"The Real Russia Scandal"-- Bret Stephens

Pool photo by Mikhail Klimentyev

Bret Stephens is a regular op-ed columnist for the New York Times, writing from a conservative point of view.   His latest subject is the curious reversal of Mike Flynn's position on Russia and what that has to do with Donald Trump.

Stephens quotes from a 2016 book co-authored by Michael Flynn and Michael Ledeen, in which they state that "there is no reason to believe that Putin would welcome cooperation with us;  quite the contrary, in fact. . . .  [Russia and Iran are] the two most active and powerful members of the enemy alliance;  and . . . [Putin's deep intention is to] pursue the war against us."

And yet, by the end of 2016, Flynn was Donald Trump's designated National Security Adviser, courting the Russian ambassador with hints of lifting sanctions against Russia after Trump's inauguration.

Stephens suggests two factors to explain this shift:  "some combination of financial motives -- at least $65,000 in payments by Russian-linked companies -- and political ones -- a new master in the person of Donald Trump, who took precisely the same gauzy view of Russia that Flynn had rejected in his book."

But what were Trump's motives?    That is the more important question that has engaged journalists Greg Miller, Greg Jaffe, and Phillip Rucker of the Washington Post, who give "a stunning description of the president's curious uncuriousness" about the Russians' interference in our election.   They follow this with "a catalog of all the many ways [Trump] sought to appease the Russian dictator.

Stephens postulate five possible explanations for Trump's attitude toward Russia and Putin:
1.  He is infatuated with authoritarians,  at least those who flatter him;  and Putin knows exactly how to do it.
2.  He is neurotically obsessed with proving that he actually won the election on his own.
3.  He is ideologically sympathetic to Putinism.
4.  He's stupid.
5.  He's vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

Stephens concludes:   "each explanation is compatible with all the others.  For my part, I choose all of the above -- the first four parts being demonstrable while the last is logical.   But let's have that conversation at another time.   There's no need to obsess about electoral collusion when the real issue is moral capitulation."

*     *     *     *     *

And I would add that all five are compatible with what we are seeing now in the Republicans' frenzy to discredit Bob Mueller and his investigation -- which is a sure sign that the noose is tightening around the president -- and they are afraid they will be forced to act to impeach him.    Or else, go down in an even more ignominious defeat in November 2018 than they are already set for.

Of course, their immediate purpose is to shut down the investigations before Flynn can spill all the dirt on Trump.   But, folks, Flynn has already talked.  Mueller is no fool.   He already knows what Flynn knows.

Yes, there will be more.   But he's also already spent two days interviewing Hope Hicks, Trump's closest and most trusted aide.   And Priebus, Spicer, McGahn, and Kushner.

We thought that the books and tv specials and movies about the Richard Nixon scandal were great drama.   Trump may get his wish to be the "greatest" at something.   How about "the greatest fall from power?"

Ralph

PS:   Look at that photo again -- the gleam in Putin's eye.   I don't think that's a flash of admiration.   To me, it's a look of triumph that says:   "You just fell into my trap.  I own you, you stupid fool!"