Tuesday, May 08, 2018

The sacred duty to march into a bayonet

In the middle of an otherwise excellent summation of the perfidy of the Justice Department's indefensible actions, particularly in the matter of Michael Flynn, National Review's Andrew McCarthy makes an observation that seems nothing less than bizarre:
It is simply ridiculous for President Trump to continue bloviating about this situation on Twitter and in friendly media interviews, and for congressional Republicans to continue pretending that the problem is Justice Department and FBI leadership — as if Trump were not responsible for his own administration’s actions. The president has not only the authority but the duty to ensure that his subordinates honor lawful disclosure requests from Congress.
McCarthy has to know that if Trump makes any move that compels the Justice Department to do anything that will likely redound to his benefit, it will essentially guarantee his impeachment. The only recourse Trump has is relying on the courts. And thus far, the courts are doing a good job of exposing Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, and the rest of the goon squad that Trump is not currently allowed to control. For his part, McCarthy lays it out quite well:
A little over a week ago, the House committee chaired by Representative Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) published its lengthy report on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The report was actually completed weeks earlier but was withheld while the committee battled to disclose information that the Justice Department and FBI insisted on blacking out. As usual, the DOJ claimed that the declassification and release of the information would damage investigations and national security. No, it wouldn’t, countered Chairmen Nunes and other Republicans who knew what had been redacted.

When the Comey memos were finally disclosed, we learned that there was no investigative or national-security reason to have concealed them.

This has become a depressingly familiar dance. Justice and the Bureau previously insisted that the sky would fall if Congress forced the release of an Intelligence Committee report on government abuse of foreign-intelligence surveillance powers. To the contrary, we learned that the FBI and DOJ had used the unverified Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants on at least one person tied to the Trump campaign, in contravention of express guidelines that “only documented and verified information may be used to support FBI applications to the [FISA] court” (see Nunes’s March 1 letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions). In addition, we learned that the FISA court was not told that the dossier was a Clinton campaign opposition-research project, and that its author, Christopher Steele, had been terminated as an informant for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the media.
Everything that the FBI redacted was, in short, exculpatory to Flynn. Back to McCarthy:

The now-unredacted passages reveal that top Obama DOJ and FBI officials provided the committee with ‘conflicting testimony’ about why the FBI interviewed Flynn as if he were a criminal suspect.

Well, shortly after the redactions were lifted late on Friday, The Federalist’s Sean Davis got busy on Twitter, posting side-by-side comparisons of the original heavily redacted pages and the new, more transparent version. The disclosures are stunning. I know this will amaze you, but it turns out the redactions had absolutely nothing to do with concerns about the need to protect national security or pending investigations. Instead, the now-unredacted passages:
  • Elaborate on why the FBI did not believe Flynn had lied, including quotations from Comey’s testimony.
  • Reveal that for some period of time during 2016, the FBI conducted a counterintelligence (CI) investigation of Flynn.
  • Note that top Obama Justice Department and FBI officials provided the committee with “conflicting testimony” about why the FBI interviewed Flynn as if he were a criminal suspect.
  • Illustrate that the FBI and Justice Department originally insisted on concealment of facts helpful to Flynn that are already public.
 
So what was this all about? As usual, revenge:
The suggestion that Flynn’s post-election contacts with Russia were improper, let alone unlawful, is absurd. Flynn was the designated national-security adviser for the incoming administration and a key member of the Trump transition team. To have communications with officials of foreign governments was a legitimate and necessary part of his job.

It is worth noting that Flynn had been fired by Obama from his post as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and is despised by Obama intelligence officials for having become an ardent public adversary against Obama’s national-security policy, most prominently as candidate Trump’s most visible supporter. The interest of Obama’s DOJ and FBI in Flynn appears to have intensified after Trump won the election, when Flynn was presumed to be laying groundwork to reverse Obama’s positions — as Trump promised to do throughout the campaign.

While it is only natural that Obama officials would seethe over Flynn’s ascendancy, the suggestion that his post-election contacts with Russia were improper, let alone unlawful, is absurd. Flynn was the designated national-security adviser for the incoming administration and a key member of the Trump transition team. To have communications with officials of foreign governments was a legitimate and necessary part of his job. Plus, Kislyak was a foreign agent subject to FISA surveillance, so the FBI had recordings of his communications with Flynn and knew that Flynn had done nothing improper. (It has been presumed that Flynn’s communications with Kislyak were intercepted because Kislyak, not Flynn, was the subject of a FISA warrant; now, with confirmation that Flynn was the subject of a counterintelligence investigation, we may need to revisit that presumption.)
Yes, you probably should revisit the presumption. More:
Yes, yes, I know — technically, Flynn was prosecuted for making false statements about the conversation, not for having the conversation. Obama officials had hoped to nail Flynn on a heinous crime — a corrupt deal to drop the sanctions as a quid pro quo for Putin’s election-meddling that purportedly helped Trump win. Instead, all they could show was a trivial misstep: Flynn’s failure to acknowledge that sanctions were mentioned in his conversation with Kislyak — a mention so innocuous that the FBI couldn’t decide whether Flynn’s failure to describe it was a lie or an innocent failure of recollection.

Is this misstatement really why Flynn was pursued? I don’t think so. Obama officials hounded Flynn because, to this day, they remain vindictive toward political opponents who dared to engage in foreign affairs while Obama was still president. Democrats today are cheering former Secretary of State John Kerry’s rallying of foreign governments against President Trump’s determination to undo Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. They make no mention of possible violations of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from acting on behalf of the U.S. in foreign-policy matters. Apparently, the Logan Act, which has never been successfully used to prosecute anyone, is alive and well only when it comes to General Flynn
So in a Justice Department still riddled with swampy Obama-era types, how should Trump solve the issue?
Republican committees can carp all they like about Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. The buck stops with the president.
The bayonet is affixed. March into it, Mr. Trump.

5 comments:

Bike Bubba said...

Well said. I hope that Trump is smart enough to start keeping a list of the things Rosenstein is doing so he can simply "roll tape" and fire him. The rub is that if he's a creature of the swamp, what lurks beneath?

W.B. Picklesworth said...

I read some different news sources these days: Scott Adams, Thomas Wictor, drawandstrike, American Thinker, American Greatness, etc... There's quite a bit of agreement that Trump is pretty savvy and has things well in hand, though there is disagreement about what is actually happening behind the scenes.

For my part, I now Trust that Trump is very smart, that leftwing commentators are hacks who can be ignored entirely, that many mainstream rightwinger commentators are extremely skittish. Time will tell, of course, but I don't think Trump is going to get impaled. I think he's going to give a lot better than he gets. What's more, I think his whole style of combat has invited a lot of self-damage on the Left.

3john2 said...

Cutting the heads off the snakes right now will only win sympathy for the snakes. Perhaps it's better for each side to give the other enough rope to hang itself, and see how it ends. If Trump's skin is thick enough, the results will likely be more damning to the inquisitors - assuming anyone gets to see the results.

Gino said...

McCarthy was a never Trumper. As far as I know, he has not renounced that position. And it kinda shows in this column.

Bike Bubba said...

One other thing that comes to mind here, with regards to Mueller's demand to interview the President, is that if indeed McCarthy's column is correct, they ought to be forbidden from using any information gained from the surveillance fraudulently engaged in due to the Steele memo. I think that would just about shut down the investigation.