When I read Roger Stone's 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, released after Adam Schiff's year-plus stonewalling, during which period the congressman repeatedly went on national media to lie about what had happened in those hearings, I did so with a copy of the Justice Department indictment of him, an indictment based, in part, on Stone's testimony to the committee (for more on my reading of the 5,000+ pages of testimony released in 2020 see the 53 Transcripts series). My reaction was that Stone might as well have worn a "Please, Indict Me!" T-shirt to the hearing. His lies, and contempt for the committee, though not material to the Russia collusion narrative, were evident in the transcript. Perhaps no surprise, as his successor as Trump's campaign advisor, Corey Lewandowski, had this to say to the committee about Roger:
"Roger Stone is a liar"
"What did he lie to you about?"
"The time of day, the color of his tie, what color of shoes he was wearing, basically everything and everything."
I've now read the DOJ indictment of Donald Trump. I can't judge the merits, either factually or regarding the legal arguments that are certain to be raised, or predict the outcome, but based on the indictment and the circumstances around it, all I can say is that Trump might as well have been wearing a "Please, Indict Me!" T-shirt for his handling of the documents situation, from start to finish. This is a much more serious legal matter than the ridiculous case filed by the Manhattan DA or, from what I can tell, the case that may be filed in Georgia.
That's a consistent pattern for Trump. Put a rake in his path and he'll step on it every time, the handle clocking him in the head, and yet he'll learn nothing from the experience. He's a one-trick pony. His unorthodox style (I likened it to a left-handed boxer) and weird charisma, which appeals to a segment of the electorate, got him far. But he is not the 3-D thinker his admirers claim. He's not a thinker at all. He's instinctive. He reacts to a situation, says what he needs to say to get through it, sees what the reaction is, and then decides what he'll say next.(1) Early on that was enough to throw off most opponents in both parties and the media, but eventually people caught on. You pile up enough "off-the-cuff" statements or tweets and people realize this is no logical consistency or thoughts behind them. You can really see this in play recently with his statements on Ron DeSantis, most of which make absolutely no sense, are inconsistent from one statement to the next, and often endorse Democrat talking points. It's also why no lawyer representing Trump would ever recommend he take the stand in his defense. He'll say anything to get past the moment. That sometimes work in politics, but doesn't in a trial.
The media caught on to this by the time Covid hit. Reporters realized they could get him to say anything in reaction to their questions, no matter how outrageous, in fact, the more outrageous the question, the more they could get him to sound outrageous. They, not Trump, controlled those press conferences, but he never realized it. In his defense, people would say that the public hated the press and their questions made them look liked idiots. Did the press often look like idiots? Sure, but the public expects that. What they don't like is their President looking like an out of control idiot, and that's what Trump did every time he took their bait, which was every time.(2)
It would have been easy enough, once the archives asked for the documents, for Trump to cooperate, as Biden did. This all could have been avoided. Why he didn't is simple. And it's simple, because the simple explanations work for Trump. Despite the fevered progressive fantasies, this is not because he wanted to sell the documents to Putin or the Saudis.(3) It's because he wanted trophies to show to friends and celebrities, demonstrating his importance and brilliance. If it became a problem, he'd improvise his way through it.
There's been some speculation by his supporters that he held on to some of the documents because they proved the Russia collusion conspiracy. Actually, that is already proven (see the Russia Collusion series - I am slowly making my way through the Durham report and will write a summary next month) but, more importantly, it's not true or, if it is, is just another example of Trump's incompetence. As president, Trump often tweeted that he would require declassification of all Russia collusion documents, but it never happened. Why, if he now had the documents would he continue to hold on to them for two years, once out of the presidency?
There is a cautionary note and it's why I'm not expressing a view on the merits. An indictment is not evidence, even if, like this one, it is written in an unusually long and narrative form. In 2018, the Muller gang filed a similar, very long, and very detailed indictment against a number of Russian individuals and companies alleging interference in the 2016 election. It got enormous press coverage but then the Mueller team got a big surprise. Because the U.S. had no jurisdiction over the defendants, Mueller never expected the case to proceed and to have to prove the allegations; it was filed as a publicity stunt to keep coverage going on the Russia collusion narrative, because by that time Mueller's crew knew they had nothing. The surprise was that one of the Russian companies employed US counsel, and demanded the discovery it was entitled to from the government. The Mueller team, knowing its scheme was unraveling, resisted disclosure and foisted off the case to the local U.S. attorney office. A year later, the U.S. attorney asked that the case be dismissed. However, it served its purpose by creating the desired media narrative.
