Steller's Notebook: McCain’s questioning a red flag for constituents

Sen. John McCain puzzled just about everybody with his eight-minute questioning of the former FBI director, James Comey, Thursday.

What’s troubling is how confused McCain himself seemed to be.

Thursday’s hearing, of course, was a big moment on Capitol Hill, in which members of the Senate intelligence committee questioned Comey, who was fired by President Trump on May 9.

Much of the senators’ questioning focused on Comey’s relationship and conversations with Trump and on the investigation into Russian meddling with the 2016 presidential campaign.

Not McCain’s. To be as generous as possible, McCain, 80, seemed to be suggesting that Comey’s FBI treated Trump unfairly by continuing to investigate his campaign’s links to Russia but not investigating whether the Clinton campaign had similar links. Or maybe, as McCain later suggested, the idea was to point out that Comey reached a legal conclusion exonerating Clinton in the investigation of her email server but hadn’t taken a similar step in Trump’s case.

Either explanation is generous. Here’s McCain’s opening question to Comey:

“In the case of Hillary Clinton, you made the statement that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to bring a suit against her, although it had been very careless in their behavior. But you did reach a conclusion in that case that it was not necessary to further pursue her, yet at the same time in the case of Mr. Comey (here, McCain seemed to mean Mr. Trump), you said that there was not enough information to make a conclusion. Tell me the difference between your conclusion as far as former Secretary Clinton is concerned and Mr. Trump.”

Comey answered that the investigation of Clinton’s private email server was completed last July but the Russia-campaign investigation was ongoing when he left the FBI.

Next McCain question: “That investigation was going on, this investigation is going on, you reach separate conclusions.”

Comey: “No, that one was done.”

McCain went on: “Well, at least in the mind of this member, there’s a whole lot of questions remaining about what went on, particularly considering the fact that, as you mentioned, it’s a ‘big deal’ as to what went on during the campaign. So, I’m glad you concluded that part of the investigation but I think that the American people have a whole lot of questions out there, particularly because you just emphasized the role that Russia played, and obviously, she was a candidate for president at the time, so she was clearly involved in this whole situation where fake news — as you just described it, ‘big deal’ — took place. You’re going to have to help me out here. In other words, we’re complete, the investigation of anything that former Secretary Clinton had to do with the campaign is over and we don’t have to worry about it anymore?”

Comey’s response began understandably: “I’m a little confused, senator.”

McCain was not done in his apparent conflation of the concluded Clinton email-server investigation and the ongoing Russia investigation: “But you reached the conclusion that there was no reason to bring charges against Secretary Clinton. So you reached a conclusion in the case of Mr. Comey — President Comey — er, President Trump you have an ongoing investigation, so you’ve got one candidate who you’re done with and another candidate that you have a long way to go, is that correct?”

After the hearing, McCain’s office put out a statement attempting to clarify his remarks. They mentioned he was tired after watching the long Diamondbacks baseball game Wednesday night.

“What I was trying to get at was whether Mr. Comey believes that any of his interactions with the president rise to the level of obstruction of justice. In the case of Secretary Clinton’s emails, Mr. Comey was willing to step beyond his role as an investigator and state his belief about what ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would conclude about the evidence. I wanted Mr. Comey to apply the same approach to the key question surrounding his interactions with President Trump — whether or not the president’s conduct constitutes obstruction of justice. While I missed an opportunity in today’s hearing, I still believe this question is important, and I intend to submit it in writing to Mr. Comey for the record.”

Even if that was what McCain was trying to accomplish in his line of questioning, it doesn’t make much sense. The Clinton email investigation was over when Comey opined about it; the Russia-campaign investigation is not, and he’s not even FBI director anymore.

McCain’s performance was one that went beyond inspiring mockery in his critics. Instead, it inspired sympathy and concern for a man who seemed confused.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

This was a departure in behavior for an octogenarian who has seemed quite mentally vigorous in public. That’s troubling for those of us in Arizona who must count on him to represent us.

Crusty outside and in

I got a surprising compliment from Emil Franzi when I first started writing this column in 2013. Of course, Franzi didn’t think much of the Star, so it didn’t take a lot to improve his low opinion.

But the last time I heard him mention my column, I was punching the buttons on my car radio on a Saturday afternoon in 2016 and heard a familiar voice reaming me by name over a stupid column I’d written. Of course, it was Franzi.

Opinionated, cantankerous, in your face — yep, that was Franzi.

The longtime political writer and consultant died Wednesday of cancer. I didn’t know him too well but had, of course, read his work over the years, heard him on the radio, and been on the receiving end of his barbs.

Franzi was a Republican who leaned libertarian and also leaned green — yes, a strange and contradictory blend. He was the one who brought pro-gun columns to the Tucson Weekly and also helped bring about the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.

That latter work he did through his protege, former Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll, who kept in close contact with Franzi from the late 1990s till now.

Carroll called him “Crusty and rough on the outside, and maybe even crusty and rough on the inside, too.”

Franzi broke down politics into simple vignettes and lessons for Carroll when he was a novice, Carroll said.

“He told me about the political side: Don’t mess with people’s dogs, don’t mess with people’s libraries. If you really want to make them happy, build a gun range.”

Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry called Franzi an “eclectic genius.” His interests ranged from Pima County politics to world history, from guns to opera to cowboy movies. Indeed, he hosted a radio show called Voices of the West in addition to the one on politics, Inside Track.

Over the last few years, Franzi put out an online publication called the Southern Arizona News Examiner. It included a column of collected notes like the political column that he used to help write for the Weekly called The Skinny. As a nod to that column, managing editor Harry Alexander said, Franzi called it “the Fat.”

Pima Dems discord

The Pima County Democratic Party’s executive committee met this week and considered whether to support a ballot initiative to fund preschool for city kids with an additional half-cent sales tax. They endorsed a half-cent sales-tax increase for roads and public safety earlier this year.

This other effort, called Strong Start Tucson, appealed to most of the committee members, but it was voted down. The party’s bylaws require 75 percent of those present to vote in favor of the proposal for it to receive party endorsement.

Jo Holt, the party chair, told me the main arguments against endorsement were that preschool is not a city function and that it’s the responsibility of state government.