Less than a week ago, Politico Magazine published Susan Glasser’s piece: Russia’s Oval Office Victory Dance. At the time, there were three main narratives. First, there was the timing. Coming the day after the president unceremoniously fired FBI director James Comey for (many suspected) investigating his ties to Russia, it seemed a little inopportune to meet with Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov in the White House. Second, since the American press was barred from the meeting there were no photographs. Yet, a Russian photographer was allowed in and his pictures quickly appeared on the Russian wire services, which even top Trump officials admitted was a boneheaded blunder, especially because it revealed that the controversial Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak was also in attendance. And, third, there was the question of why the meeting was happening at all, since it isn’t customary for our head of state to meet with another country’s foreign minister. Glasser explained this last part:
The chummy White House visit—photos of the president yukking it up with Lavrov and Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak were released by the Russian Foreign Ministry since no U.S. press was allowed to cover the visit—had been one of Putin’s asks in his recent phone call with Trump, and indeed the White House acknowledged this to me later Wednesday. “He chose to receive him because Putin asked him to,” a White House spokesman said of Trump’s Lavrov meeting. “Putin did specifically ask on the call when they last talked.”
The meeting was Lavrov’s first in the White House since 2013—and came after several years of the Obama administration’s flat-out refusal to grant him an Oval Office audience, two former senior White House officials told me. “The Russians were begging us for years to do that,” one of the former officials said. “They were constantly pushing for it and we were constantly saying no.”
This was interesting on several levels. Even before Russia was caught breaking into our political parties’ virtual filing cabinets and trying to affect the results of our presidential election, our government’s policy was to shun Sergey Lavrov. But Trump quickly granted the request. Originally, Lavrov was planning to come no closer to DC than Fairbanks, Alaska where he and Kislyak did in fact attend the Arctic Council. But suddenly he was being welcomed into the inner sanctum of the Oval Office with a photographer in tow.
It was also interesting that the Russians didn’t see the advisability of postponing this meeting in light of the Comey firing. In fact, Lavrov joked right before the meeting that he didn’t even know about Comey’s sacking. They had to know that it would harden anti-Russian feeling in Washington, but they either didn’t want to pass up the fulfillment of a long desired meeting or they actually saw an opportunity to create further division and humiliation for our country. Their cunning use of the photographer suggests the latter possibility is the more likely.
That no one around Trump could dissuade him from going ahead with the meeting was also remarkable, as was the fact that Trump followed it up by meeting with Henry Kissinger, which he did invite the American press to cover and photograph. Everyone is comparing the firing of Comey to the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate, and Trump is meeting with Kissinger just to bolster the connection in everyone’s mind. You couldn’t design worse optics if you were writing a screenplay.
Some intelligence officials raised alarm bells that the visiting Russians might be able to leave behind some kind of listening devices, but that concern was quickly drowned out by the controversy over the photographs and the overarching focus on Comey.
The Russian visit should have been a full blown scandal in its own right, but it had too much competition. That is, it wasn’t getting the attention it deserved until it was revealed that during the meeting Trump divulged sensitive information that betrayed a friendly Middle Eastern intelligence service and perhaps imperiled a major penetration of ISIS in Syria.
Trump freely admits that he did so because he wanted to impress upon the Russians the threat to aviation ISIS presents in order to convince them to be more aggressive in assisting us in fighting them. In itself, that isn’t unreasonable even if it doesn’t necessarily represent a reality-based appreciation of Russia’s foreign policy in the Middle East. If Trump badly blundered in how he chose to make his case, that might be forgiven if there was reason to expect similar mistakes won’t be repeated. Unfortunately, there is no rational basis for believing that Trump won’t do something similar again, and probably again and again.
We all need to debate that, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the curious facts surrounding the fact that the meeting occurred at all.
I’m still bothered about Michael Flynn. In fact, Michael Flynn bothers me a lot more than this latest flare-up. When I read about Sally Yates trying to warn the administration that Flynn was compromised, I get frustrated that it’s framed as concern about his conversations with Sergey Kislyak. That he lied about those conversations certainly opened him up to blackmail, but that he didn’t divulge that the Russians had already paid him tens of thousands of dollars seems to make that concern both too late and redundant.
President Obama personally warned Trump not to make Flynn his national security advisor, and Marshall Billingslea, “a former senior Pentagon official in the George W. Bush administration who led Trump’s national security transition team from November until shortly before Trump’s inauguration,” was so concerned about Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador that he asked “Obama administration officials for a classified CIA profile of Kislyak” so he could use it to make sure Flynn had “a full appreciation of the extent of the threat” he posed.
Flynn was ultimately forced out by leaks from an apoplectic intelligence community, but Trump invited Kisylak into the Oval Office nonetheless. Of course, he didn’t disclose that he was going to do that. It was only disclosed by the Russian photographer who captured them both yukking it up with Lavrov.
