Syria, and in particular, Donald Trump's spectacular reversal of his policy there, signaled emphatically with 59 Tomahawk missiles, has grabbed headlines across the world. Secretary of State Tillerson met Putin in a dramatic meeting freighted with Cold War tension. The Donald's son, Eric, says how this new toughness proves that his father had no secret ties to Russia, yet the fact remains that there is an entire nest of ties, potential conflicts of interest, and yes, even collusion to sort out.
On Wednesday, it was leaked that Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, has been under investigation by the FBI. In fact, that agency obtained a FISA warrant, which can only be granted with probable cause. Under question is whether Page was in fact an agent of the Russian government while he was working for Trump. It is widely known that Page worked in Russia in the 2000s, at the very least negotiating oil and gas deals, but likely on behalf of the Russian state-owned energy firm. Page, just like others under investigation, knocks these charges down as "conspiracy theory," but the very fact of the FISA warrant is serious indeed. An agent of an enemy power within a presidential campaign? That would be shocking.
On the very same day that the Page story was breaking, it was revealed that Paul Manafort, Trump's one-time campaign manager, filed papers creating a shell company on the very day he left the campaign. This company immediately received loans from a Ukranian-born billionaire. Why does this matter? Think back to the Republican Convention in Cleveland. Many observers were struck by the softening of language around Russia sanctions, particularly regarding its invasion of Ukraine, in the party platform. After all, this is the party of Reagan, McCain, Cheney, and Rumsfeld: not a crowd prone to be soft on Russia. Was there some kind of deal cut between Russia and the Trump team on the easing of sanctions?
So where does all of this leave the investigations? Right now, three different bodies are conducting simultaneous inquiries. The FBI has been on the trail for months, and most observers think that its findings will be credible but limited, since that agency has a reputation for being extremely judicious in its findings. However, we should keep in mind that the FBI comes under the purview of the Justice Department, whose leader, Jeff Sessions, has already had to recuse himself from the investigation when it was revealed that he had taken secret meetings with Russian operatives. Whether these meetings were nefarious or not, Sessions did not disclose them, even when asked, at his Senate confirmation hearing, displaying the same coy amnesia other Trump associates have displayed. (On Thursday, Carter Page said that "something may have come up" regarding the lifting of sanctions during a trip he took to Russia.) But what does recusal by Sessions even mean? FBI director Comey heads the investigation, and he works directly under Sessions. It is hard to imagine any of it being kept separate, and at any rate we will never know. We do know that Trump recently made veiled threats about removing Comey from the FBI, a chilling prospect if there ever was one.
That leaves each chamber of Congress with its investigation. In the House, Devin Nunes, the GOP chair, has also had to remove himself from the proceedings while he faces his own ethics inquiry brought on by some highly questionable actions he took, apparently on orders from the White House itself. Nunes worked on the Trump transition, and seems to be more interested in creating smokescreens for Trump than in pursuing the truth. The "evidence" he "uncovered" turned out to be nothing more than routine background surveillance that inadvertently swept up communications involving Trump team members. Nunes was, it seems, trying to give credence to the thoroughly discredited and outrageous claim made by Trump that he was wiretapped by Obama. Nunes himself concedes nothing, claiming that he is the victim of a left-wing conspiracy to take him out. It remains to be seen whether the GOP members of Congress who are left in charge of the investigation will do their job. Considering that one of them is Trey Gowdy, whose primary claim to fame is his bombastic interrogation of Hillary Clinton over Benghazi and her emails, one should expect nothing but pure partisanship. On the Senate side, Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Mark Warner have started out making nice, but it should not be forgotten that Burr himself sought to discredit news reports of Trump's Russia ties--on behalf of the administration--so his objectivity is questionable at best.
Two Senate bills propose a way to finally get at the truth. S. 27 simply calls for an independent Congressional committee. S. 26 calls for Trump to release his tax returns, which could obviously answer some key questions about Russia. Does he owe significant loans to Russian interests that could color his policy toward that country? Or is there something even darker in those returns? The fact of the matter is that innocent people usually have nothing to hide. These bills, as things stand now, have zero percent chance of passing the Senate, let alone the House, but as new allegations emerge, perhaps a few principled Republicans could be persuaded to put justice over partisanship.
Interestingly, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman makes a strong case that Trump has already passed the threshold necessary for impeachment proceedings to take place, and for multiple reasons. His top choice isn't even Russia, it is corruption, another reason to get a look at those taxes. Of course, pay-to-play in the form of lifting sanctions is itself a form of corruption, so it all may be related in the end. Impeachment matters, because, if all indicators stay on track, Trump's abysmal approval ratings may precipitate a wave election in 2018. A Democratic majority in the House could mean the start of impeachment hearings. Listen below to Feldman's fascinating interview with Slate chief political correspondent Jacob Weisberg.
If the two Senate bills have no chance of passing, and the Congressional investigations are compromised, where does that leave activists? Should we just wait around for the FBI report, or hope for a Democratic sweep in 2018? Why call recalcitrant lawmakers about hopeless legislation? Because we need to keep our eye on the ball. We need to let everyone know the details of this case, and how critical it is to hold leaders accountable. Trump's vicious accusations that this is all a "witch hunt" should be chilling enough in their own right. But the complicity of members of Congress from his own party is shocking. Sure, they want to get their agenda of lower taxes and regulations passed. But at the cost of permanently damaging the reputation and independence of Congress? Perhaps if more debacles unfold like the one we saw over health care, more GOP lawmakers will come to their senses and see that they have tied themselves to the mast of a sinking ship. Either way, we keep up the fight, because it never hurts to speak the truth.
Carter Page's FISA Warrant
Paul Manafort's Money Trail
Cater Page Interview April 13, 2017
Trump on Comey
Trumpcast about Possible Impeachment
Comments
Post a Comment