The Spinning Chair Presidency

Posted in: Politics

The Ellen DeGeneres Show had a recent bit where two sisters were put on a spinning chair, seated back to back and then spun at a high rate of speed. As they were spinning, they were asked questions until the chair stopped. You couldn’t help laughing as these two, stumbling a bit as they stood up, tried to answer simple questions like, “What is the weather?” It was vintage DeGeneres. The more times they were spun around, the less capacity they had for the most basic queries.

This is how the Trump presidency feels, except it is not funny. Part of our dizziness comes from the complete disconnect between what we should be able to expect of the leader of the free world and the man who now holds that position, a point made brilliantly by George Will.

The other contribution to our unsteadiness is that Trump is playing an elaborate game of spinning our chairs. Every time we start to see clearly what is potentially horrifying in this administration—collusion with Russia to tilt the election—he spins the chair again with some kind of headline-making move. Just as we steady ourselves and clear our heads, he fires someone who threatens him or launches Twitter tirades intended to keep our heads spinning. While we are off-kilter, he is rearranging core American values. There is no loyalty to the truth or accountability (forget the Constitution), just to image, power, and wealth.

Spinning the Sally Yates Timeline

One great difficulty is that it is difficult for the public to follow the timelines that illuminate Trump’s actual motives. For example, Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates with the public explanation that he had to because she declined to direct the Department of Justice to defend his unconstitutional and indefensible Muslim country travel ban. (By the way, the Department of Justice has a history of standing up for the Constitution even when a president won’t, contrary to some of the Republicans who recently questioned Yates on her decision not to enforce the foolhardy first travel ban.)

In fact, we learned this week that her firing closely followed her report to the White house that the head of national security, Michael Flynn, was potentially compromised by Russia.

Take a moment to absorb that—it is stunning. When Trump fired Yates, no one in the public knew that she had made these disclosures to the White House. Indeed, the White House waited 18 days from her report to fire Flynn, despite his potential threat to national security. Of course, Trump did not tell the country at the time that he fired her right after she blew the whistle on Flynn. The country would never have learned about her report and its proximity to her firing except that she testified this week before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump kept Flynn for 18 days knowing full well that Flynn was a national security liability, but then let him go on the flimsy explanation that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence. Who keeps a national security advisor who is potentially compromised by the very country casting a shadow over your administration, but then lets him go because he’s a liar? A spinner.

Spinning the Comey Timeline

The good news is that the spinner-in-chief is running out of the energy needed to make 350 million people unsteady. Indeed, with his firing of FBI director James Comey and its timing the springs may be sprung. Democrats are calling for an independent investigator with the president removing the man who was investigating his ties to Russia, and the Republicans are split.

An ordinary firing would have received 100% support from Republicans. Not so this time, and historians are providing the backdrop to understand the magnitude of this action, in which the president has removed the FBI director investigating him and will now be able to choose his replacement (who may or may not pursue the investigation, with or without vigor). To them, this looks like Nixon’s infamous Saturday Night Massacre. But worse, because this is about actions that are potentially traitorous. The very premise causes vertigo.

Comey’s firing was accompanied by a bizarre explanation that circles back to Hillary Clinton and Comey’s interference in the election. If that were his reason, though, Trump would have fired Comey ages ago. Pay attention to the time line here: Comey was fired the day after Yates testified about her report to the White House, the firing that followed, and that Trump knew for 18 days that his national security advisor was compromised vis-à-vis Russia. This was a moment of clarity in the Trump era.

If you didn’t wonder if the Trump machine had colluded with Russia before, you had to wonder after Yates testified with deep credibility. So in the Trump universe, what he desperately needed was a major distraction. He leapt to fire Comey, so recklessly and without consultation or warning to his staff. In short, the Comey firing and its timing was more spinning to get us to look anywhere but where our straight-line vision would take us.

What is most stunning in all of this furious spinning is that it did not occur to Trump to have an answer ready for the American public about why he had suddenly fired Comey. It appears he believes that we are all so dizzy at this point that he need not explain himself anymore. That would be incorrect. The American people are putting their collective foot down on terra firma: The latest poll numbers show his approval rating slipping to an abysmal 36% with 58% disapproving his performance. And that’s before he threw out Comey with a patently implausible explanation. Unlike Ellen DeGeneres’s guests, there is no reason for us to stay seated on the spinning chair. Indeed, it’s time to stand up and demand the truth that Trump can’t abide.