I think there are a couple of differences between this case and that of the alleged Russian interference. First, unlike Mueller's political and media stunt, this case will go to trial and the government knows that. Second, if the testimony from Trump's own attorneys at trial is consistent with that alleged in the indictment it will be devastating. The lawyers were compelled to testify, they did not turn on Trump, and it will present enormous problems for the defense. And as mentioned above, Trump's trial attorneys will be very reluctant to recommend the defendant testify in his own defense.
Trump's ploy is to say to his supporters that "They're not out to get me, they're out to get you". There is some truth to this. Anyone who watched what happened to Brett Kavanaugh knows this. Anyone who is aware of the censorship efforts by the Biden administration and its institutional allies, knows it. Anyone who has lost their job because of Biden's allies, or is staying silent to keep their job, knows it.
The problem is that it is Trump making the argument. He makes it so easy for his opponents and he drags down everyone with him. And he's made chumps of his own supporters. What happened to all of those who got fired up by the "stop the steal" nonsense and his cockeyed theories, and were inspired to get involved with January 6? Trump raised well over $100 million on the strength of January 6 and, last time I looked, none of it went to the January 6 defendants. He left them on their own. Loyalty with Trump is a one-way street. In contrast, Democrats look after their own. During the George Floyd riots, Democrats raised millions for defense lawyers and bail for their supporters who had caused so much destruction and committed violent crimes.
Trump's perfect genius is in creating messaging and imaging to undermine himself and his supporters. For examples, read Images and Ukraine Blues.
All of this goes to demonstrating that even if, by some strange set of circumstances, Trump were to win the GOP nomination and the presidency, his second term will be a disaster for the causes his supporters most believe in. He is incapable of governance. He has learned nothing and wants to learn nothing.
The other argument is to raise the dual standards regarding Trump, Hillary and Biden. While I have no sympathy for Trump because he put himself in this spot, I understand the political appeal of the argument. I'm outraged by that aspect and don't want to be lectured by any Democrat about the importance of the rule of law.
Hillary Clinton broke the law, a strict liability statute. She had the choice of complying with the law and running the risk that the American public might eventually be able to see some of her correspondence, or breaking the law and risking that the Russians and/or Chinese could intercept her communications. She chose the latter.
She also destroyed evidence and got away with it (having experience with the Department of Justice on criminal matters, this is the part I find the most astonishing).(4) And now we know she created the Russia collusion hoax to divert attention from the political fallout created by the hacking of the DNC emails. She hired FusionGPS which, at the same time, was representing a Putin-connected oligarch. FusionGPS in turn hired Christopher Steele who, at the time, was working for another Putin-connected oligarch. Steele, in turn, hired Igor Danchenko, a Russian national, someone investigated by the FBI for ties to Russian intelligence, who provided Steele with information alleged to come from Russian intelligence sources. And the source for one of the most scandalous allegations, Trump's comporting with prostitutes at the Moscow Ritz Carlton (which proved as false as everything else in the Steele dossier), came from a DC lobbyist (Charles Dolan) who had worked extensively for the Clintons, and was also advising the Kremlin on how to improve its public relations in the U.S. while regularly meeting with Putin's spokesperson. The FBI, DOJ, and the Obama White House were aware of what she was doing, thought it just fine, and she got away with it.
And those at the FBI and DOJ who kept the fake narrative of the Russia collusion story going for three years also got away with it. The Federal bureaucracy collaborated to clear Hillary in time so she could beat Trump and then, after she unexpectedly lost, collaborated to protect themselves, undermine the Trump administration, and help the Democrats win the mid-term.(5)(6)
As for the Democrats this is about practical politics. The bottom line is that they want Trump to be the nominee, because they think him the easiest opponent to beat or, failing that, to keep him in play to disrupt the campaign of whoever else comes out of the GOP primaries. With the indictments they have ensured that Trump will be the GOP story right through to the election. Every GOP candidate will be peppered with questions about Trump because the media outlets also want this to be about Trump. This suits Trump, as well as the Democrats.
The most likely outcome if Trump is nominated is that he will lose and drag down the rest of the GOP with him, opening the floodgates to the authoritarian Democrats, a fate only narrowly avoided after the 2020 election because of Senators Manchin and Sinema. In the unlikely event he wins, it will still be a disaster. If he loses the nomination, he will undermine whoever the GOP candidate is. Trump cannot afford for another GOP candidate to win the 2024 election. If they do, it undermines his entire "stop the steal" argument and makes him into a big loser, the one thing Trump can never accept.(7) We saw him pull the same stunt in the Georgia run-off election in January 2021. At rallies he would give a lukewarm brief endorsement of the GOP candidates and then rant on for a half hour about how the election was rigged. He successfully depressed GOP turnout because if the GOP candidates won it would have undermined his claim that the November election had been stolen from him. For Trump, it is all about Trump, not America.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) This has been a consistent practice of Trump's. In the Art of the Deal he brags about not wanting to be trapped by a schedule or agenda and prefers to come in to the office each day and react to what is going on. From all reports, he followed the same practice in the White House, refusing to read briefing papers, acting impulsively, and watching hours of cable TV every day to figure out what his next move would be. This had always worked for Trump, particularly after his business model changed after his bankruptcies in the 1990s. He saw no reason not to continue to employ it as President, not understanding the enormous differences between being a developer selling his brand and his new role. And he knew from his stint on The Apprentice that his act was a success and that a 40 rating made you a star, failing to realize that a 40 rating made you a loser in Presidential politics.
