Trump's Personal Lawyer Lays Out A Familiar Trump Defense

Trump's personal attorney Marc Kasowitz's statement in response to James Comey's testimony pretty much lays out their defense and it is the same tactic that Trump has used for most of his career. Just like all the women who Trump sexually assaulted, the tactic is to create a he said/she said stand off where the assumption is that Trump's fame, power, and prestige will hold sway. If that doesn't work, then Kasowitz can deliver the necessary intimidation and character assassination as an extra incentive. This has been the Trump/Kasowitz MO for decades. And they are going to try to roll this out again against James Comey.

Kasowitz began his statement by highlighting the fact the Comey confirmed that Trump himself was not under investigation. Of course, that may have changed significantly after Trump fired Comey and other revelations showed a consistent pattern of obstruction of justice. He followed that up by saying that Comey's testimony shows that "the President never sought to impede the investigation into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election". That fact, quite obviously, is subject to interpretation.

Kasowitz then moved on to explicitly deny that the President told Comey to "let Flynn go". Kasowtiz said, "Consistent with that statement, the President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that that Mr. Comey 'let Flynn go.'" Kasowitz continued, "The President also never told Mr. Comey, 'I need loyalty, I expect loyalty' in form or substance".

Kasowitz concluded his statement by trying to paint Comey as a leaker and  as part of "those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications", because of Comey's admission that he leaked his unclassified notes about his meetings with the President, notes, it must be pointed out, about conversations that the President has not invoked executive privilege.

These flat-out denials about statements made when only Trump and Comey were in the room are essentially turning the Comey accusations into a he said/he said battle, ground that both Kasowitz and Trump are quite familiar with. Trump is essentially pitting his word against Comey's. That is arguably a losing battle in the long run, as Comey's credibility and support for his recollections is far greater than Trump's, but it will give Trump's defenders and his Republican enablers in Congress enough to hold on to for quite a while.

In addition, I think Kasowtiz's denials make it highly unlikely that any tapes of Comey's conversations still exist. That does not mean that were not tapes but, if there were, they have been destroyed by now. (Some of us are old enough to remember that some Republicans believe Nixon would never have been impeached if he had simply destroyed the tapes.) That also may account for the administration's unwillingness to admit whether any tapes exist or not. Whether or not this would also constitute a further obstruction of justice would have to be determined.

Lastly, the larger problem with this he said/he said defense is that it only applies to Comey. It is hard to see how that defense can be used to counter the potential testimony from Priebus, Nunes, Sessions, Rosenstein, Coats, and Rogers, all of whom have been reported to have been asked by Trump to somehow impede Comey's investigation.