Lawfare Archive: Carrie Cordero and Paul Rosenzweig Weigh in on Comey

This episode from The Lawfare Podcast's archive revisits former FBI Director James Comey's 2017 Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, analyzing its implications for the Trump administration and the broader investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Hosts Benjamin Wittes, Kerry Cordero, and Paul Rosenzweig assess Comey’s credibility, the significance of his testimony, and the political and legal ramifications of the president’s alleged attempts to influence the FBI director. They emphasize that while Comey’s account confirmed the existence of Russian interference—a critical national security fact—his failure to report the president’s lack of concern about this threat raises questions about presidential leadership. The discussion centers on whether the president’s actions—demanding loyalty, pressuring Comey to drop the Mike Flynn case, and seeking to dissipate the 'Russian cloud'—constitute obstruction of justice, with experts divided on the severity of the political fallout. A key debate emerges over whether the special counsel’s investigation should produce a report to Congress, especially given the absence of a formal truth commission mechanism like the old independent counsel statute. The episode also examines Comey’s own vulnerabilities, particularly his decision to leak a memo to The New York Times, which critics argue undermines his image as a neutral, apolitical figure, though the panel largely agrees it doesn’t invalidate his testimony. The episode concludes with a nuanced reflection on the nature of obstruction: not a single act, but a pattern of behavior that may be more relevant to impeachment than to criminal prosecution. The hosts stress that while the legal path to charging a sitting president is nearly impossible, the political process—especially the House Judiciary Committee’s potential impeachment inquiry—remains a viable avenue. They caution against overconfidence in the president’s 'vindication' based on the lack of a counterintelligence file on him personally, noting that such investigations are complex and long-term. Ultimately, the episode underscores the tension between legal standards, political realities, and institutional norms in a deeply polarized era, with the public and Congress now holding the responsibility to act on the information revealed.