8 responses to “The Spinning Chair Presidency”

  1. Brett says:

    Where was Ms. Hamilton’s pen when Barack Obama’s DOJ was involved in Fast and Furious and attempted to cover it up? When the Obama Administration lied about Benghazi, repeatedly (at least the Republicans’ efforts to get to the bottom of it revealed Hillary Clinton’s crime with her emails)? When the Obama Administration withheld key facts about the Iran nuclear deal? When Barack Obama said if you like your health plan you can keep your health plan; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; that the average health insurance premium for a family would decrease by $2,500 annually? As for the Comey firing, as much as liberals are trying to fabricate something, three glaring facts stare them in the face: 1) the President hires, and has the Constitutional right to fire, the FBI Director; 2) Mr. Comey was fired on the recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General, an individual who served under Barack Obama, was two weeks ago confirmed by a 94 to 6 vote in the Senate (that means lots of Democrat support), and he was lauded by Maryland’s two Democrat Senators; and 3) Democrats have roundly criticized and vilified Mr. Comey (especially in 2016 when he announced that he was investigating another aspect of Ms. Clinton’s email debacle one week before the election), until Mr. Trump fired him. Further, liberals are also desperately trying to find some type of collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign but after months of investigating, there is no evidence. None. Even James Clapper clearly stated that this March, but no matter to liberals.

  2. G.N.M. says:

    You base your assessment of President Trump partially on the opinions of Ellen DeGeneris and George Will, both of whom have shown their hatred and disdain for the president in numerous ways prior to the firing of James Comey. As to Comey, he should have been fired by Obama along with Lynch when he made his speech about lack of intent being the criterion for failing to indict Hillary Clinton. Going back a little further, Lynch should have been fired when she had her ex parte meeting with Billy Jeff Clinton on the tarmac talking mostly about how to save Hillary from prosecution and a little about their grandchildren. Talk about a spinning chair. LOL.

  3. Debbie Dowling says:

    Thank you for this incisive piece. I hope you are right about Republicans being split over proposal to hire a special prosecutor. A few on Tuesday and early Wednesday, including Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), expressed initial alarm at the firing and pondered its repercussions on Democracy. But Sasse, and others, have done that before, only to temper their remarks soon after and close party ranks. Compared to Watergate, America is going to need the Judiciary and not the Legislature, to preserve the Constitution.

  4. Frank Willa says:

    Professor, thank you for your timely insights. I do like the metaphor that you have chosen. In my view it probably “spins” right past conservatives. My take on this situation is the “prima facie” grounds that we know about, Flynn’s contacts with the Russians, and now A.G. Sessions contact with the Ambassador, and reported notifications to the Trump transition headed by Pence “are to a reasonably prudent person grounds that more likely than not” that an infraction occurred. That justifies proceeding to gather and review factual evidence, such as telephone call logs, any recorded intercepts with monitored Russians, and financial transaction records. I believe that the Senate is conducting such a review, as was the now discredited House committee. However, given the Comey firing, in the context that you note, it seems to me to warrant a special prosecutor. This of course could lead to criminal charges. It is stunning to me that George Will has seemed to lose faith in Trump as being even remotely qualified to hold the office. Should the facts lead to evidence that proves the Trump team, and Trump, did “work” with Russia to skew the election then not only must Republicans stop falling in line, but must step up to a monumental and historical task. It is my recollection that when the possibility of impeaching Reagan for the Iran-Contra debacle arose, someone noted that the country “just did not have the stomach for it”. America does not need such a crisis, but if necessary, America can not “let it go”.

    • Ronald Still says:

      I agree 100% with your take on this important issue. As with Former President Nixon, President Trump should not only be subject to an investigation but also be subject to Impeachment. Thank you for your response to this important issue. Ronald D Still Esq.

  5. Ronald Still says:

    Thank you for your important take on this important issue. I feel that President Trump should not only be subject to an investigation but also be subject to Impeachment, as was Former President Nixon. Ronald D Still Esq.

  6. midway54 says:

    All like him have all been severely duped by our quasi-fascist Plutocracy, its shameless media- coward propagandists and by the members of the majority Plutocratic Party in Congress. The orange guy squatting in what has become the Oafel Office will continue on behalf of his fellow fatcats pushing his deceitful agenda Operation Phornicate, while the simple-minded continue cheering him.

  7. Shannon P. Duffy says:

    This is perhaps the best explanation I have seen yet for why Trump enjoys some measure of success in his audacious mendacity. And I am heartened by the glimmer of hope here in your prediction that this tactic will wear thin. Still, I remain mostly distressed about where we are as a nation because I also see in the comments below the proliferation of so many false equivalencies. You have skewered Trump as an unprecedented and dangerous liar and the response from some is like the petulant child’s “I know you are but more of it!” Our outrage about Trump is simply matched by possibly sincere but also quite possibly utterly disingenuous outrage at Obama and Clinton over the non-scandals of Benghazi and Fast and Furious. It is indeed dizzying. You are so very right about that.