Smarter Than a Ph.D.

Smarter than a fifth-grader?  Donald J. Trump is smarter than a fifth-grader, the Democratic Party, or congressional Republicans.

The media was shocked, and I was unimpressed, to learn last September that Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein had suggested during a meeting wearing a wire in the White House to record the chaos there. Neither we nor House Republicans and Democrats recognized what was following, even when the following month the infamously vindictive Donald J. Trump sat down the official whom he learned the previous month had broached the idea of spying on him.

While most of the country expected Rosenstein to be relieved of his duties

President Donald Trump declared a reprieve Monday for Rod Rosenstein, saying he has no plans to fire his deputy attorney general whose future has been the source of intense speculation for two weeks.

“I’m not making any changes,” Trump told reporters as he returned to the White House after traveling with Rosenstein to an international police chiefs’ conference in Florida. “We just had a very nice talk. We actually get along.”

Evidently they did, because two months later Rosenstein would claim

that a memo critical of the ongoing Russia investigation written by President Donald Trump's nominee to be the next attorney general had no impact on the ongoing probe.

The memo, written last summer by attorney general nominee William Barr, was sharply critical of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into allegations of collusion between the Russian government and the 2016 Trump campaign. But Rosenstein said Barr's past memo would have no impact on Mueller's probe.

Four months later and The New York Times reports

Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

Barr has not claimed that the analysis was his alone. Rather, in his second memorandum to congressional leaders, he maintained ""Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

Nonetheless, Democrats appear rather content with the DAG.  Last week, Roll Call noted

Most Democrats have not publicly registered complaints about Rosenstein, like they have with Barr and his alleged bias stemming from his June 2018 memo.

“Nobody has expressed any concern about Rod Rosenstein’s involvement to date,” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries said.

Oversight Chairman Elijah E. Cummings suggested he does not question Rosenstein’s objectivity, noting he’s known him for 15 years because he served as a federal prosecutor out of his district in Baltimore. The problem, the Maryland Democrat said, is he doesn’t know what process the DOJ used to determine there wasn’t sufficient evidence of obstruction by Trump.

Republicans, though, have generally been far less generous toward Justice's #2 guy, as we're reminded

House Republicans complained during their time in the majority that Rosenstein deliberately slow-walked responses to their oversight requests. Freedom Caucus members threatened to file articles of impeachment against him, and Trump reportedly mulled firing him.

Republicans found more reason to question Rosenstein’s objectivity last summer after reports that he had discussed secretly recording Trump and invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. Despite threats to do so last year, House Judiciary Republicans never subpoenaed the DOJ for the documents that allegedly chronicled Rosenstein’s suggestion, a set of memos former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe wrote during his tenure as acting agency head in 2017.

Republicans wanted Trump to get rid of Rosenstein while Democrats (myself included) thought of him as the last line of defense against a lawless President determined to squelch. Neera Tanden tweets, however, "maybe now we know why Rod Rosenstein kept his job." She refers to a May, 2017 luncheon meeting of Lawfare's Benjamin Wittes with then-FBI director James Comey. A few days after Comey was fired by the President in May, Wittes explained that Comey had

expressed wariness about the then-still-unconfirmed deputy attorney general nominee, Rod Rosenstein. This surprised me because I had always thought well of Rosenstein and had mentioned his impending confirmation as a good thing. But Comey did not seem enthusiastic. The DOJ does need Senate-confirmed leadership, he agreed, noting that Dana Boente had done a fine job as acting deputy but that having confirmed people to make important decisions was critical. And he agreed with me that Rosenstein had a good reputation as a solid career guy.

That said, his reservations were palpable. “Rod is a survivor,” he said. And you don’t get to survive that long across administrations without making compromises. “So I have concerns.”

In retrospect, I think I know what Comey must have been thinking at that moment. He had been asked to pledge loyalty by Trump. When he had declined, and even before, he had seen repeated efforts to—from his point of view—undermine his independence and probe the FBI’s defenses against political interference. He had been asked to drop an investigation. He had spent the last few months working to defend the normative lines that protect the FBI from the White House. And he had felt the need personally to make clear to the President that there were questions he couldn't ask about investigative matters. So he was asking himself, I suspect: What loyalty oath had Rosenstein been asked to swear, and what happened at whatever dinner that request took place?

