It’s a sign of how long the list of particulars against Michael Flynn has become that when I wrote about his legal liabilities yesterday, I failed to mention one of the most serious things he did while serving Donald Trump.
One of the Trump administration’s first decisions about the fight against the Islamic State was made by Michael Flynn weeks before he was fired – and it conformed to the wishes of Turkey, whose interests, unbeknownst to anyone in Washington, he’d been paid more than $500,000 to represent.
The decision came 10 days before Donald Trump had been sworn in as president, in a conversation with President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, who had explained the Pentagon’s plan to retake the Islamic State’s de facto capital of Raqqa with Syrian Kurdish forces whom the Pentagon considered the U.S.’s most effective military partners. Obama’s national security team had decided to ask for Trump’s sign-off, since the plan would all but certainly be executed after Trump had become president.
Flynn didn’t hesitate. According to timelines distributed by members of Congress in the weeks since, Flynn told Rice to hold off, a move that would delay the military operation for months.
If Flynn explained his answer, that’s not recorded, and it’s not known whether he consulted anyone else on the transition team before rendering his verdict. But his position was consistent with the wishes of Turkey, which had long opposed the United States partnering with the Kurdish forces – and which was his undeclared client.
Trump eventually would approve the Raqqa plan, but not until weeks after Flynn had been fired.
Vera Bergengruen of McClatchy reports that there are people in Congress who privately describe what Flynn did as treason, although most legal experts probably wouldn’t agree.
I just want to run through an exercise with you. Imagine for a moment that President-elect Trump did not know that Michael Flynn was being paid more than half a million dollars to lobby on behalf of Turkey. And imagine that he took Flynn’s advice on what to do about the planned attack on Raqqa at face value and went along with it on the presumption that it was untainted and honest analysis. This seems plausible to me.
But now try to imagine how Trump must have felt when he discovered that Flynn had concealed his Turkish contract from him. How would a normal person react?
It’s not just that Flynn wasn’t honest and that he gave self-serving advice that may not have been in the best interests of the country, but he also created all kinds of political problems for the president by concealing his Turkish connection from the folks in charge of vetting him and giving him security clearances. He didn’t register as a foreign agent, either.
If this is roughly the scenario that unfolded, then Trump should be furious with Flynn. How could he not be?
But Trump is still telling people that firing Flynn was a mistake, so maybe this isn’t an accurate depiction of what Trump knew.
Back in early March, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told the media that the president had no idea that Flynn was being paid to lobby for Turkey. At the same time, Vice-President Mike Pence told Fox News that he didn’t know a thing about Flynn’s Turkish work until he read in the papers that Flynn had retroactively registered as a foreign agent.
That was curious, though, because in mid-November both The Daily Caller and Politico reported that Flynn was taking money from the Turks. And, after reading those reports, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) sent Pence a letter in which he noted that Flynn’s lawyer, Robert Kelley, had confirmed the allegations. The letter was sent to Pence because he was leading the transition team at the time.
In truth, the White House acknowledged in March that “lawyers on the transition team” had known that Flynn might have to register as an agent of a foreign power because of his contract with Turkey. In fact, Flynn’s own legal team had raised the issue with the transition team and with soon-to-be White House counsel Don McGahn:
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump had not been aware Flynn might register as a foreign agent. He said Flynn’s lawyer had raised the possible filing with the transition team, but Trump’s attorneys responded that it was a personal matter and not something they would consult on.
“It’s a business matter, it’s not something that would be appropriate for a government entity to give someone guidance on when they should file as an individual,” Spicer said. He dismissed questions about whether Flynn’s work should have raised red flags for the new administration, saying the retired Army lieutenant general had “impeccable credentials.”
Among those told of Flynn’s lobbying work during the transition was Don McGahn, a campaign lawyer who has gone on to become White House counsel, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversations between Flynn’s representatives and the transition team.
A White House official said McGahn and others were not aware of the details of Flynn’s work. It’s not clear why the Trump advisers did not seek additional information once Flynn’s lawyers raised the potential filing.
Now, it’s entirely possible that none of this came to the attention of Donald Trump. He had made it clear that he wanted Flynn as his National Security Adviser and his people probably were more interested in facilitating that desire than thwarting it.