(2) He's simply incapable of thinking a couple of steps ahead. If, after the electoral college voted on December 14, 2020, he'd said, "I think there were big problems with the election, but we've gone through the process, and Biden will become president. I think people will regret it once they see what Biden and the Democrats do but, in the meantime, I'll focus on improving the election process for the next time around, because I'll be back", he would have clinched the GOP nomination by now and probably win the 2024 election. I would not have liked that outcome because he would be as ineffective a Chief Executive as he was last time around, but I think that's where we'd be right now if he had thought ahead. Instead, he followed a dead end strategy that promised no favorable outcome for him and led to January 6.
(3) The hysterical reaction to Trump's election remains unabated. Trump's own rhetoric and bizarre and repulsive mannerisms contributed but, until the November 2020 election, his actual actions were within the norms of modern presidents (the opposite can be said of Biden). And, as far as foreign policy goes, I'd argue he was the best president in the past thirty years, which is said less in praise of Trump than in recognition of the utter mediocrity for what passes as the foreign policy establishment of both parties. How do his repeated warnings about the security threat posed by the Nordstream Pipeline and hectoring NATO allies to increase defense spending, for both of which he was relentlessly mocked, sound now? What Trump did is to expose the corruption, lack of integrity, and hostility to democracy of so many once respected institutions. If they had reacted normally to Trump they would have found much to legitimately criticize, but by going so far over the top they ended up acting in the very ways they criticized Trump for, discrediting themselves as much as Trump discredited himself. Holman Jenkins of the Wall St Journal best summed it up back in 2019:
Mr Trump is said to upset the norms of our political life, but how exactly? By lying? By engaging in demagoguery? By making absurd claims? His real trick has been to be a one-man satire of our politics. And so far he has yet to find an opponent or critic - whether Mr Biden, or Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney - who doesn't prove his point.A reminder; the Russia collusion hoax is worse in substance than Watergate, with the extra added bonus being it is as if Watergate happened and the New York Times and Washington Post took the side of the Nixon administration.
To show what a liar he is, his enemies entangle themselves in lies. Democrats have turned themselves into a party of Adam Schiffs, who, whatever his previous virtues, now is wholly defined by his promotion of the collusion canard. It's an amazing psychological feat to squander their advantage over Mr Trump in this way.
Ditto the media. In their eagerness to traffic in falsehoods about Mr Trump, his media critics lend him strength. We face the weird prospect now of a world-class scandal involving the FBI and the intelligence community being aired even while much of the press is committed to being part of the coverup.
(4) In the indictment, Trump allegedly makes a reference to this remarking to his lawyers about how Clinton had her lawyers protect her by destroying documents. Typical of Trump, this is a garbled reference to what happened - Clinton's lawyers did not destroy documents, rather they were probably the ones who instructed Clinton's IT guy to destroy the documents (in contrast to how Special Counsel went after Trump's lawyers in this case, DOJ handled Hillary's lawyers with kid gloves). In one sense, Trump does know how things really work as this example shows. Another is in the Mueller report where repeatedly Trump complains to his team that he needs an attorney general who will protect him, citing Robert Kennedy and Eric Holder as AGs who did precisely that. He's right about that - Holder even publicly bragged about being Obama's "wingman", and proved it through his actions that effectively destroyed the Justice Department. For more on Holder's conduct read Footnote 1 from this post. The next non-Trump Republican president needs to appoint an AG who will protect him and go after the opposition; no more gentlemanly ex-Senators like Ashcroft and Sessions. One further note - the source for the Trump statements cited in the Mueller report is Trump's own White House Counsel. Trump cooperated to an unprecedented degree with the Mueller investigation, waiving executive privilege and allowing his staff to testify and producing documents.
(6) There is a much broader problem of double standards which is evident to many of us. See, Correction for one example.
(7) It occurs to me that if Trump does poorly in the early primaries he might accept a plea deal and drop out or just drop out and blame it on the government's "persecution" of him. It would provide a face-saving excuse for him.
No comments:
Post a Comment