Rosenstein likely had been compromised. It could have taken place at an earlier dinner meeting, as Wittes speculated. Or it might last October when he and the President "just had a very nice talk. We actually get along.”

While Republicans seethed at Rod Rosenstein and Democrats believed he was a staunch defender of the rule of law, Donald Trump knew what he had. He knew, at least as of September 2018, that he had someone he could legitimately- even justifiably- fire for having suggested the extraordinary step of surreptitiously recording the President of the USA.  He knew he had someone who understandably wanted to keep his job, with a government pension and all that went with it. Blackmail was rarely so easy.

As James Comey probably suspected, Rod Rosenstein would neither fall on his sword nor become another Andrew McCabe.  Donald Trump, who is to Rosenstein as Putin is to Trump, has learned far better than any grade schooler ever can the lessons of organized crime.

Share |

The Issue Might Not Be The Issue(s)

New York Times conservative syndicated columnist Ross Douthat recommends that Joe Biden be Joe Biden if he runs for the Democratic nomination for President. He believes that the Delawarean should take

ownership of his record: not defending everything, not avoiding all apologies, but arguing explicitly that some tough-on-crime policies were a necessary response to a destructive multi-decade crime wave, that some moderation on abortion should be acceptable in the Democratic Party and that the Ocasio-Cortezan turn on economic policy should be questioned or resisted. And, yes, defending his personal familiarity, hugs and nose-rubs and hair-kisses and all, and in the process questioning some aspects of #MeToo.

Otherwise, he argues,

in a primary where Biden is just an old white dude running away from his record, the party’s various moderate voters will almost certainly fracture and go to fresher candidates with cleaner pitches — to the Texan Jesus or the South Bend Meritocrat or the Mean Minnesotan or the Racial Optimist. (That would be Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, respectively — none of whom are likely to challenge the Great Awokening directly, but all of whom offer something to Democratic voters wary of the left.)

To run the way I’m suggesting, on his record rather than against it, would exact a possibly extraordinary cost. Just to campaign this way would make Biden hated by many liberals in a way that would make today’s Twitter animosity look mild. To win the nomination this way would produce fury on a scale that far eclipsed the pro-Sanders anger in 2016 and guarantee a strong 2020 showing for Jill Stein’s grifter left (if not a more sincere alternative). And to lose the nomination this way — which would remain, obviously, a strong possibility — would ensure that Biden exited the stage of liberal politics not as an elder statesman but as a wrong-side-of-history bad guy.

Naturally I’d still like Biden to try it — not least because some of the party’s Reagan and Clinton-era compromises were Actually Good, and it would be good for today’s Democrats if a prominent Democrat defended them.

This is all very interesting but is little applicable to former Vice-President Biden's chance at gaining the nomination.  There is a reason that Democratic presidential aspirants are spending more time than ever before in South Carolina.

It's the same reason Democratic ad and communications strategist Danny Barefoot was in South Carolina a month ago on behalf of a Democratic hopeful (whom he definitively stated is not Bernie Sanders).  All of his tweets from the focus group he conducted are here and the most relevant are below:

We will be asking voters their opinions about individual candidates, showing them short clips, and asking them their thoughts on potential negative messages. We won’t be doing much horse race stuff but hopefully we’ll still get some good insights. Follow along/mute as you see fit

— Danny Barefoot (@dannybarefoot) March 5, 2019

Now we’re on to Biden. One woman says it’s the closest we can get to a 3rd term for Obama w/o electing Michelle. Lots of chuckles but also lots of heads nodding in agreement. Another says she would vote for him today but isn’t sure if he’s too “old” or “sloppy” to take on Trump.

— Danny Barefoot (@dannybarefoot) March 5, 2019

Yeah…most of these hits just aren’t landing. In response to a short description of Biden’s opposition to integration efforts one woman asks if we’re honestly asking her to believe he is a segregationist. https://t.co/yoAxPHBa4J

The Anita Hill hit is better. [After being shown a quick explainer] When asked if Biden owes her an apology the room is unanimous that he does. A few people haven’t heard of Anita Hill.

