National Review Online
Thursday, February 16, 2017
According to the New
York Times, “Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of
Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had
repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before
the election.” This story may have been over-hyped — more about that below —
but it and a similar report from CNN are troubling nonetheless. They come on
the heels of national-security adviser Michael Flynn’s ouster in the imbroglio
over his phone calls with the Russian ambassador. One does not need to believe,
with Democrats and Trump’s reflexive critics in the media, that this matter is
on the order of Watergate to see that a congressional inquiry is in order.
In November, following an entirely unanticipated loss at
the polls, Democrats repaired to declaring that Russia “hacked the election.”
Precisely what that meant was never clarified, but elected Democrats were
content to insinuate that Moscow was somehow responsible for Trump’s victory,
going so far as to hint that Russian intelligence may have manipulated vote
totals — a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence but that more than
half of self-identified Democrats now believe.
However, this narrative was successful in no small part
because of candidate Trump’s extraordinary, at times unseemly, friendliness
toward the regime in Moscow. Trump’s staffing choices bolstered that
impression: His erstwhile campaign manager, Paul Manafort, worked as a
political consultant to Viktor Yanukovych, Putin’s lackey in Ukraine (ousted
from the presidency amid violence against anti-government protests in 2014);
one of his foreign-policy advisers, Carter Page, was a consultant to and
investor in Russia’s state-run gas company, Gazprom, and a vocal supporter of
the Kremlin’s thuggish foreign policy; and Roger Stone, who despite being
dismissed from Trump’s campaign early remained an everpresent de facto surrogate,
admitted to “back-channel communications” with WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange. It was WikiLeaks that shortly before the election published thousands
of private e-mails written by high-level Democratic officials, including
Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and American intelligence
immediately suggested that Russian intelligence services were behind the
cyberattack on the Democratic National Committee. It’s no secret that WikiLeaks
operates at the behest of the Kremlin.
These ties and the hack of the DNC prompted a probe by
the FBI, and it was that probe that uncovered the phone records cited by the New York Times. According to officials
with knowledge of the investigation, “the F.B.I. has obtained banking and
travel records and conducted interviews” as well.
What any of this means, though, is far from clear. The Times does not identify the U.S.
officials implicated by the investigation or Russian officials; it does not
indicate the content of any of the conversations; and none of the
law-enforcement sources are named. The Times
probably overplayed the story; consider the following, buried well into the
latest account: “The officials would not disclose many details, including what
was discussed on the calls, the identity of the Russian intelligence officials
who participated, and how many of Mr. Trump’s advisers were talking to the
Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with
Mr. Trump himself.” That’s a significant asterisk.
Nonetheless, these revelations bolster the impression
that the Trump campaign had unseemly connections to Moscow. And, of course,
this comes just days after Michael Flynn’s resignation as national-security
adviser — a consequence less of his phone calls with Russian ambassador Sergei
Kislyak in late December than of his apparent misleading of other senior Trump
administration officials about those conversations. Of course, that situation,
too, is mired in uncertainty. Whether Flynn actually discussed rolling back the
Obama administration’s recent sanctions against Russia is unclear. Flynn is
adamant that he didn’t, and the same officials who freely leaked news of the
conversation (obtained during routine surveillance of Russian officials) to
media outlets are not willing to release the actual recording of the
conversation.
It is suspected that these leaks are coming from the
intelligence community. Flynn was unpopular with many career intelligence
officers, having made enemies during his time as President Barack Obama’s head
of the Defense Intelligence Agency, then having spent his post-DIA years
criticizing many of his former colleagues. But Trump himself has also attacked
the CIA and others for what he claims are politically motivated crusades.
Whatever the collection of motives, it’s clear that officials with knowledge of
sensitive material are now waging a war-by-leak, which anti-Trump media are
thrilled to lap up.
Meanwhile, the White House continues to open itself to
charges of malfeasance. The administration long maintained that Flynn’s call
happened before President Obama’s announcement of sanctions, apparently having
failed to recognize that a recording of the call existed. Then, on Wednesday,
just hours before the Times’s story,
White House spokesman Sean Spicer declared that no campaign officials had been
in touch with Russian officials during the election. When it comes to this
issue, it’s impossible to know whether the White House is purposely misleading
or just bungling.
A steadier hand is in order. It’s time for the appropriate
committees to conduct the oversight — of the executive branch, and of the
intelligence services — for which they are responsible. The House and Senate
Intelligence Committees ought to conduct a thorough, transparent investigation
into the allegations being leveled against the Trump White House, and also into
the source of the leaks. The parties under investigation should be able to
defend themselves in an official setting, instead of being sideswiped by
continued divulgences to the press. And the leaking of classified information —
news of Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak, for example — ought to be prosecuted
as the felony it is. That Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, as well as
the leading Republican and Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee (North
Carolina’s Richard Burr and Virginia’s Mark Warner, respectively), have
indicated an openness to a serious probe is encouraging.
Following the Times’s
story, some on the left are eager to draw up impeachment articles. Meanwhile,
some on the right are eager to chalk up any criticisms of the president to
“fake news.” Both are wrong. The questions facing the Trump administration are
still just questions, but they warrant sober, fair-minded examination. This is
not a job for the media and its anonymous sources; it’s a job for Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment