier to make the case for more aggressive investing with equities.”
In general, anyone opting into the new blended retirement system should save at least 5% of pay—and not touch it. That way they get the full 5% match. The new system is designed around new service members saving 5% and retiring after 20 years with roughly the same total retirement benefit as under the old system.
But new soldiers and even those in the bubble years could do much better if they power save. That isn’t easy on military pay. But saving 15% of officer’s pay instead of just 5% could add another $131,400 in 10 years. Over 20 years, it could add another $415,000 at historical rates of return. That’s enough to make the new plan a better choice.

An Oligarch in USA ? Trump allegedly demanded loyalty from Comey - New York Times

By SUSAN CHIRA
MAY 12, 2017
For scholars of democracy who have kept anxious watch over the tumultuous first months of this presidency, this week’s firing of James Comey set off a new round of alarm bells.
As President Trump attacked judges, intelligence agencies, the press, even the Congressional Budget Office — all potential independent constraints on presidential power — they constantly adjusted their scorecards, trying to sift the alarming from the merely noisy. But firing the official who heads an investigation into possible collusion between a presidential campaign and a foreign power crossed a line, they agreed.
“My alarm-o-meter definitely jumped,” said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. “I’d say I went from a 4 to a 7 out of 10.”
Few argue that the United States is in imminent danger of becoming an autocracy, a term much chewed over by pundits these days, including some conservative ones like David Frum, President George W. Bush’s former speechwriter. But in conversations over the past few months, scholars’ moods and assessments have soared and plummeted.
Fear when Mr. Trump castigated a judge in personal terms. Relief when the administration heeded a court’s temporary stay of the first executive order closing the border to those from seven Muslim-majority countries. Alarm over denunciations of the press. Admiration for a robust American tradition of protest.

“Whenever I run into somebody, they ask me, ‘How worried should I be?’ ” said Yascha Mounk, a lecturer on government at Harvard who has warnedof declining commitment to democratic institutions in several countries.
There is a lively debate in the profession over the answer to that question.
Mr. Mounk’s own concerns have skyrocketed. “It’s the first time he’s done something, rather than said something, that is straight out of the playbook of would-be authoritarians,” he said this week. Other political scientists argue that the Trump administration has shown itself too chaotic and incompetent to harm democratic institutions.
Bright Line Watch, a survey of more than 1,500 political scientists on the state of democracy in America, has so far not recorded an existential threat.
But Susan Stokes, a professor of political science at Yale who is one of the survey’s organizers, said that she and her colleagues decided after Mr. Comey’s firing to add a new question to the latest survey: “Law enforcement investigations of public officials or their associates are free from political influence.” She added dryly, “It will be interesting to see how our colleagues respond.”
Mr. Drutman is particularly concerned by the way congressional leaders immediately backed Mr. Trump.
“That suggests that partisan loyalty is still far more powerful than checks and balances,” he said.
Ms. Stokes worries about Mr. Trump’s temperament. “Political scientists assume that politicians are ambitious and mainly motivated by a desire to win and retain office,” she said. “It’s not an uplifting image of our leaders but at least it makes them predictable, their actions explicable. An ever-improvising president, one who is utterly undisciplined, even to the point of undermining his own positions — that really does worry me.”

Many of the political scientists speak in unusually emotional terms about wrestling with their personal political beliefs (in this case, liberal) and their professional assessments.
“I lived through Reagan and Bush, and I know how it feels to settle in for a long term of policies you don’t like,” Ms. Stokes said. “But this doesn’t feel like you’re settling into anything. You’re on a bus and the axle broke and you’re careening toward you don’t know what.”
Mr. Mounk decided to leave Germany for what may seem like a peculiar reason: As a Jew, he was treated with such suffocating deference that he felt he would never feel normal there. He attended college in Britain and then watched with dismay from the United States as the country voted to leave the European Union.
“2016 has not been an easy year for me,” he told me back in February. “The places I lived turned out to be not quite the beacons of multiethnic democracy I took them to be. It’s personally confounding because this is the America I love, where attitudes are in many ways more tolerant than in Europe.”
Some of the scholars who have issued the most passionate warnings are those who come from countries where democracy has imploded in spectacular fashion.
N. Turkuler Isiksel, an assistant professor of political science at Columbia, watched as a leader she at one point saw as a potential check on Turkey’s powerful military went on to gut other political institutions, jail enemies and cripple independent journalism. Mr. Mounk grew up as a Jew in Germany keenly aware that political safeguards could disappear.
A fellow political scientist labeled Ms. Isiksel hysterical in a Twitter tirade after she wrote an article warning Americans that what she’d seen in her native Turkey could happen here.

Even as they acknowledge that neither Turkey nor Germany has the same long tradition of stable democracy as the United States, both she and Mr. Mounk say Americans have a complacency born of a fortunate history.
Mr. Mounk speaks of a “muscle memory” of how abruptly the political winds can shift that his family and many Europeans possess but most Americans lack.
As bedtime reading, Ms. Iskisel turned to the 1935 Sinclair Lewis novel “It Can’t Happen Here,” which envisions the election of an American populist who imposes totalitarian rule. Her sense of urgency is heightened because she is a Muslim immigrant married to an American and waiting for her green card to become permanent.
“I don’t trust the American sense of how much trouble they are really in,” she said. “I think overconfidence can be a danger here. I don’t know who has the accurate sense — people with the experience or people who haven’t experienced it before and may not realize they’re in a pot of water that is gradually heating up.”
As an example, she argued that Mr. Trump’s address to Congress in February, praised by many commentators as appropriately presidential, would have been denounced a year ago for Islamophobia and race-baiting, but that his previous speeches had been so incendiary that the bar for what was unacceptable had shifted. And she rejects the arguments of incompetence, saying, “You don’t have to be competent when you have the awesome powers of the U.S. president.”
While average citizens can shield themselves from the emotional whipsaw of the news, political scientists who track the health of democracies find their work drawing them inexorably into the headlines.

“It’s very easy to go down the rabbit hole and lose the big picture,” Mr. Drutman said in March. He had to install an app blocking him from the web for hours at a time so that he could tear his attention away from the latest headlines to focus on writing about American political polarization.
The scholars agree on what to watch for next: Who will be nominated as head of the F.B.I. and what will Republicans do?
“Does Trump nominate a professional or does he nominate a crony?” Mr. Mounk said. “His ability to undermine independent institutions is in the hands of the Republicans.”
Mr. Drutman said that if Republicans continue to reflexively back Mr. Trump, he would raise his “alarm-o-meter” to 8.
For now, the democratic temperature-takers are resigning themselves to a life of perpetual checkups as this extraordinary presidency unfolds. “It’s like that family member who’s the doctor,” Ms. Stokes said. “You go to a family dinner and they want you to look at the pain in their elbow.”
Susan Chira (@susanchira) is a senior correspondent and editor on gender issues for The New York Times.

NYT