— Danny Barefoot (@dannybarefoot) March 5, 2019

This isn't just name ID. These SC women really like Biden. They don't want to take chances in 2020 and feel like he's a sure win.

— Danny Barefoot (@dannybarefoot) March 5, 2019

Extrapolate as you wish but it's reasonable to conclude, from this one isolated event coupled with common sense, that black women in South Carolina

1- want a third Obama term;

2- believe that the best way to a 3rd Obama term is with Biden;

3- believe that Biden is electable;

4- are unimpressed by criticism of the former Vice-President, except maybe as it applies  to Anita Hill.

Criticism of Senator Biden because he mishandled the Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings is potentially explosive, not only for Biden but also for his opponents. Although I don't recall a breakdown by gender, southern blacks at the time of the Judiciary Committee hearing generally supported the nomination of Thomas to the Supreme Court (disturbing, but true).  Of course, times have changed, values about women's place in government and society have improved, and Thomas has been a dreadful Justice, including on voting rights.

Obviously, #2 may be undermined if Barack Obama, choosing to remain nominally, publicly neutral (most likely scenario) or to endorse another candidate, fails to endorse the ex-Veep.

African-Americans, however, are the most significant portion of the Democratic base and, arguably, middle-aged and elderly black women are the core of that base. (Does a base even have a core?) They may form the group most determined to see Donald Trump defeated.

In the 2008 primary campaign, blacks initially generally favoredHillary Clinton, then perceived as the candidate of the party establishment, over Barack Obama, who had positioned himself somewhat as an outsider. It was only when Obama demonstrated that he had a serious chance of winning the nomination that the sentiment of the black community swung toward the first black with a legitimate chance of becoming President. As that occurred, not coincidentally Obama became, if not a party insider, recognized as being in the mainstream of the Democratic Party establishment.

It's not surprising, then, that Joseph Robinette Biden at this early stage would be the favorite among black voters and that criticism of the guy who loyally served President Barack Obama for eight years would fall on (mostly) deaf ears.  So far.  It is tenuous approval, wide but not deep, and very much vulnerable to any one of a number of changing circumstances. 

Policy will take center stage in Democratic debates, as it has in Douthat's analysis. Nonetheless, if Barefoot's experience is representative of a critical subset of voters- black women in South Carolina- other factor(s) may prove even more important in determining who gains the nomination.

Share |

Lousy Leadership

Susan Rice, Ambassador to the United Nations and National Security Advisor under President Clinton, has tweeted "I was with Joe Biden when no one was looking, and he was always a champion for women. She links to an article by Elizabeth Alexander, press secretary to Senator and Vice-President Biden, who contends

Joe Biden took the rare step of paying staffers through their entire maternity leaves, an uncommon benefit even now in the Senate (or elsewhere). What you won’t read about is how he recruited women who had worked for him in the Senate, and had “gaps” in their paid work history because of family demands, to be (very) senior staff in the White House. Those years in between compensated work were just as valuable to him as any traditional work experience.

What you won’t read about it is how he supported staff (like me) when they wanted to go to law school at night or needed to take time off to study for the bar exam, or when they asked to work one day a week from home, or work a reduced schedule so they could reliably pick up kids from school or be present each night at the dinner table. You won’t read about the way he’d debate and differ with staffers with the same intensity, regardless of gender.

You won’t read about how he’d tell male staffers and senators who were repeatedly interrupting a woman to pipe down, so he could hear what she was trying to say. You won’t read about the time another senator asked one of his female staffers to make coffee. Biden's response, that female staffer later told me, was that he’d make the coffee instead.

Assuming all of this is accurate and none is spin- a huge, probably foolish, assumption given that it came from a press secretary- Joe Biden is probably kind to his staff. It does, however, read like the stories one hears about the private acts of kindness among professional athletes, who are then celebrated for doing good deeds in private- which conveniently become public. Anecdotal evidence typically sounds more impressive than it turns out to be when closely examined.

Joe Biden had a big opportunity to give women a break- when, in the early '90s, they especially needed one- and he failed miserably.  Jill Abramson, who wrote "Strange Justice" with investigative reporter Jane Mayer, notes there were many stories corroborating Anita Hill's testimony about the  practice of sexual harassment of women by one Clarence Thomas, then a nominee for the US Supreme Court. She explains

.... five members of Biden’s Judiciary Committee at the time of the hearings told me they were certain that if Biden had called the other witnesses to testify, Thomas would never have been confirmed.

