Trump is morally unfit to be president, says ex-FBI chief

Agencies
April 16, 2018

Washington, Apr 16: Former FBI Director James Comey said in his first televised interview since being fired that he believed Donald Trump was "morally unfit to be president," and that it was "possible" that the Russians had material that could be used to blackmail him.

In a wide-ranging conversation with George Stephanopoulos broadcast on ABC late Sunday, Comey took aim at Trump in no uncertain terms, comparing his administration to a mafia family, likening his presidency to a forest fire and asserting there was evidence that he had committed a crime.

He said, curiously, that he would not favor impeaching Trump to remove him from office, because that "would let the American people off the hook and have something happen indirectly that I believe they're duty-bound to do directly" - meaning through elections. But he made clear his view of whether Trump was fit to hold the position.

"This president does not reflect the values of this country," Comey said.

The interview airs just days before Comey is set to release a new book and embark on a media tour to promote it. Much of what Comey said to Stephanopoulos mirrors what he wrote, although his televised, extemporaneous comments are sure to attract the attention of the president, who is an avid TV viewer.

On Sunday morning, Trump tweeted criticism of Comey, denying some of Comey's allegations and alleging that Comey revealed classified information and lied to Congress.

"Slippery James Comey, a man who always ends up badly and out of whack (he is not smart!), will go down as the WORST FBI Director in history, by far!" Trump wrote.

The Washington Post was allowed to review a complete transcript of the Comey interview, which lasted nearly five hours.

As he did in his book, Comey detailed in the interview Trump's fixation on unproven allegations that he watched prostitutes urinate on one another in a Moscow hotel in 2013, asserting that Trump at one point said he was contemplating ordering Comey to investigate and disprove the incident because he did not want "even a 1 percent chance" that his wife, first lady Melania Trump, would believe it happened.

Comey said that struck him as odd. "I remember thinking, 'How could your wife think there's a 1 percent chance you were with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow?' " he said, adding that his assessment was it's possible Trump is guilty of the accusation.

"I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don't know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013," Comey said. "It's possible, but I don't know."

Comey said it was possible, too, that the Russians might have material that could be used to blackmail Trump.

"Do you think the Russians have something on Donald Trump?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"I think it's possible. I don't know. These are more words I never thought I'd utter about a president of the United States, but it's possible," Comey responded.

Comey described in great detail several conversations he had with Trump, telling Stephanopoulos of how the president asked for his loyalty and how that interaction and others reminded him of his time as a prosecutor in New York pursuing mob families, for whom loyalty to the boss and the organization were the only values that mattered.

"It's the family, the family, the family, the family," Comey said.

Trump has denied asking for Comey's loyalty.

Comey offered a blunt assessment of a conversation with Trump on Feb. 14, 2017, during which Comey maintains the president said of an investigation the FBI was conducting into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, "I hope you can let it go." Trump disputes Comey's account.

"With that direction, was President Trump obstructing justice?" Stephanopoulos asked.

 "Possibly," Comey responded. "I mean, it's certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice. That something really important just happened and that I was a little - another one of those outta-body experiences, like, 'Really? The president just kicked out the attorney general to ask me to drop a criminal investigation.' Wow, the world continues to go crazy."

Comey even took aim at Trump's personal appearance, remarking how his "tie was too long, as it always is" and that his face "looked slightly orange up close with small white - half moons under his eyes, which I assume are from tanning goggles."

The former FBI boss acknowledged he had grave misgivings about the Trump presidency even before it began.

In a meeting with President Barack Obama in the last days of his administration, Comey says he told the president: "I dread the next four years. But in many ways, I feel great pressure to stay to try and protect the institution I lead."

While Trump bore the brunt of his criticism, Comey also took aim at others - including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, whom Trump has been contemplating removing from his post.

Comey said Rosenstein had "acted dishonorably" in authoring a memo lambasting Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. Trump cited the memo in firing Comey, and Comey said he came to believe Rosenstein was "part of the family now. I can't trust him."

He later said, though, that he did not believe Rosenstein would fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller if ordered by Trump to do so, and that Rosenstein "has an opportunity in overseeing Bob Mueller to restore some of his professional reputation."

As he has in the past, Comey offered a vigorous defense of his handling of the Clinton email investigation.

Parts of the interview are likely to revive the fury of Clinton supporters who think he cost her the presidency by reopening the email investigation less than two weeks before the election.

When Stephanopoulos asked him if the decision was "influenced by your assumption that Hillary Clinton was going to win," Comey replied: "It must have been. I don't remember consciously thinking about that, but it must have been. 'Cause I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump."

He also said he was sorry for how he handled the first announcement in July 2016 that he was closing the Clinton email probe without seeking any charges. He says he agrees now with the criticism that his remarks muddied important issues.