Let’s put this in perspective. Flynn was compromised from the get-go, and far before Election Day. He was compromised because the Russians paid the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency a lot of money and he didn’t divulge that, which was illegal and a violation of Pentagon policy. The Russians could hold that over Flynn’s head, and the problem was only compounded when Flynn wasn’t honest during his application for a restoration of his security clearance. Whether he freely wanted to be or not, Flynn was a Russian agent from the moment he let them have control over his future. And that was both prior and concurrent with his decision to undermine President Obama’s sanctions by giving Kislyak reassurances on the same day the sanctions were issued. Flynn was a massive and certain intelligence risk before he ever lied about what he said to Kislyak in those conversations.
But Trump hired him anyway and then refused to fire him until his hand was forced, and then continued to defend him, and showed much more anger at the people who leaked than he did at his friend who had caused him so many problems.
So, when I see that Kislyak is secretly in the Oval Office and that Trump is giving him highly sensitive intelligence that he shouldn’t know, I can only only hope it’s because he’s stupid, which he certainly is. But if Trump is compromised himself (as the so-called Dodgy Dossier alleges), he could hardly give us a more clear demonstration of it.
At a certain point, though, it doesn’t matter whether Trump is compromised or not if we can’t tell the difference. Right?
I’m struggling to find something to say that isn’t one of the obvious five or ten screaming points to be made over an over (apparently fruitlessly, at least judging by McConnell’s statement today).
What’s most infuriating is that the only legitimate explanation I can come up with for the Russia story not catching on anywhere — not building any momentum with the public or with the legislative/judicial branches (beyond impotent rumblings here and there) — is that it’s complex, dull and inexplicable. (Very few people can spin it into a coherent narrative.)
But tell that to the people who mercilessly pounded the Whitewater or Benghazi or email stories! Those fit the same criteria: nobody could follow them; they were cobbled together out of Byzantine components. They only took hold because they were screamed from the rooftops by the same people who are saying nothing about Trump/Russia.
Of course, it goes without saying that those “scandals” were frauds and this one’s real. But I’m just saying, from the standpoint of the average blinking-in-the-sun-with-a-placard television-interview subject, it’s all complicated and inscrutable and boring and slow, Trump/Russia no more than any of the ones that caught fire. The difference is clearly in how people are being told by Republican leaders to react.
the difference isn’t that this is
[Sorry; I screwed it up somehow; disregard the last line]
Basically. Nixon, Clinton and Johnson all had opposition congresses. Trump doesn’t. Paul Ryan has been dreaming about killing medicaid since he was in college. It’s that simple.
Of course that’s true. I guess I’m more saying, the public would readily eat up the Russia story (the way they did Whitewater, etc. — to the meager extent they could, since it had no content) if told to do so.
The right wing wurlitzer/echo chamber makes a big difference in how the stories play out. We really need to bring back the fairness doctrine.
It is beginning to look to me as if hte real Russian aim is to so thoroughly disturb the entire U.S. system…government, media, population and the rest of whole enchilada…that it becomes totally frozen.
It’s not so much about the content of Trump’s…and those of his associates’..contacts with Russians as it is about the appearances of those contacts.
They are playing him for a fool.
By extension, they are playing the whole credulous society for a fool.
This is no way illegal. U.S. advertising has been doing that for 50+ years. So has the media and so have the two major political parties..
It’s just very…clever…the way that they are doing it.
We been out-thunk.
Whod’a thunk it???!!!
Not us, apparently.
AG
Covered in my diary 5 days ago … when I saw the photo I knew it would give a shit storm. 😉
On the same day: Trump Meeting with Ukraine’s FM Pavlo Klimkin
Yesterday’s news today …
○ Media In IC’s Bidding and All Out War vs. POTUS
Maybe I read too much Philip Dick as a kid, but I’ve seriously started to wonder if I had a stroke on November 8th, and this is all a hallucination. Collins releases a statement saying, “There’s no reason to think that Trump’s firing of Comey has anything to do with the Russia investigation,” so the next day Trump says, “My firing of Comey has to do with the Russian investigation.” McMaster says “the WaPo story is false, it didn’t happen,” and sure enough the next day Trump says, “It absolutely happened, and it was beautiful.”
well, look around. Does Spock have a beard?
just kidding, sort of. my take: it’s so overwhelmingly ppl can’t take it in. it’s too much of a shock. ppl [Collins] are saying ridiculous sh*t. McMaster, interesting analysis by Tim Hogan
Tim Hogan good to follow because he’s covering Syria and Turkey, the Kurds so well. this all has much to do with that
At some point, it’s just a question of how we define ‘spy.’ What’s another word for someone who, to the detriment of the US, facilitates the unvetted presentation of highly-classified information to foreign intelligence services in violation with sharing agreements?
Hogan means it literally. he’s very interesting,
I have two words, not one: Useful idiot.
Don’t those make the best kind of spies?
Two mints in one: both stupid and compromised.
Something I heard about this troubles me. The President has the right to declassify anything whenever he likes. But that gives up a secret an ally may have wanted to keep secret and now the Russians have it and can reverse engineer it to find the guy who gave it up. Maybe we don’t need this kind of information in the future. But, it we do, if it helps to keep us safe say, then it raises another question: Did the president violate his oath of office? Just a thought that rattles around my head. There is a reason people go to jail when they give up classified information/
Yeah can declassify anything he wants on a whim. That doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences like you said but they are more in the area of intelligence sharing, compromising sources, and political than they are legal.