The most devastating witness would have been (Equal Employment Opportunity Office employee Angela) Wright. In addition to what she told the committee about Thomas’s comments on her breasts, she — upset by the experience — had also told her colleague Jourdain that Thomas had commented that he found the hair on her legs sexy. (EEOC employee Rose) Jourdain, who came out of the hospital after a procedure just in time to corroborate Wright’s testimony and was cutting her pain medication in quarters so that she would be lucid, was never called to testify. Their accounts were buried and released to reporters late at night.

Wright would have killed the nomination. But Republicans, with faulty information spread by one of Thomas’s defenders, Phyllis Berry, claimed Wright had been fired by Thomas for calling someone else in the office a “faggot.” The man Wright supposedly labeled thus later said she never used the word, but Biden was too cowed to take the risk of calling her. Wright has since said repeatedly that she would have gladly faced Republican questioning. But in a pre-social-media age, that was that; the would-be witnesses weren’t heard from. Less than a week after the confirmation vote, Thomas was hastily sworn in for his lifetime appointment on the bench.

And there Clarence Thomas has remained for 28 years and counting, a lifetime tenure he probably would not have been granted were it not for the effort (or lack thereof) of Delaware Senator Joseph Biden.

It's there on the Supreme Court that Clarence Thomas has voted against reproductive rights and equal pay protection, and in favor of permitting employers on the basis of alleged religious belief to deny employees health coverage of contraception, and loosening the federal prohibition of workplace harassment. But rumor has it that he makes one heck of a cup of coffee.

Share |

Accountability, She Says

Former NBC legal analyst and former US Attorney Mimi Rocah is right, up to a point, when she tweets

When women accuse Trump of something, he calls them liars & degrades them. Biden’s saying, I didn’t intend to make anyone uncomfortable but I’ll listen & learn.  If respectful statements like that aren’t welcomed, we’re just encouraging the Trump double down & smear approach.

Joe Biden is a decent person, probably a good person.  Donald Trump is not a good person, and he's not even a decent person. He does things personally and makes political decisions with a first priority that it degrades, angers, or harms others because he believes everything is a zero-sum game. If you lose, he wins.

So while contrasting Biden's behavior and motives with those of Trump is meaningful and relevant, it is setting the bar very low, perhaps below ground.

Lucy Flores was on point- and not only about the former Vice-President but about everyone, when she told Jake Tapper (at 5:58 of the video below)

You know, I fully recognize that- that this behavior- never do I claim this rises to the level of sexual assault or-or- anything of that nature. What I am saying is that it's completely inappropriate, that it does not belong in any kind of a professional setting, much less in politics and that is something that we should consider when we are talking about the background of a person who is considering running for President..

Flores clearly recognizes that it does not belong in a professional setting nor does it rise to the level of sexual assault.  She further recognizes something more elusive and less common- that lack of accountability is even more significant than lack of empathy. At 6:57 she adds 

I think that his response to the way in which he handled the Anita Hill Hearing was also completely inappropriate and lacks empathy and frankly lacks accountability. You know, saying that he wishes that there was something more that he could have done. I think- it's just again-it's just a complete lack of accountability. You were the chair. You were the chair of that hearing and you could have done anything you wanted.

Biden should not have to rack his brain to realize that he could have acted far more forcefully and effectively when chairing the Anita Hill hearing for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He might have seen House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairperson Elijah Cummings swiftly and effectively dispatch the objection of Republicans Mark Meadow and Jim Jordan to continuing the Michael Cohen hearing. Or better, more recently and more eloquently, there was

Share |

A Different Ballgame

In the wake of the accusation of Lucy Flores that she had been inappropriately touched by Joe Biden when the Vice-President was promoting her for Lieutenant Governor of Nevada, Laura McGann reminds us that Biden had

been caught on camera embracing a female reporter from behind and gripping her above her wait, just below her bust. At a swearing-in ceremony for Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Biden put his hands on the shoulders of Stephanie Carter, Carter’s wife, and then leaned in and whispered into her ear. (He’s whispered into many women's ears.) He’s also touched women’s faces and necks during other photo ops. Once at a swearing-in ceremony for a US senator, he held the upper arm of the senator’s preteen daughter, leaned down and whispered into her ear, as she became visibly uncomfortable. Then he kissed the side of her forehead, a gesture that made the girl flinch.