But, if that’s the case, then shouldn’t Trump have been angry when he learned that Flynn had been advising him on Turkey without revealing that he was being heavily compensated by the Turkish government?
“A lot of people in the White House don’t want anything to do with Flynn,” one White House official said. ”But Trump loves him. He thinks everyone is out to get him.”
Under the circumstances, as they unfolded, Trump should have been the first person “out to get” Flynn. He should have felt a sense of personal betrayal. But he clearly doesn’t feel that way.
Instead, his first instinct was to try to protect Flynn. Most notably, after an Oval Office meeting with national security officials on the terrorism threat, “Trump asked everyone to leave except [FBI Director James] Comey,” and then he made a personal appeal for Comey to cut Flynn some slack. Even after this exchange became public, Trump made sure that official White House statements were crafted to defend Flynn: “While the President has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the President has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn.”
Of course, the investigation of Flynn is not just or even primarily about Turkey, but on the Raqqa question alone Trump should be outraged. And he’s not.
Now, read the following and ask yourself how you would react in Trump’s place:
Russian officials bragged in conversations during the presidential campaign that they had cultivated a strong relationship with former Trump adviser retired Gen. Michael Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team, sources told CNN.
The conversations deeply concerned US intelligence officials, some of whom acted on their own to limit how much sensitive information they shared with Flynn, who was tapped to become Trump’s national security adviser, current and former governments officials said.
“This was a five-alarm fire from early on,” one former Obama administration official said, “the way the Russians were talking about him.” Another former administration official said Flynn was viewed as a potential national security problem.
The conversations picked up by US intelligence officials indicated the Russians regarded Flynn as an ally, sources said.
If it were me, I’d be suspicious that Flynn had been working for the Russians all along and had been dishonest in his dealings with me and in the advice he had provided me on foreign policy. Maybe I wouldn’t want to admit as much publicly, but I also wouldn’t be inclined to say he was “a decent man who served and protected our country.”
I know it’s difficult to put yourself in Trump’s shoes because he’s a very unusual personality type. But it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Trump is doing one of two things.
The first possibility is that Trump knows full-well that Flynn was working for the Russians because he was working for them, too.
The second possibility is that, for whatever reasons, he can’t allow Flynn to talk to investigators because it would expose misdeeds of his own.
These two possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive, but at least one of them must be true.
Most people are going to gravitate to the second possibility because it’s less grave in its consequences. Perhaps the misdeeds Trump is hiding are not so serious. Maybe he doesn’t want to admit that he didn’t properly vet Flynn or he is trying to hide that he asked Flynn to interact with Ambassador Kislyak because he wanted to start his relations with Russia with a clean slate. Perhaps he’s acting loyally to Flynn in part because Flynn only did what he was told to do and in part because the truth would expose that he’s told some rather extraordinary lies.
Even if we allow for this more innocent explanation, however, it’s really very damning. Trump has repeatedly acted to stymie and shut down an investigation of Flynn, committing clear acts of obstruction of justice that would result in imprisonment for anyone not shielded by the Office of the Presidency’s protections against prosecution. If he did all this to avoid mere embarrassment and survivable political headaches, that’s kind of incredible.
And consider that Trump would in this more innocuous scenario still have plenty of reasons to be furious with Flynn. He’d be hiding that perfectly normal and understandable human emotion and presenting public support for him for purely self-serving reasons. Basically, he’d be saying nice things about Flynn and sending him text messages to “stay strong” and firing the FBI director not because he’s pleased with Flynn but because he’s desperate to keep him from talking.
There’s a narrative the follows somewhat along these lines without quite fleshing out all the implications. The narrative basically says that Trump simply doesn’t understand that he’s obstructing justice. He doesn’t realize that he’s not supposed to ask the Director of National Intelligence and the head of the National Security Agency to lie on his behalf or to ask the FBI director to quash a counterintelligence investigation and then fire him when he does not. The evidence for this is that he freely admits to (some of) his crimes, which a normal person would not do.
