Lessons for President Trump from Bill Clinton's war room

The nonstop coverage of the Trump administration's efforts to manage multiplying investigations takes me back 20 years, to the time I served as senior adviser in the Clinton White House - an administration that was no stranger to political controversy.

My lesson from those days: Trump and his advisers are in way over their heads and unprepared for what awaits them. Fired FBI Director James Comey's appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee is the opening salvo of a series of investigations likely to continue past Trump's presidency.

Historically, an embattled president's ability to survive depends on maintaining the support of the public and his party. When Richard Nixon lost the country's confidence, he lost his party's leadership and many rank-and-file Republicans. His fate was sealed.

Bill Clinton was in a far stronger position when he faced a similar threat. Clinton's poll ratings during impeachment remained as high as at any preceding point in office. The booming economy and a strong belief that the country was heading in the right direction provided a powerful well of support.

Trump now faces the same imperative. But his ability to secure the necessary support is complicated by having assumed office with the lowest level of popularity in modern history. Given that preexisting deficit of goodwill and the circumstantial evidence that continues to build against him, the electorate will be disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Trump may be able to keep the backing of his base until the midterm elections next year, but that may not be enough. If Republicans lose control of the House, the party may begin to have second thoughts about sticking with the president.

Meanwhile, the culture surrounding Trump and his administration's failure to focus on the fundamentals of governing make his position especially vulnerable.

First, the seriousness of the charges Trump faces dwarfs anything since Watergate. The most damaging threats to Clinton's presidency were linked to his personal behavior - not official responsibilities. If it is proved that Trump's campaign directly or indirectly colluded with the Russians, his presidency could be permanently derailed. It's not hard to see why Trump has been obsessed with insisting that he won the election fair and square.

Second, Trump faces a three-front war involving conduct during the campaign, the transition and his presidency. At the root of many of Trump's problems is his team's failure to plan for taking power, establish effective administrative structures or create operating rules of the road. This is due in part to Trump's resistance to planning and structure, as well as his campaign's misplaced assumption that he would lose the election. Even after victory, his advisers failed to grasp the new realities of what it meant to work in government and the legal limitations they faced during the transition.

Third, the current Trump operation is hobbled by a dysfunctional team that lacks governing experience, as well as the discipline and judgment to respond to continuous crises. There is no evidence the staff can effectively influence a president who seems incapable of maintaining the personal discipline or self-control required by the office.

In contrast, the Clinton White House faced the height of its investigations during the second term, when it had a highly functioning group of operatives with experience in a crisis environment. From the start, they established a separate and walled-off crisis management team to deal with the onslaught on a minute- by-minute basis.

Fourth, and potentially the most dangerous to the people in Trump world, is a transactional culture rooted in high- dollar dealmaking, where rules and ethics are often optional. That culture fit Trump's needs well for many years. But it is unacceptable in government service, as Trump & Co. are discovering to their dismay.

Fifth, during the campaign and transition, the world of Trump remained a spider web of dealmakers whose mission was to expand the family's fortune, and perhaps their own. Anyone who played in this environment is now legally vulnerable.

Finally, the Trump administration has yet to understand how the campaign investigation is likely to be the gateway to the inner workings of the Trump empire.

The Watergate and Clinton investigations offer examples of how an initial inquiry can mushroom. Ultimately, many of the Watergate convictions had little to do with the actual break-ins at the Democratic National Committee. Likewise, Kenneth Starr and his team spent years and more than $70 millionpursuing Clinton in an investigation that far exceeded the scope of his appointment.

The Comey hearing presents the next big test for Trump. His response will either accelerate the downward spiral or signal the administration's effort to reboot and increase its odds of survival.

Sosnik, a Democratic political strategist, was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000.