Nonetheless, it is odd, or hypocritical, or a combination of the two that Erick Erickson would tweet

What we’re learning today is that a lot of the media and Democrat politicians knew about Joe Biden’s propensity to make women feel uncomfortable, but they were happy to keep quiet so long as he was Barack Obama’s Vice President.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) March 31, 2019

Far be it for me, of all people, to deny that an individual was given a pass by the media because of his loyalty to Barack Obama. However, that simply is not the reason that a blind eye was turned to the apparent creepiness of Joe Biden.

Biden was 66 years old when he became Vice-President. He would serve either eight years in that position or, if President Obama were to be defeated in 2012, he would have to wait four more years to run for President. A campaign in his '70s would have been very unlikely.

The 2012 election was assumed to be the last electoral effort by ol' Joe, especially because his two previous campaigns for the Democratic nomination for the presidency famously flamed out. And as Vice President, he wielded no power, other than that granted to him by the President to cast a vote in the Senate to break a tie, in which case he would not be exercising independent judgment,. There simply was little reason for an expose of a man who was largely irrelevant.

Enter Donald J. Trump. When he entered office, Trump was 70, the oldest individual to become President in a nation which has always valued youth, and even more so in recent decades. If he is re-elected in 2020, he will be 74 on Inauguration Day 2021. (I've always dazzled with my mathematical acumen.)

Being old had been considered an impediment to being elected President- not as much so now. Additionally, it was assumed that no one who treated women like they were the standard offering of the neighborhood butcher would be seriously considered as President. 

That assumption was eroded upon the election of a man who has been accused by 13 women of having touched them inappropriately, or worse, the man seen on tape stating

I did try and f--- her. She was married....

And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married.

Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

That tape only briefly, and temporarily eroded Donald Trump's popularity and a few weeks later he would be elected President of the United States of America and leader of the free world.

It became evident, though little acknowledged, that unless the victim is oneself, a relative or a friend, Americans care far less about sexual harassment than previously thought. That was reinforced when a man credibly accused of sexual assault was approved for a lifetime position on the United States Supreme Court.

But now Joseph R. Biden is presumed to be a formidable candidate to win the Democratic nomination for President.  He would not be one of 100 United States senators, nor in a powerless position as vice-president.

It therefore is odd to argue that the primary reason that Joe Biden's sexually questionable record was ignored is because he served Barack Obama. Biden is simply far more relevant now than ever before because he could in two years possibly wield tremendous power, all the more for what Trump has demonstrated is possible if the office is abused.

But it's also hypocritical, because Erick Erickson should understand very well that it would have been disproportionate to delve into Biden's behavior when the President is Donald J. Trump. Clearly pleased about the Trump presidency, the once-never Trump Erickson recently wrote 

I will vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence. And, to be clear, it will not be just because of what the other side offers, but also because of what the Trump-Pence team has done. They’ve earned my vote.

Share |

Educating White People About Their Privilege

At 5:10 of the video below, South Bend mayor and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg tells Bill Maher

I also think sometimes there's a sense of condescension coming from our party. Fairly or unfairly, I think a lot of people perceive that we're looking down on them. And if we allow that to continue, that's going to be a real problem.

If a wealthy coastal liberal professional goes up to a guy pumping gas in South Bend wearing one of those red hats and says "you're voting against your economic interests. You know what that guy is going to say? He's going to say "so are you."

I'd bet Buttigieg a whole lot of money that the last thing someone being confronted about the hat he's wearing will say is "so are you." It might be "shut the hell up" or "if you don't like it, you can get your ass out of here" or "f_ _ _ you." But it wouldn't be "so are you." Additionally, knowingly antagonizing a fellow with a gas pump in his hand is not very wise. You're a little out of touch, Pete.

But it gets worse because when Maher responds "or if he says 'you have white privilege. That rubs people the wrong way," Buttigieg replies

Yeah, well, look, white privilege is real and we should talk about these issues. But we can't paint people into a corner where they have nowhere to go but the far right. That's how radicalization works.