And it’s true, there’s something inexplicable about Trump’s behavior because it mixes such a clear consciousness of guilt with actions that would only be taken rationally be a person who feels innocent. More and more, his only defense is a kind of bottomless cluelessness that caroms off in every direction. He’s a dupe of the Russians rather than a witting participant. He doesn’t understand when he’s been used and betrayed even when it’s staring him squarely in the face. He has no clue what was done by his operatives, so his sense of innocence is real. He thinks the people who he asks to clear him can do so truthfully because he’s got no attachment to anything approximating reality. He erroneously thinks the president can do whatever he wants because he has a misimpression of how the Constitution and our system of checks and balances are designed to work.
Some people think these hypotheses are both plausible and a defense against removal from office.
The truth is, the more plausible these theories are, the more urgently they argue for his removal from office.
Fantastic post.
And those who would make the defense described in your second to last paragraph should be the ones charged with treason (at least in the court of public opinion and electoral consequences) for subjecting the United States (not to mention the world) to such risk stemming from someone so unfit for the office.
Trump thinks he’s really smart. So the notion that he might have been duped by the Russians, or even that he might have misjudged Flynn’s character, will not be entertained.
Regarding Flynn, I keep going back in my mind to that first daily brief where he argued with the briefer. Remember? Chris Christie was there and had to calm Flynn down from some outrageous behavior. I’d love to hear these days what went on in that room.
It is being reported that during the donald’s phone call with Duterte he revealed that we had 2 submarines of the coast of NK. Was Flynn sitting there in the Oval Office during the call? How much more stupid stuff did the donald blab to impress while Flynn sat at his side?
Trump gets to own that one all on his own, Flynn was gone by then.
Two things to add. Trump himself has been supportive of Erdogan and his policies. And, of course, Trump has business dealings in Turkey.
The narrative that Trump doesn’t understand he is obstructing justice and that, in general, his whole attitude is that of an authoritarian is just a manifestation of what we already know about Trump, that he is a psychopath and, as we know, psychopaths don’t have any sense of right and wrong; they’re all about themselves. Trump is a best case example for invoking Article 5 of the Constitution if ever there was one.
True, but my guess is it won’t ultimately hold up. Before there was Flynn, there was Paul Manafort. Manafort was forced to suddenly resign because of conflicts of interest over Russia. Manafort rushed in to change one, and only one plank, of the Republican platform in a way that was important to Russia. Trump didn’t bat an eyelash.
Reading between the lines, it seems the most likely scenario is that Trump, Manafort and Flynn are all in this up to their eyeballs. It’s not unfair to say all three are Russian agents.
I don’t know that for sure, but if I were a betting man that’s where I’d place my $3 bill.
Two traits of a psychopath: inability to fathom that he can do anything wrong, and a feeling of invulnerability. He totally believes he will win out, no matter what. These would go a long way to explain Trump’s behavior.
Trump understands that people are out to get him, but has no idea why, since he is without fault or blame.
For the same reason he cannot comprehend that Flynn did anything wrong. That can only be because he and Flynn were in this together.
His candor about himself comes from an absolute inability to understand that he did anything wrong or what that might have been. And of course he’s not afraid of anything, so he doesn’t hold back — he thinks he was right. He always thinks he’s right.
He’s socially clueless, cannot comprehend why anyone would criticize, other than that they are bad. SAD!
As Booman says, a very unusual personality. Large parts of the normal mind never developed in Trump.
Again, I’m constrained to remind everyone of the most crucial Trump concept (with Josh Marshall calls “Trump’s Razor”) — every instance of confusion regarding Trump’s actions, attitudes or statements — like this one — can be explained by jettisoning all preconceptions and just assuming that the person is just vastly more stupid and ignorant that you thought.
It’s hard to do (again, as I point out every time) because of inertia, or “pattern recognition,” or just propriety (as with The New York Times who are so urbane and polite that they can’t quite bring themselves to refrain from imposing “Presidential” frameworks onto Trump’s actions, only occasionally admitting that they’re “puzzling” or that his reasoning “seems unclear”).
But it’s necessary. I think, in this specific case, I think the truth is in both BooMan’s statements; I don’t think Trump understood that he was “working for the Russians” any more than Elmer Fudd realized he was working for Bugs Bunny when Bugs had Elmer baking the pies that Bugs would then immediately smash in Elmer’s face. (It took Elmer about seven successive pies to catch on.)
