Jon Chait on Friday's New York Times report that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation on Putin puppet Donald "Rump" Trump early in his regime, and specifically what Special Counsel Mueller has been investigating:
... An agent is not the same thing as an asset. An asset can describe a wide range of relationships, but in Trump’s case, it would mean that he is subject to sexual or financial blackmail, along with possibly some form of back-channel propaganda. We know for a fact that Trump is vulnerable to sexual blackmail, but that kind of leverage, if it exists, would be difficult for Mueller to obtain. (Sexual blackmail is only useful if you keep it locked up tightly.) It’s far more likely that Trump’s financial vulnerability opened him up to Russian leverage. And that is the kind of information American investigators can access. [snip]
The Times report tells us that collusion is only part of the story. The relationship between Trump and Putin did not merely rest on their mutual interest in the Trump campaign defeating Clinton, but indicates some deeper connection. From the very beginning of this story, pundits have underestimated the full extent of Trump’s ties to Russia and how much deeper the story might yet go. Now we already know Mueller is not merely looking into crimes, but trying to ascertain the foundational loyalties of the President of the United States. (our emphasis)It should be carved in stone by now: Follow the money.
We flag this problem often, and E.J. Dionne, Jr., writes about the media's obligation to our democracy not to repeat its grievous errors from 2016:
... When reason is in retreat and when candidates are given strong incentives to stir up ugly passions, we have a problem.
This is where we are now, and President Trump is both the product of this crisis and its apotheosis. He brought home just how nonsensical and dishonest our politics have become with his assertion on Thursday about Mexico paying for his border wall: “Obviously, I never said this, and I never meant they’re going to write out a check.”
This was shocking, even from an unrepentant liar. Trump denied ever saying something that, as David Nakamura reported in The Post, he did say “at least 212 times during his campaign and dozens more since he took office.”
This points to the media’s major shortcoming in 2016: its continuing commitment to “both sides are equally flawed” journalism, which led to its failure to portray Trump as the moral aberration he is...Unfortunately the media, as an institution, bends toward superficiality and moral neutrality when it comes to politics (as opposed to the "look at people doing good things" fluff that takes up so much time in print and broadcast media). Here's one discouraging, but entirely predictable, example.
A chilling reminder that there's more than one nut in the White House:
President Trump’s National Security Council asked the Pentagon in September for military options against Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.
The request was made shortly after an attack near the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which the White House blamed on Iranian proxies in Iraq.
The request from the National Security Council troubled many at the Pentagon and State Department, especially given that the attack caused no casualties and little damage.
“It definitely rattled people,” one former senior U.S. administration official told the Journal. “People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”
Months later, it remains unclear whether the proposed military actions were provided to President Donald Trump, and even whether he knew that the request was made.The shaky hand of National Security Advisor and neocon wild man John "Snowball" Bolton is at play here. This is looking more and more like their "wag the dog" option for distracting from Rump's ballooning problems.
Finally, please do yourselves a favor and check out Infidel 753's link round- up. It's a great way to start the week.
No comments:
Post a Comment