I spent the weekend digitizing the rest of our new issue, so I hope you take the opportunity to peruse our many excellent features, articles, and book reviews. I’ve spent this morning watching the FBI/NSA hearing in front of the House Intelligence Committee. As a result, I’m a little behind on the news.
So, I just want to provide a bit of a casual observation right now. The Republicans are keen to distract from the Russian angle to this investigation by complaining that Michael Flynn’s name was divulged to the public as someone who was in contact with the Russian ambassador. The way they are arguing this is that the identity of U.S. citizens who are incidentally captured by electronic surveillance on foreign targets is supposed to be masked or protected from dissemination.
There’s no doubt that the fact that Flynn was in contact with the Russian ambassador was widely disseminated within the Obama administration and that it leaked fairly quickly to the press. Both could be crimes, it’s true. But this is predicated on two things. The first is that Flynn has not the target of surveillance. That is not assured since he clearly was a subject of a counterintelligence investigation that began in the early summer of 2016. The second assumption is that the fact the incoming National Security Advisor was colluding with the Soviet ambassador to undercut current U.S. national security policy was not something of the utmost concern to our intelligence agencies and policy makers.
Under the circumstances, and given Flynn’s subsequent firing and the disclosure that he was richly compensated by Russian entities for relatively little work, and the fact he was working at the time as an agent of a foreign power (Turkey) and did not disclose that, it’s curious that the Republicans want to put so much focus on defending him.
It does serve to divert focus from potentially more damaging revelations, I suppose, but in a far from optimal way. Is this seriously the best they can do to try to shield the Trump administration from scrutiny?
I don’t think anything they say works much beyond their base. But anything they say, no matter how stupid, works with their base. So why not? They’re holding weak cards, but the base doesn’t even understand that.
It’s consistent with Trump’s bizarre tweets as well. I can only imagine that they’re convinced they can block any real consequences resulting from the investigation and they’re just throwing up a squid ink cloud of bullshit for the rubes.
It’s a terrible look for them though, approaching an admission of guilt.
Look, Republicans love Trump, Democrats loathe him. All polls show this. I just saw something about this in regards to the draft budget. How many people have actually scrutinized the budget? It’s all just another manifestation of an utterly gridlocked, polarized polity.
The Acting Attorney General flat out tells the President Elects Counsel that Flynn is compromised and subject to Russian blackmail, yet he STILL appoints him to a high security position.
It’s way more than an admission of guilt.
Eventually every single person involved is going to have to testify under oath. That’s going to be an amazing day. Perjury or admit you’re a traitor.
.