Trump sees Flynn as 1) a “great guy” (for whatever mysterious interpersonal reasons); who 2) was working really hard; 3) “for” Trump (whatever foggy way he understands this — saying, “I did such-and-such today, which will be good for us” and Trump nods and says “Good, good” because it sounds reasonable…and what the fuck does he know about it; better to just agree); and who 4) is being maligned and pursued in a way that wasn’t happening before he was fired. So, he shouldn’t have been fired.
That’s all there is to it. Russia? Turkey? What do you mean? That can’t be right…he’s a “great guy” who’s being “persecuted.”
But Trump doesn’t stay THIS loyal to everyone who works for him. That’s the thing. He loves to fire people too. He’s getting ready to fire Spicey any minute, for example. He promoted Bannon into the inner circle, then demoted him again.
So I think what Martin is asking is what makes him THIS loyal to a guy who, by any dispassionate analysis, has fucked up spectacularly and caused him immense difficulty. There has to be a reason. Maybe it could be as simple as that Flynn is better at kissing his ass than anyone else has ever been. But I don’t think it can be quite what you say in paragraph 4, even using Trump’s Razor, because Spicer (and plenty of other people) would fit that description too.
But that’s what I’m saying (and, apologies for being unclear): I’m not disputing BooMan’s analysis; I’m just amplifying the part of it where Trump’s actions are puzzling because they don’t fit any consistent, reasonable pattern — you have to jettison the idea of there being any consistent or reasonable pattern beyond Trump’s vague feeling that whichever person is either supporting/helping him (Flynn) or is harming/attacking him (Spicer, who is “bad” because he can’t seem to get the results Trump wants from the press corps, which would be to have Spicer somehow “explain” Trump’s actions in a way that would lead to the press ceasing to criticize him).
When Trump looks at Flynn, he doesn’t see “failure” (and of course he certainly doesn’t see treason or illegality or impropriety or even diplomatic recklessness; those concepts are too sophisticated for Trump) — he sees a loyal “employee” looking for the best “angles” who’s being mysteriously maligned. He was just doing his job! What’s the big deal? Whereas Spicer is supposed to get the press off Trump’s back (by “explaining” what Trump did, rather than frantically generating arcane diversions and deflections, which Spicer does because he understands the need to hide the bad stuff, unlike Trump). It’s as simple and stupid as that.
>>you have to jettison the idea of there being any consistent or reasonable pattern
this.
BooMan gave us lots of interesting facts about Flynn, but IMO anything that starts with “Why Does Trump” is a waste of time unless there’s a very obvious answer of money or publicity. There’s no point looking for rational motives from such an irrational and poorly informed person.
also, I don’t really want to get involved in trying to analyze “Why Does Trump”. I have enough problems without fucking up my head trying to “think” like him.
It’s useful and productive only inasmuch as we’re trying to soothe our souls by predicting the upcoming twists and turns of the roller coaster we’re imprisoned in together.
Booman has a tendency to look very hard for rational motives in the actions of a president.
On the other hand, you may be oversimplifying Trump. (That’s hard to do, I admit, he’s not very complex.) But when you say “unless there’s a very obvious answer of money or publicity” you’re leaving out at least one other thing: Trump’s refusal, actually inability, to conceive that he can ever do anything wrong.
He has been completely uncritical of Flynn not merely because Flynn was “only doing his job,” but because he was doing exactly what Trump wanted him to do. To criticize Flynn would be to criticize himself, and that he cannot do, not even in his own mind.
The bottom line is something like this: Trump has long believed that Putin and the Russians are the key to his success in business, the only kind of success he can conceive of. Trump sees his accession to the presidency as a major step in advancing his own business interests. He cannot conceive that the Russians are controlling him, nor can he conceive that “making America great again” is anything different from advancing his own business interests.
Just because there aren’t rational motives for Trump’s behavior doesn’t mean there aren’t IRRATIONAL motives.
I’d imagine the difference is that Flynn strikes Trump as macho and tough, whereas Spicer … doesn’t. Trump and Flynn are both, in Trump’s mind, take-no-prisoners hardasses with strong features and low-slung gunbelts.
He’s got the mind of a spoiled toddler. There is no dispassionate analysis. There is no theory of mind. There are only urges and emotions.
Superb post, Martin. This is the reason I throw money in your kitty. Keep it up, man.