"I'm sorry that I caused all kinds of confusion and pain with the way I described her conduct that led people into all kinds of side roads," Comey said.

He also spoke at length about his complicated relationship with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Previously, Comey's defenders have argued that a Russian intelligence document the FBI received in early 2016 suggesting Lynch would protect Clinton in some fashion from the email probe meant that he had to cut her out of the final decision-making process.

But The Washington Post has reported that many FBI officials viewed the allegation against Lynch as dubious at best - and possibly one of Russia's very first disinformation efforts during the 2016 campaign.

Comey said he didn't believe the allegation, but feared that if it ever came out, it would destroy the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI.

"There was material that I knew someday, when it's declassified, and I thought that would be decades in the future, would cause historians to wonder, 'Hmm, was there some strange business goin' on there? Was Loretta Lynch somehow carrying water for the campaign and controlling what the FBI did?' "

So partly for that reason, he said, Comey decided to announce on his own his recommendation that no charges be filed in the Clinton case.

Throughout the interview, Comey stressed the importance of telling the truth, a theme in his book. He described being initially reluctant to prosecute Martha Stewart for lying to investigators, but then recalled a case when he was a federal prosecutor in Richmond and had charged a minister with the same thing.

"And there once was a day when people were afraid of goin' to hell if they took an oath in the name of God and violated it. We've drifted away from that day. And so in its place has to be a fear that if you lie and the government can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, they will prosecute you in order to send a message to all the others who might be called upon to give evidence," Comey said. "We must prosecute people who lie in the middle of an investigation."

The comments come a day after the Justice Department inspector general released a report accusing Andrew McCabe, Comey's former deputy, of lying repeatedly as they investigated a media disclosure he had authorized. The inspector general says McCabe even lied to Comey, though McCabe disputes Comey's account.

After he was fired, Comey said, Trump issued an order that he was not to be allowed back in the FBI building, even to retrieve his belongings. His firing came as Comey was visiting the FBI office in Los Angeles, and for a brief moment it wasn't even clear if he would be allowed to ride on the government plane back to Washington.

When he did get on the plane, he decided to open a bottle of wine. "I drank red wine from a paper cup and just looked out at the lights of the country I love so much as we flew home," he said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 2,2020

London/Milan, Jun 2: World Health Organization experts and a range of other scientists said on Monday there was no evidence to support an assertion by a high profile Italian doctor that the coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic has been losing potency.

Professor Alberto Zangrillo, head of intensive care at Italy's San Raffaele Hospital in Lombardy, which bore the brunt of Italy's COVID-19 epidemic, on Sunday told state television that the new coronavirus "clinically no longer exists".

But WHO epidemiologist Maria Van Kerkhove, as well as several other experts on viruses and infectious diseases, said Zangrillo's comments were not supported by scientific evidence.

There is no data to show the new coronavirus is changing significantly, either in its form of transmission or in the severity of the disease it causes, they said.

"In terms of transmissibility, that has not changed, in terms of severity, that has not changed," Van Kerkhove told reporters.

It is not unusual for viruses to mutate and adapt as they spread, and the debate on Monday highlights how scientists are monitoring and tracking the new virus. The COVID-19 pandemic has so far killed more than 370,000 people and infected more than 6 million.

Martin Hibberd, a professor of emerging infectious disease at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said major studies looking at genetic changes in the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 did not support the idea that it was becoming less potent, or weakening in any way.

"With data from more than 35,000 whole virus genomes, there is currently no evidence that there is any significant difference relating to severity," he said in an emailed comment.

Zangrillo, well known in Italy as the personal doctor of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, said his comments were backed up by a study conducted by a fellow scientist, Massimo Clementi, which Zangrillo said would be published next week.

Zangrillo told Reuters: "We have never said that the virus has changed, we said that the interaction between the virus and the host has definitely changed."

He said this could be due either to different characteristics of the virus, which he said they had not yet identified, or different characteristics in those infected.

The study by Clementi, who is director of the microbiology and virology laboratory of San Raffaele, compared virus samples from COVID-19 patients at the Milan-based hospital in March with samples from patients with the disease in May.

"The result was unambiguous: an extremely significant difference between the viral load of patients admitted in March compared to" those admitted last month, Zangrillo said.

Oscar MacLean, an expert at the University of Glasgow's Centre for Virus Research, said suggestions that the virus was weakening were "not supported by anything in the scientific literature and also seem fairly implausible on genetic grounds."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 30,2020

May 30: Warning of the tightrope walk ahead as governments battle the coronavirus crisis, Nobel laureate Peter Charles Doherty has expressed concern about densely populated countries such as India relaxing lockdown norms while also describing a complete shutdown as “an economic and social impossibility”.

