It’s 8 a.m., we’re back from our early walk, the coffee’ done, and in Washington the Comey hearing has already been concluded.
If you’re looking for a quick rundown, check out the liveblogging from Lawfare Blog. Lawfare had three people blogging during the hearing, so they were able to capture a pretty good record of the proceedings. Without viewing a video of the full hearing, this is about the best you’ll be able to do.
And while you’re at it, take a few minutes to ready yesterday’s column by Ben Wittes, “Initial Comments on James Comey’s Written Testimony.”
It puts Comey’s written comments, and by extension today’s testimony, into a broader context, and in that respect is extremely useful.
Here’s just one piece of Wittes’ thoughtful assessment:
Comey is describing here conduct that a society committed to the rule of law simply cannot accept in a president. We have spent a lot of time on this site over seven years now debating the marginal exertions of presidential power and their capacity for abuse. Should the president have the authority to detain people at Guantanamo? Incinerate suspected terrorists with flying robots? Use robust intelligence authorities directed at overseas non-citizens? These questions are all important, but this document is about a far more important question to the preservation of liberty in a society based on legal norms and rules: the abuse of the core functions of the presidency. It’s about whether we can trust the President—not the President in the abstract, but the particular embodiment of the presidency in the person of Donald J. Trump—to supervise the law enforcement apparatus of the United States in fashion consistent with his oath of office. I challenge anyone to read this document and come away with a confidently affirmative answer to that question.
I hope you find these links useful.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Political games never end, and a voter’s mind — if they have a mind — can change.
Thursday’s British election results:
LONDON — British Prime Minister Theresa May ignored calls Friday to resign after a stunning election blow that left her Conservative Party weakened and the county in a political tailspin before critical talks on Britain’s exit from the European Union.
….
“The prime minister called the election because she wanted a mandate,” far-left leader Jeremy Corbyn said in an early morning speech after winning reelection to his north London district. “Well, the mandate she’s got is lost Conservative seats, lost votes, lost support and lost confidence. I would have thought that is enough for her to go, actually.”
Minutes later, May — her voice trembling — delivered her own speech in which she said that as long as the Conservatives remain the largest party, they should be allowed to govern.
“The country needs a period of stability,” she said.
Within her own party, Thursday’s results represented a catastrophic outcome that may prompt a search for a new leader.
“It was a dreadful campaign — and that’s me being generous,” Anna Soubry, a Tory member of Parliament who narrowly won reelection, told the BBC.
Asked whether May should resign, Soubry replied: “It’s bad. She’s in a very difficult place.”