The crazy roller coaster of a day was a function of three related phenomena. First, we have a president blithely unconcerned with the rule of law, the office of the presidency or political stability. His advisers are afraid to cross him; he takes politically insane direction from Fox News hosts. Second, Republican members of Congress have failed repeatedly to check his behavior, and in some cases, those such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) have actively abetted his attempts to derail the Russia investigation. This is all reinforced by an intellectually and morally corrupt right-wing media machine that operates without journalistic standards or commitment to reporting objective reality. Third, the sense of confusion is compounded by the 24/7, Twitter-led media circus in which rumor, innuendo and gossip are fed to the media in an endless cycle, each publication of a questionable fact compounding a false sense of certainty in reported events — until totally contradicted information surfaces.
It is tempting to say this is the fault of everyone — voters, Republicans, Congress, the White House, right-wing outlets and think tanks, excessively competitive mainstream media outlets, social media, Russian interference, James B. Comey (for helping throw the election to Trump), Hillary Clinton (for losing a winnable race) and the self-appointed enablers inside the White House who think they are saving the country from Trump. That, however, would leave us paralyzed, helpless and exhausted. If we put aside placing blame for a moment and concentrate on how to fix our utterly broken federal government and political culture, we find two more satisfactory conclusions. First, Republicans cannot be trusted with majorities in the House and Senate; voters have the chance — if not the obligation — to vote them out. Second, mainstream news outlets must exercise more caution and include more caveats in reporting. There is a world of difference between “Rosenstein resigned” and “It is unclear if Rosenstein resigned.” If that means getting “beaten” by an outfit with less exacting standards, so be it.
In the Times story, some officials who spoke to the paper—it’s not clear whether these officials were present or merely saw McCabe’s memos—reportedly describe Rosenstein’s musings as “erratic.” But if the colleagues with whom Rosenstein spoke about these things at the time had shared that view, they would have leaked his comments. They didn’t. And that, in turn, suggests that Rosenstein may have felt free to talk this way because the officials around him largely agreed. Nor was this distrust of the president confined to the Justice Department. According to the Times, while Rosenstein was writing his memo about Comey, White House aides were trying to stop Trump from firing the FBI director. The article also reports that Rosenstein told colleagues “he might be able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and [Kelly] to mount an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment.” That effort never materialized, says the Times. But what could have given Rosenstein the idea that Kelly and Sessions might go along? Recall the words of the anonymous op-ed: “early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment.” Rosenstein wasn’t in the Cabinet. Somebody else was doing the whispering. Parts of the Times story remain to be adjudicated. There’s a pitched battle, in particular, over the context and seriousness of the comment about wearing a wire. But other anecdotes in the story haven’t been disputed, and together, they point to the same bottom line: Rosenstein didn’t trust Trump. Nor do other people in the administration. It isn’t because these people don’t appreciate who Trump really is. It’s because they do. So if you want to restore loyalty to the president, you won’t achieve that by getting rid of Rosenstein. You’ll have to get rid of Trump.
Related Articles
On June 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. received one of the most striking emails of the presidential campaign, offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government’s “support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. responded 17 minutes later: “if it’s what you say I love it.” That email led to a meeting at Trump Tower that has become a central focus of the investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. But the very day that email was sent, another exchange was taking place behind the scenes. Documents reviewed by BuzzFeed News show that $3.3 million began moving on June 3 between two of the men who orchestrated the meeting: Aras Agalarov, a billionaire real estate developer close to both Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump, and Irakly “Ike” Kaveladze, a longtime Agalarov employee once investigated for money laundering.
That money is on top of the more than $20 million that was flagged as suspicious, BuzzFeed News revealed earlier this month, after the money ricocheted among the planners and participants of the Trump Tower meeting. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which has been investigating whether any individuals colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, is examining the suspicious transactions, four federal law enforcement officials said. A spokesperson for Mueller’s office declined to comment. Although the documents do not directly link the $3.3 million to the meeting, they show that officials at three separate banks raised red flags about the funds. Many of the transfers seemed to have no legitimate purpose, bankers noted. Kaveladze quickly moved money to other accounts he controlled, and appeared to use some of it to make payments on Agalarov’s behalf — including more than $700,000 to pay off American Express charges.
Hodgepodge of Russian connections to Trump world
Interesting! This expert analysis makes the case it really was Russia that put Trump over the top in the election: new-expert-book-
International Dangers
The best way to avoid nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands is for nations to not keep them around. The most promising finding in the study is that the number of countries with more than one kilogram of highly enriched uranium, the fuel for a nuclear bomb, has dropped from 32 to 22 in six years, with Argentina and Poland removing or disposing of those materials most recently. The others that have given it up are Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Sweden, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. That’s down from more than 50 countries in the early 1990s. Among the 22 with more than a kilogram of highly enriched uranium, 21 have improved their defenses against theft of nuclear materials over the past two years; only North Korea received a worsening score, the study said.
Unfortunately, the world at large does not show as much promise. The index tracks the “risk environment” for countries and found it was declining in some that possess nuclear materials. The authors of the study say this criteria measures “political stability, effective governance, the pervasiveness of corruption, and whether there are groups in the country interested in and capable of illicitly acquiring nuclear materials.” The United States was cited for deterioration in political stability and effective governance. It is not difficult to see why amid the tumult of the Trump presidency. The report cites “heightened social unrest, resignations and vacancies from key government departments, and the increasingly deep polarization of political party politics (which contributes to a country’s ability to establish and sustain policies to secure nuclear materials).” The study found that Belgium, Egypt, India, Pakistan and Russia “all face a heightened risk that a capable terrorist group could commit acts of nuclear terrorism.” Many countries are also “poorly prepared” for a cyberattack on nuclear facilities. No one should harbor any illusions that the problem known as “loose nukes” has gone away. A catastrophe always is possible. But hard work might avert disaster, and it appears many governments are taking the threat seriously.
Recent Comments