Real, also, is people voting against their economic interest- and more widespread than white privilege.  On social media and elsewhere, progressives often argue that the interests of the poor, the working class, and less obviously, the middle class are served by voting against conservative Republicans.

However, while few people are individually confronted, a great many white voters complain they are labeled "racist" whenever they express an opinion contrary to "political correctness."

These same people may have lost their home or, more likely, are experiencing severe difficulty paying their mortgage.  If a single mother, she may have to work long, even irregular, hours to provide for household needs and be stuck with inadequate or costly child care. Her child may be stuck in troubled public schools- some with a heavy proportion of minority students- with the parent lacking the money to get him or her into a private school.

Or perhaps a couple's children have graduated and are unable to enter college- which they are told is the only ticket to a secure livelihood- even though the father or the mother is working two jobs.

The parent may be stuck in a low-paying job, maybe one with few benefits, and unable to obtain a better job or to commute to for which she is qualified. All around them, the family may see the signs of what once were considered symptoms only of urban decay- declining (probably underfunded) schools, increasing crime, and a neighbor, relative, or a friend of a friend dead from opiate addiction.

Some of these people are white. Then they hear a presidential candidate blithely assuming the existence of "white privilege." Worse yet, the pol may condescendingly say- as those "coastal elites" are wont to do- "we should talk about these issues." They know what that means- we talk, you listen, because it's a "teachable moment."



Share |

More Than Meets The Eye

Lost, inevitably, in the assessment of the Barr memorandum to the chairpersons and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees was further confirmation by Attorney General William Barr that the "Russian efforts" to manipulate the 2016 presidential election.

Lost, too- actually never recognized- was that Vladimir Putin has admitted to this campaign and that he had a role in it. Former FBI agent and current CNN contributor Josh Campbell reminds us 

President Trump tonight on Fox News: "Russia, if they were at all for me—by the way, if you look at all of the things, they were sort of for and against both, not just one way – but you look at all of the different things, Russia would much rather have Hillary than Donald Trump."

As Campbell has made clear many times, he finds this ludicrous, as does the USA intelligence community. So does Vladimir Putin. Asked at the news conference he had with President Trump in July 2018 at Helsinki whether he did "want President Trump to win the election," the Russian President conceded "yes, yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal."

Nearly every response, understandably, to this exchange was to note that Putin had admitted that he favored Trump. When I searched on Google for "putin at helsinki said he directed his officials to help Trumpwin the election," the responses consistently reflected that. In the Atlantic, it was "Putin said in Helsinki He wanted Trump to Win;" in Politico, "Putin: I wanted Trump to win the election;" in The Daily Beast, "Putin Admits He Wanted Trump to Win 2016 Election."

Fair enough. But the question was not merely about the Russian president's preference. Julia Davis has it all:

#Helsinki:
Q: "Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?"
Putin: "Yes I did. Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal."https://t.co/qFGNI0Ox6t

— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) March 28, 2019

Vladimir Putin was asked not only "did you want President Trump to win the election?" He was asked also "and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?"

Putin could have ambiguously responded, "Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal." Or he could have made it clear that he merely wanted Trump to win the election but did not direct any officials to help.

Instead, Putin responded "yes, I did," followed by "yes I did." This was a critical (two-part) question and the betting here is that Putin was responding to both parts: "yes, I did help him win the election" and "yes, I did direct officials to help him do that."

The intelligence community had concluded in January 2017 "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election."  Admittedly, it is critical to contrast that with the American president's dishonest claim that "Russia" probably wanted Clinton elected. 

(Note that he doesn't say "Putin" because it would have suggested that his buddy helped that bad woman, and it would have reinforced the notion that Putin had his hand in the election. Mama Trump didn't raise a dope.)

Remembering that Putin probably actually has acknowledged (June 2018) being the ringleader of a counter-intelligence campaign may be of limited value. It is not as important, for instance, as recognizing that when Attorney General Barr wrote "the Special Counsel recognized 'the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russia election interference," he is likely acknowledging evidence, albeit insufficient evidence.

But it is not nothing and reminds us that when we get to see a (much redacted) report from the Special Counsel, there may be more to it than the lawyers, journalists, and national security experts see. 

Share |