I don’t read The Wall Street Journal. By all accounts its reporting of news is good, even after having passed under the Mordorian Murdoch regime, but its editorial and opinion pages are, as the kids say, cra-cra, pure, unadulterated, high quality (which means low quality, sapientially speaking) movement-conservative fantasy and supply-side theology. Not wanting digits added to my blood pressure needlessly, I avoid it. I have bought a copy occasionally by accident or for lack of another national newspaper. That’s probably what happened here. When I purchase a newspaper, I want my money’s worth, so I went to the “comforting fiction” pages and was not disappointed. An unsigned editorial and an op-ed by Kimberley A. Strassel were bent upon perpetuating The Conspiracy Theorist in Chief’s assertion that the Special Counsel’s probe was part and parcel of the “Russia hoax” predicated on the mistreatment of onetime National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Ugh. I sent a letter with no expectation it would ever see the light of day. The Wall Street Journal didn’t disappoint.
“The Flynn Entrapment,” The Wall Street Journal, 14 December 2018, A16 (www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-entrapment-11544658915).
Kimberley A. Strassel, “Checking Robert Mueller,” The Wall Street Journal, 14 December 2018, A15 (www.wsj.com/articles/checking-robert-mueller-11544745831).
Michael Flynn’s guilty plea for lying to the FBI can be equated with “entrapment” only through willful self-deception, the shoveling of manifold facts into the memory hole.
One must first forget that Flynn was informed beforehand that the focus of the interview on 24 January 2017 would be his contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and that Flynn himself signaled his sense that the FBI was already privy to what had been said. He in effect received a take-home examination to which he knew the correct answer and prevaricated anyway. Into the pit of forgetfulness then must be cast Flynn’s dishonesty with Mike Pence, Reince Priebus, and Sean Spicer in the interval between his chat with Kislyak on 26 December 2016 and the FBI interview. Next to be consigned to oblivion are the potential charges against Flynn for his pre-election dealings with Turkey. One must also ignore Flynn’s grasping for immunity in March 2017 in exchange for testimony before US Senate and House committees because he had “a story to tell.” One finally must purge from consciousness the stated reason for Flynn’s departure from the Trump administration: his dishonesty. To accept that Flynn has been shabbily treated, one must nearly drink the river Lethe dry.
Nor can it be credibly asserted that Flynn was merely doing his job. He had the relevant conversation with Kislyak during the transition just as President Obama was imposing sanctions on Russia for its meddling in the election. There is only one president at a time and Flynn was undermining him, conduct that becomes even more troubling as signs emerge of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak before the 2016 election to arrange a geopolitical “grand bargain.”[1] In light of his misconduct, Flynn has enjoyed gentle treatment.
[1] David Corn and Dan Friedman, “Did Michael Flynn Try to Strike a Grand Bargain with Moscow as It Attacked the 2016 Election?” Mother Jones, 13 December 2018 (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/12/michael-flynn-contacts-russia-campaign-robert-mueller/ [accessed 16 December 2018]).
An open question during the first days of the Trump administration began to be answered early on. The fallout from the exile of FBI Director James Comey was clarifying. Hard on the heels of Mr. Comey’s dismissal it emerged that The Dear Leader possibly divulged classified material from Israeli sources to Russia’s US Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavarov. The public then learned of His Eminence’s alleged buttonholing of Mr. Comey to press for quashing the FBI probe of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with the Russians. Would the national Republican Party, those rock-ribbed paragons of civic rectitude, check President Golf Cart’s authoritarian and self-dealing inclinations or would they submit to and become tacitly complicit in his antics? Would a rump of old school GOPers survive or would the Party of Trump devour the GOP tout entier?
The latter seemed more likely with each passing day. Some critical statements came from the usual Republican suspects – Senators Bob Corker, John McCain, Lindsey Graham (as a ventriloquist’s doll), and Ben Sasse and Representative Jason Chaffetz. From these, Mr. McCain belongs to the ages, Mr. Corker is retired, and Mr. Chaffetz fled Congress to become a Trumpy talking head on Fox News. And there is Mr. Graham, whose spine has proven detachable. The GOP leadership otherwise seemed determined to ignore The Fabulist in Chief’s behavior. A Patches O’Houlihan strategy was adopted to cope with a pesky press corps: “Dodge, duck, dip, dive, dodge.” The letter addresses the Party of Benghazi’s hesitancy to look at these matters.
Elise Viebeck, Sean Sullivan, and Mike DeBonis, “Controversies Rattle Hill Republicans,” The Washington Post, 17 May 2017, A7 (www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/lawmakers-to-trump-turn-over-transcript-of-meeting-with-russians/2017/05/16/e9b6deb6-3a3d-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html).
It is understandable that the GOP’s congressional wing is “rattled” by President Trump’s grave missteps; however, mumbling, noncommittal responses, temporizing, and inaction are no longer acceptable.
Strong statements made by some GOP senators – Messrs. Corker, McCain, Graham, Sasse, et al. – have been welcome but these sentiments must now be translated into concrete action. It is noteworthy that the lone GOP committee chair thus far to demand Mr. Comey’s memoranda, Mr. Chaffetz, is not seeking reelection. Is resignation the GOP’s precondition for political courage?
The near silence of the GOP’s congressional leadership speaks loudly. Majority Leader McConnell should for a moment cease to be the “Bluegrass Machiavelli” and Speaker Ryan should endeavor not to live down to Charlie Pierce’s recent characterization of him as an “intellectual invertebrate” (Chris Hayes, “All In,” MSNBC, May 16, 2017). They should jointly support the call for an independent investigation of the Russian affair and for open public testimony by Mr. Comey before the appropriate committees. The calculus of political advantage must yield to the national interest and the people’s right to know.