ShareThis Page
Joseph Sabino Mistick

President Trump and former FBI Director Comey: 2 paths of loyalty

| Saturday, April 21, 2018, 9:00 p.m.

Loyalty was all over the news last week, as former FBI Director James B. Comey took to the road to promote his new book, “A Higher Loyalty.” And, we now see that Comey's relationship with Donald Trump was star-crossed from the get-go, mostly because of their different notions of loyalty.

At Trump's invitation, these two powerhouses — from different places with very different values — dined alone at the White House, seven days after Trump's swearing-in. As Comey tells it, Trump wondered, after some small talk, whether he could expect “loyalty” from the FBI director, and Comey countered with a promise of “honesty.”

There was some back and forth, before they settled on a mutually unsatisfying agreement that Comey would give the president “honest loyalty,” whatever that means. And it was all down hill from there.

In Trump's private business world, loyalty is personal, and disloyalty is a fire-able offense. Where Comey comes from, loyalty is not to any individual, but to the Constitution, through the institutions in which one serves.

And, while the constitutional meaning of loyalty is a fundamental American value, it is one of those things that require an occasional reminder. That can occur on the big stage, as with Watergate in the 1970s, but it also happens in more mundane settings.

During the George W. Bush administration, former White House Political Director Sara Taylor was grilled by a Senate committee over the firing of U.S. Attorneys who seemed to be disloyal to the Bush administration. When pressed by Sen. Patrick Leahy to answer a tough question, Taylor refused, citing her “oath to the President,” as her reason.

Leahy pounced, asking, “Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?”

Taylor conceded that Leahy was correct, but she hemmed and hawed, and made it clear that she still thought her loyalty was to the president. Leahy would not let her budge.

“No, the oath says that you take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. That is your paramount duty,” he said.

“I know that the President refers to the government being his government. It's not. It's the government of the people of America. Your oath is not to uphold the President, nor is mine to uphold the Senate.”

Trump, the hard-nosed New York developer, knows the blurred line between business and politics, and the casual quid pro quo, in which jobs and contracts are rewarded with unflinching loyalty.

That is still the rule in many of the countries where Trump's businesses flourish.

And while the Trump and Comey versions of what happened over dinner will always differ, this one thing remains true: the highest officials in our government owe their loyalty to the American people, not to a person.

In 1953, Winston Churchill compared England's unwritten constitution with our own, noting a common purpose.

“We do not want to live under a system dominated either by one man or one theme,” he said.

So, regardless of politics, as Presidents come and go and political parties rise and fall, our loyalty remains to the guarantees of the United States Constitution.

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me