The Australian immunologist, who cautioned that the number of COVID-19 cases will rise in the coming days, said the earliest time frame for an effective vaccine “going into large numbers of people” is nine to 12 months.

"If all goes well with testing, we could know if some of the candidate vaccines are both safe and effective as early as September/October. Then, rolling a vaccine out will depend on the type of product and how quickly it can be made, put in vials and so forth," Doherty told PTI in an email interview from Melbourne.

The novel coronavirus, he added, does not change fast like influenza and, from what is known so far, “the same vaccine should work everywhere”.

Doherty, who is with the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the Doherty Institute, University of Melbourne, won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1996 for his discovery of how the body’s immune system distinguishes virus-infected cells from normal ones.

Discussing the lockdown, he said, "If it was purely a matter of hard science, everywhere should stay locked down. But that’s pretty much an economic and social impossibility.”

The expectation, he said, is the numbers will rise and limiting spread will depend on people acting responsibly and the capacity for rapid response and extensive contact testing.

“And in a densely populated country like India I think that it will be very difficult," the scientist said.

Several countries, including India, began relaxing lockdown norms in mid-May despite the WHO’s warning about a second wave. India’s lockdown began on March 25 and has since been extended. The fourth phase ends on Sunday.

Asked whether there are any alternatives to a lockdown, the 79-year-old said, "There is no other option other than closing borders. South Korea, for example, conducted massive, intensive testing and contact tracing in a wealthy country with a very disciplined population. Otherwise, not till we have effective vaccines."

He added that he personally doesn’t see the point of closing borders for people coming in if there’s already a high incidence of disease in the community, “unless it’s to avoid the need to care for them and use scarce hospital beds".

According to Doherty, the coronavirus "is a new virus which has come straight out of nature".

“It (the virus) has moved so rapidly across the world because of people travelling on international planes as well as tourist ships," he added.

The immunologist also warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, and said current and planned trials of the anti-malaria drug should be stopped.

“My understanding is that the use of the drug in severe disease is definitely contra-indicated, but it’s not yet clear whether, if taken under medical supervision, it could have some useful effect if taken early on, or as a preventive. Those trials just haven’t been done properly," Doherty noted.

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has backed the use of hydroxychloroquine as a preventive against COVID-19 even after the WHO suspended clinical trials of the drug citing safety concerns.

Asked whether plasma therapy can be an effective treatment for COVID-19, Doherty said, "We lack good properly controlled trials but, especially if the plasma has been tested for antibody levels and there’s evidence of good activity, it could be helpful. If I had the disease and was offered plasma therapy I would certainly accept, but I would not take hydroxychloroquine."

Doherty is also very optimistic about herd immunity developing against the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

"We think that (herd immunity) will cut in and have an obvious effect when, say, 60 per cent of people have been infected. Best hope is to boost herd immunity with a vaccine," he stated.

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through vaccination or previous infections.

The number of COVID-19 cases have crossed 5.9 million and the fatalities 3,65,000, according to the Johns Hopkins University on Saturday. 

In India, the death toll has risen to 4,971 and the number of cases to 1,73,763, according to the Union Health Ministry on Saturday.

Several states, including Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, have reported a rise in number since lockdown norms were relaxed in early May and migrant workers reached home.

In Uttar Pradesh, for instance, the number of infections rose from around 3,000 on May 4 to 6,532 on May 26. Similarly, Bihar’s numbers increased from around 500 to over 2,700 in the period.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 4,2020

Washington D.C, Jun 4: A lawsuit has been filed against US President Donald Trump for signing an executive order on preventing online censorship that seems to violate the freedom of speech of individuals on social media platforms.

On Tuesday, the Center for Democracy and Technology filed the lawsuit against Trump's "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship," which was signed May 28, 2020. The suit argues that the Executive Order violates the First Amendment by curtailing and chilling the constitutionally protected speech of online platforms and individuals.

"CDT filed suit today because the President's actions are a direct attack on the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The government cannot and should not force online intermediaries into moderating speech according to the President's whims. Blocking this order is crucial for protecting freedom of speech and continuing important work to ensure the integrity of the 2020 election," said CDT President and CEO Alexandra Givens.

The executive order is designed to deter social media services from fighting misinformation, voter suppression, and the stoking of violence on their platforms, the digital rights group said.

"Access to accurate information about the voting process and the security of our elections infrastructure is the lifeblood of our democracy. The President has made clear that his goal is to use threats of retaliation and future regulation to intimidate intermediaries into changing how they moderate content, essentially ensuring that the dangers of voter suppression and disinformation will grow unchecked in an election year," Givens said.

The law firm of Mayer Brown is representing CDT in this action.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.