Der Trumper is of course a profound ignoramus and clueless about his pathological narcissism, but we cannot go too far down this path that Trump doesn’t understand that “Knives Cut and Matches Burn”. He understands what many words mean and what “I hope you can find a way not to go after Nutjob Flynn” means.
Remember, Trumper is a professional lifelong fraudster and conman. He knows about lying cheating and misleading. He thinks this is how the really “smart” ones operate—by defrauding rubes. So the idea that Trump doesn’t know right from wrong and just thinks everything he does is “legal” is ridiculous.
He is a grifter, and grifters know what they are doing when they cheat and steal. They likely think the rube deserves it, but they don’t really think they are giving the rube a great deal or opportunity. Trump just turned his game of bizness fraud to the political arena. But he is still a gangster, not a naif.
As for Nutjob Flynn, Trump himself persisted in placing Flynn in the critical position of NSC head, although one supposes that other members of the inner circle agreed or advocated for Flynn as well. Trumper did this despite the hated Obammy’s express prior warning that it was a bad idea. Nevertheless he persisted…
So the NSC Nutjob was one of Trumper’s first important acts as prez, it turned out to bite his ass off and make him look a fool, and incompetent to boot. Narcissist-in-Chief is acutely aware of this, and therefore has to have a psychological defense mechanism to protect him. Thus, Flynn was “really” a good guy who had to be unfairly cashiered because of a baseless witch hunt. A casualty of politics…that’s the psychological motivation.
Second, Trump certainly told Flynn to call the Russian Ambassador about the Obama sanctions. Trump from the very first said there was nothing wrong with Flynn doing this—obviously because Trump told him to do it. But Flynn certainly has a much larger basket of dirty laundry on Trumper, filthy clothes thrown thoughtlessly in the hamper from the campaign on down to the firing date. Now the holder of the basket looks to be in deep trouble. Everyone wants to check out the basket.
What will Flynn do? Take the basket to the laundromat or hide it in the basement? Trump (the political gangster) would like to have his cornered hit man bury the basket and keep his mouth shut. So he keeps up with the public praise as the hapless hit man peruses his options as the G-men lick their chops. This is the conman/gangster motivation.
The comedy will commence when/if Flynn decides he has to sing…that will end the “loyalty” and praise from the Godfather!
He hates Obama. So when Obama warned him about Flynn, of course he ignored it.
“Trumper is a professional lifelong fraudster and conman. He knows about lying cheating and misleading. …. So the idea that Trump doesn’t know right from wrong and just thinks everything he does is “legal” is ridiculous.”
This is where I disagree. Yes he is a fraudster and conman. It doesn’t follow from this that he really knows right from wrong. To Trump, as with all real con artists and fraudsters, everything he does is right as far as he is concerned.
What’s unusual about Trump is precisely that as a gangster, he IS a naif. He is so self-centered that he cannot believe that OTHER people at least see him as a reprobate. That would make him look bad, and he cannot deal with that. That’s why it’s so important to him to believe he really won the popular vote, and that more people came to his inauguration than any other inauguration, etc.
I forgot to say that, yes, he does believe everything he does is legal.
And BTW, why shouldn’t he? When has he ever been convicted of anything?
If a judge doesn’t seem to agree, obviously there’s something wrong with the judge. We’ve seen that movie a number of times.
Another excellent post. Your Russia/Trump & Co. work has been consistently outstanding.
I agree wholeheartedly with those who have praised this post. But I don’t think Trump is “loyal” to Flynn. I think he is simply trying every tactic he can to prevent Flynn from sharing what he knows about Trump’s misdeeds. I suspect that Flynn was the principal go-between between Trump and Putin.
I don’t think Trump is capable of loyalty, although he demands it of others. Trump displays all the symptoms of sociopathy in the DSM-V: lack of empathy; difficult relationships; manipulativeness; deceitfulness; callousness; hostility; irresponsibility; impulsivity; and risky behavior. He may know right from wrong in a theoretical sense, but I doubt he “feels” the difference. He does whatever he can get away with to satisfy his own selfish desires. His entire history, going back at least to his association with Roy Cohn, and even to his childhood rule-breaking, demonstrates his sociopathy and his lack of anything that might be called a conscience.