On Flynn and Partisanship
Terry H. Schwadron
Crazily, the biggest takeaways from the hearings into Russian influence, the role of former Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn and the actions of the Trump administration are not about Vladimir Putin’s reach into our elections or even the various lies that people involved have been telling.
Rather, the biggest takeaway is that no one seems capable of looking solely at findings of fact without feeling it necessary to dump overwhelming doses of partisanship onto the matters at hand.
It all paled a bit with the drama over the sudden dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, but even there, among the many explanations that emerged, there were political overlays. The bad joke, of course, is that the FBI has a hand in looking at Flynn, among others, for their role as contact points for Russian operatives trying to influence U.S. decision-making. Indeed, in the aftermath of the Comey firing, the Senate Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed all paperwork, emails and records from Flynn of contacts with Russians.
From the White House came renewed word, for example, that what’s wrong with Michael Flynn’s misdeeds is that they were described before Congress by Sally Q. Yates, a career Justice Department official who finally, on the day she was dismissed, had opposed President Trump’s legally misguided Muslim travel ban.
That singular fact — and a belief system that she had been appointed an associate U.S. Attorney by Bill Clinton — was offered to undermine the idea that she went to the White House twice in person and at least once by phone in an attempt to suggest that intelligence files showed that Flynn had troublesome contacts with Russians, to offer to share them, and to encourage action against Flynn, then the new National Security Adviser.
Among Senate subcommittee members who had invited Yates and former National Director of Intelligence James Clapper to testify in open session on the Russia connection questions, Republican repeatedly used their questioning to determine who leaked information about Flynn to The Washington Post, as if that was the most important question on the table. Nailing a leaker seemed to trump, as it were, any question about a national security adviser to the President who appeared to have strong relations to the Russian security set-up.
Indeed, Sean Spicer, the presidential spokesman, once again yesterday just deflected important questions about why Flynn was allowed to continue to take part in the highest level meetings and phone calls — including a call with Putin — for 18 days after Yates let the White House counsel know that Flynn had been caught in lies about his dealings with Russians. All acknowledged that the counsel, Donald McGahn, shared what he had been told with the President straight after hearing from Yates.
It is possible to say Democrats were looking to pin the worst case on the White House, but the actions in the White House are pretty damning about whether the President was simply sitting on the Flynn matter, hoping that things would blow over. Instead, word about Flynn’s meetings with Russians leaked through The Washington Post, forcing the President’s hand in seeking Flynn’s request for retirement because had lied to Vice President Mike Pence. Somehow, that was more palable than acknowledging that Flynn being under official investigation by the FBI for his dealings with the Russians.
Indeed, the first open question now is if it had not by for The Post article, whether President Trump ever would have found Flynn to be lacking. Following law and order is for others, apparently, not for him, even as ethics, consistency or predictability.
Other open questions are whether Flynn faces criminal investigation and prosecution, whether he would simply receive a preemptive presidential pardon against any and all charges, to what degree the Russians did invade and seek to influence the elections, and whether Mr. Trump himself is beholding to Russian interests through his business connections. His son has acknowledged that the Trump Organization received a lion’s share of its financing through Deutschebank based in Russia, and a private investigator who has worked for British Intelligence has traced more sordid Russian intrigues aimed at inveigling the Trumps.
Yates and Clapper were precise and clear, totally well-spoken and prepared in speaking to Sen. Lindsay Graham’s subcommittee on terrorism. They were believable. By contrast, Team Trump is none of the above.
The double talk of feigned bipartisanship falls away when you listen to the questions at these hearings, or see on whom they rely for information, or come up with explanations that are baldly partisan. At the hearings on Monday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex) spend several minutes tieing the Russian interference back to Hillary Clinton’s email habits. Quite clever, but totally irrelevant.
Kudos to those who are actually trying to learn the actual answers in a man-made fog of misrepresentation, complexities and spy tales. To those spreading partisan fog, you deserve darts.
##
terryschwadron.wordpress.com