Here’s the thing, except for the President, they can throw you in jail for leaking classified information as Trump continuously reminded us about Clinton. But the President can declassify anything on a whim, never mind people can die bc of it. Or you can destroy your future access to information. He can do it and he did. You or me would find the feds standing there with handcuffs since this was allegedly a “code word” classification – the highest level.
I don’t disagree with your characterization. What are you proposing though is my point?
I wish I had something other than let’s get him out of there.
Maybe we don’t need this kind of information in the future?
Imagine what even the threat of this might do to business travel, and then imagine what will happen if a plane or two or five or ten are brought down.
Do you think it’s easy to penetrate ISIS, let alone a cell working on stuff like this?
So it makes a difference that the computer is not in the cabin cause it is safer when transported with luggage? I have never understood the ban.
missing the point. If they have this capability, all laptops are going to get banned no matter where you want to stow them. At first, they won’t. When planes come down, they will.
smart phones next. The only way to stop this or rather slow it down is to take out ISIS and al Queda.
Actually yes, it can make a huge difference if the bomb goes off in the cabin or in the cargo hold.
The cabin has more access to the exterior surface of the plane. There is also lots of open space and plenty of air for the explosion to propagate through on it’s way to the exterior surface. That can and usually does mean that it is easier to create catastrophic holes that destroy structural stability in flight and easier to create catastrophic holes that destroy the ability to maintain flight or stable flight such that even if the structure of the plain is still intact the plane crashes or rips itself apart due to unstable flight. Even a relatively small hole in the cabin can cause the fast moving air from outside to rip a bigger hole in the plane or increase the drag on the plane from air rushing into the cabin at many hundreds of miles per hour in uneven directions to alter flight characteristics beyond the planes tolerances for stable flight.
Not all cargo holds are pressurized and luggage is usually densely packed. Cargo holds have less access to the overall amount of exterior surface area. Cargo holds have significantly more structural reinforcement than the cabin to deal with the extra weight of the packed cargo and the weight of the plain itself. This means there is less space and more things to propagate through to gain access to a smaller portion of the exterior surface of the plane. That means you need a bigger bomb to to create the same sized hole as in the cabin, and even then the terrorist has to hope that the hole is in a position to cause catastrophic structural instability and or destroy the ability to maintain stable flight, which may not be the case for an explosion in the bottom of the plane in a structurally reinforced load bearing area of the plane depending on the size of the explosion.
Of course if you have a big enough bomb all those points are irrelevant, but the disclosed information suggests that the bomb has to occupy a relatively small discrete space to keep the laptop from tripping security. So it may very well be that exploit in question just can’t take down the whole plane from the cargo hold.
I would say it is very hard to infiltrate an organization at that level. So who has the authority to waste it or maybe we should ask did Trump slip up and violate his oath of office?
Hey, Trump’s shaking it up! He’s the change agent! He’s stirrin’ the shit! Breaking the mold! Wahooooo!
The incompetent white electorate wanted the AntiPrez and they got him. Unlike the well-developed centuries-old boobery regarding the Antichrist, we have no records foretelling signs which will indicate His coming! Certainly an extraordinary (usually lawbreaking) event a week is not too much to ask? The Two Sergeys laughing? Crates of Thousand Island dressing being loaded onto troop transport planes? But can even Der Trumper keep the undeniable signs coming? Indubitably! When everything on one’s plate can cause an explosion, there really is no end in sight.
When we all conclude that it is “legal” for the prez (on a impulsive and uninformed whim) to reveal classified info to an adversary power, then I think we can confidently say that we have run off the rails somewhere. FDR could (legally) reveal that the British spies cracked the Nazi code? Apparently this is where we are forced to contemplate arguments that have never moved from the theoretical to the practical. Or this where we see the gap between the legal and the impeachable?
Anyway, throw the meeting with the Two Sergeys on the pile with all the other signs of the AntiPrez. What a mountain this ultimately will be, even by year end! At the end of 4 years, unimaginable. Will anyone doubt His Coming at that point?
As the flames and sulfurous odors of the AntiPrez rise even higher, and the Repubs bury their heads ever deeper, we can see that the allegiance to the Tribe and Tax Cut Adoration have trumped all other values, and that nothing can be expected of Repubs as a political party or coordinate branch of government.
At some point, not yet, but coming, one needs to contemplate what becomes of us all. Words fail me when I try to describe this government of ours. I think they all have their special orgasm they are chasing. For most its all about the money and sticking it in the left’s eye. Nothing rattles them even when someone puts lives at risk so long as the con continues. Paul Ryan’s biggest fear may just be he can’t repeal all he has planned.
Uh, we have been here before. Two words: “Valerie Plame”. One R defense was that W declassified her status, and hence, it was no crime to divulge it to Novak et al. And nobody got punished that tine, either.