Trump Agenda Neutralized By CIA Disinformation
Trump
Agenda Neutralized By CIA Disinformation
Pat
Buchanan writes that the hope for normal relations with Russia “is now suddenly
impaired.”
“The
howls of indignation from Democrats and the media — that Trump’s victory and
Clinton’s defeat were due to Putin’s involvement in our election — have begun
to limit Trump’s freedom of action in dealing with Russia. And they are
beginning to strengthen the hand of the Russophobes and the Putin-is-Hitler
crowd in both parties. When Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson went
before the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Marco Rubio demanded to know why
he would not publicly declare Putin a ‘war criminal.’
The
more toxic Putin-haters can make the Russian president, the more difficult for
President Trump to deal with him, even if that is in the vital national
interest of the United States.
“The
sort of investigation for which McCain has been clamoring, and the Beltway
drums have now begun to beat, could make it almost impossible for President
Trump to work with President Putin.
The Washington Post describes the engine it wishes to see built:
‘The investigators of Russian meddling, whether a Congressional select
committee or an independent commission, should have bipartisan balance, full
subpoena authority, no time limit and a commitment to make public as much as
possible of what they find.’”
January 14, 2017
“Fake
news!” roared Donald Trump, the work of “sick people.”
The
president-elect was referring to a 35-page dossier of lurid details of his
alleged sexual misconduct in Russia, worked up by a former British spy. A
two-page summary of the 35 pages had been added to Trump’s briefing by the CIA
and FBI — and then leaked to CNN.
This
is “something that Nazi Germany would have done,” Trump said. Here, basically,
is the story.
During
the primaries, anti-Trump Republicans hired the ex-spy to do “oppo research” on
Trump, i.e., to dig up dirt.
The
spy contacted the Russians. They told him that Trump, at a Moscow hotel in
2013, had been engaged in depraved behavior, that they had the films to
blackmail him, and that Trump’s aides had been colluding with them.
In
December, a British diplomat gave the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who
personally turned it over to James Comey of the FBI.
On
Jan. 7, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and his colleagues at
the NSA, CIA and FBI decided the new president needed to know about the
dossier. They provided him with a two-page synopsis.
Once
CNN learned Trump had been briefed, the cable news network reported on the
unpublished dossier, without going into the lurid details.
BuzzFeed
released all 35 pages. The story exploded.
Besides
Trump’s understandable outrage, his Jan. 11 press conference produced related
news.
U.S.
intelligence agencies had for months contended that it was Russia who hacked
the DNC emails and those of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. Putin’s
objectives, they contend, were to damage both U.S. democracy and Hillary
Clinton, whom Putin detests, and to aid Trump.
Trump
had previously dismissed claims of Russian hacking as unproved conjecture, and
also as being advanced to delegitimize his victory.
Wednesday,
Trump conceded Russia did it: “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,”
adding, Vladimir Putin “should not be doing it.”
The
stakes in all of this are becoming huge.
Clearly,
Trump hopes to work out with Putin the kind of detente that President Nixon
achieved with Leonid Brezhnev.
This
should not be impossible. For, unlike the 1970s, there is no Soviet Empire
stretching from Havana to Hanoi, no Warsaw Pact dominating Central Europe, no
Communist ideology steering Moscow into constant Cold War conflict with the
West.
Russia
is a great power with great power interests. But she does not seek to restore a
global empire or remake the world in her image. U.S.-Russian relations are thus
ripe for change.
But
any such hope is now suddenly impaired.
The
howls of indignation from Democrats and the media — that Trump’s victory and
Clinton’s defeat were due to Putin’s involvement in our election — have begun
to limit Trump’s freedom of action in dealing with Russia. And they are
beginning to strengthen the hand of the Russophobes and the Putin-is-Hitler
crowd in both parties.
When
Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson went before the Foreign Relations
Committee, Sen. Marco Rubio demanded to know why he would not publicly declare
Putin a “war criminal.”
The
more toxic Putin-haters can make the Russian president, the more difficult for
President Trump to deal with him, even if that is in the vital national
interest of the United States.
The
sort of investigation for which McCain has been clamoring, and the Beltway
drums have now begun to beat, could make it almost impossible for President
Trump to work with President Putin.
The
Washington Post describes the engine it wishes to see built:
“The
investigators of Russian meddling, whether a Congressional select committee or
an independent commission, should have bipartisan balance, full subpoena
authority, no time limit and a commitment to make public as much as possible of
what they find.”
What
the Post seeks is a Watergate Committee like the one that investigated the
Nixon White House, or a commission like the ones that investigated 9/11 and the
JFK assassination.
Trump
“should recognize,” writes the Post, “that the credibility of his denials of
any Russian connections is undermined by his refusal to release tax returns and
business records.”
In
short, when the investigation begins, Trump must produce the evidence to
establish his innocence. Else, he is Putin’s man.
This
city is salivating over another Watergate, another broken president. But
President-elect Trump should be aware of what is at stake. As The Wall Street
Journal writes:
“Mr.
Trump’s vehement denials (of collusion with Moscow and corrupt behavior) also
mean that if we learn in the future that Russia does have compromising details
about him, his Presidency could be over.”
Yes,
indeed, very big stakes.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.