Politics & Policy

A 140-Character Flaw

(Reuters photo: Yuri Gripas)
It’s hard for a new administration to avoid controversy, but must Trump create it out of thin air?

The Trump administration is in the throes of one of the greatest self-inflicted distractions of the modern presidency.

The latest chapter comes from James Comey in highly anticipated congressional testimony. The FBI director said that he has no information to support President Trump’s infamous weekend tweets alleging he was wiretapped by President Obama during the campaign. This was treated as a bombshell, although what would have been truly surprising is if he said Trump’s allegations had a sound factual basis.

Every administration gets knocked off its game early on by something. What makes the furor over President Trump’s wiretapping claims so remarkable is how unnecessary it is. The flap didn’t arise from events outside of the administration’s control, nor was it a clever trap sprung by its adversaries. The president went out of his way to initiate it. He picked up his phone and tweeted allegations that he had no idea were true or not, either to distract from what he thought was a bad news cycle, or to vent, or both.

The fallout has proved that there is no such a thing as “just a tweet” from the most powerful man on the planet. Trump’s aides have scrambled to find some justification for the statements after-the-fact and offended an age-old foreign ally in the process (White House press secretary Sean Spicer suggested it was British intelligence that might have been monitoring Trump); congressional leaders have become consumed with the matter; and it has dominated news coverage for weeks. Such is the power of a couple of blasts of 140 characters or less from the president of the United States.

The flap has probably undermined Trump’s political standing, and at the very least has diverted him and his team from much more important work on Capitol Hill, where his agenda will rise or fall. In an alternative and more conventional universe, the White House would be crowing over Judge Gorsuch’s testimony before Congress. Instead it is jousting with the FBI director over wayward tweets.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer was reduced to arguing that Comey’s categorical rejection of the wiretapping claim was only provisional. Let’s not jump to conclusions, etc., etc. Such is the life of a press secretary when his boss has the power to make him defend the indefensible during a few thoughtless moments alone with his phone. Since the wiretapping allegations, Spicer’s days  have been spent in the semantics, air quotes, and epistemological gymnastics necessary to support Trump’s claims.

Only President Trump can make it stop. He has shown, despite his unwillingness ever to admit error, an ability over the last year to simply drop and move on from counterproductive controversies. He should do the same with his wiretapping tweets. All he has to say is that he accepts his FBI director’s statement and that he doesn’t want to talk about it any more. That would immediately drain some of the headline-grabbing drama from it, and relieve his underlings from their current exertions.

Comey’s second bombshell was the more consequential one. He confirmed that there is an ongoing FBI investigation of Russia’s role in the election and possible ties to the Trump campaign. (It may eventually emerge that some of Trump’s conversations were picked up when people in his orbit were being surveilled in this probe, providing a figleaf of vindication for his tweets.) It’s hard to see why the Russians would have had to involve Trump associates in what should have been a simple two-step process: 1) hack Democratic accounts; 2) give the resulting information to WikiLeaks. But Comey’s acknowledgement of the investigation will stoke the darkest suspicions of the Left.

All the more reason for Trump to avoid doubling down on unforced errors. They are plenty of people who want to distract and damage his administration. The president of the United States shouldn’t be one of them.

 

— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2017 King Features Syndicate

Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. 

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More
Books

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More