Anyone who follows politics knows that when it comes to scandals, it is not the transgression that gets you, it’s the cover up. Nevertheless, politicians continue to cover things up rather than just admit to them, face the music and try to move on.
There was some reasonable expectation that Donald Trump would be different. After all, he was the one that claimed he could shoot someone in Times Square and still maintain his support. But it was not to be, and a few days ago Trump succumbed. He fired the FBI director, apparently for digging too deeply into his Russian connections.
By taking this extreme step that was clearly politically motivated, Trump likely achieves a number of unwanted objectives.
Inevitably, Trump’s Russian connections will be exposed. They could be around manipulating the election, they could be around his business empire being financed by Putins’ billionaire friends, they could be around his hotels getting sweetheart deals in Russia. There is a good chance it will be all of the above.
Whatever the connections turn out to be, they will not be the impeachable offense. That will be his efforts to cover them up.
Will Donald Trump become the president that Hillary Clinton would have been before Bernie Sanders pushed her to the left? After all, he does not seem to have any real ideology and has no problem reversing his positions. After the public embarrassment of another legislative defeat or two, maybe he will just declare himself party-independent and decide to do whatever it takes to make his presidency ‘successful’.
He has already offered to work with the Democrats on health care. He is looking at supporting Barak Obama’s Federal Reserve chair (Janet Yellen) and some of his economic policies. He is cozying up to China and taking actions that annoy Russia.
Sure, his appointees and executive orders have been nothing like what Clinton would have done. But it is early – Trump has not even been president for 100 days yet. Already Steve Bannon’s influence is being supplanted by a life long NY Democrat – Jared Kushner. There will undoubtedly be more changes to come.
At the end of the day, this president asks himself not what is good for the country, but what is good for the Trump brand. Interestingly, if he decides that political success is better for the brand than ideology, it might also be better for the country.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have a number of similarities. Both are bullies. Both feel a need to demonstrate their virility. Both fancy themselves as very crafty deal makers.
There are also some differences. Putin has been successful in one of the most difficult and backstabbing political environments in the world for several decades. Trump is just getting his feet wet in the political arena. My money is on Putin letting Trump maneuver him into just the spot that Putin wants to be.
Which is out of Syria.
What does Russia really want out of its activity in Syria?
The US shares the first and third goals, and could probably live with some form of the second, especially since it is nothing new. Russia has had access to the Tartus naval base since 1971.
If Russia could withdraw from Syria and achieve its goals it would. The primary reason for supporting Assad is that without him, goals 2 and 3 are in jeopardy. But if Trump were to agree to some continued access to the naval and air bases, and they could agree on a political structure that included non-Assad Baathists and the non-Islamic opposition, why not jettison Assad?
Meanwhile, on the way to this deal both sides get some positives. Trump gets to demonstrate his virility by bombing Syria and standing up to Putin. But this also helps Putin, because one of Trump’s feet (the left one) is now a bit stuck in Syria which should bring him to the table faster.
At the end of the day, neither side really wants a long term engagement in Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East. Look for them both to get out as soon as they can cut a deal.
It seems like every Republican president over the past 40 years has instigated a significant invasive military action involving ground troops.
Bill Clinton followed Bush Sr., and while there was military action on his watch, it did not involve ground troops, just bombing. Barak Obama committed ground troops, but this was a continuation of the wars he inherited from Bush Jr., not something he initiated on his own.
The question is whether Republican Donald Trump will follow the pattern. He did not waste much time putting the military to work in Syria, but that was an air strike, not a commitment of ground troops. Would Donald Trump really want to invade Syria?
Possibly. What if Trump and Putin both agreed to put ground troops in Syria to fight the Islamists? This would not happen before they had come to an agreement on the future of President Assad and the country itself, but stranger things have happened.
With Donald Trump in charge of the executive branch and the Republicans in charge of Congress, it is unlikely that there will much ‘serious’ investigation into alleged illegal activity by members of the administration, much less criminal prosecution. The main threat to corrupt and conflicted officials (as well as legislation) could end up being the attorney generals of blue states such as California, New York, Washington and Illinois.
We have already seen this starting to happen. First were their challenges to the new immigration rules. Now one of the attorney generals is going after the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Why not? Filing a legal motion against Trump’s actions or appointees is a complete win for any attorney general in a deeply blue state, even it is not successful.
Will the courts indulge these attorney generals? It is probably safe to say that some of these cases will end up in the Supreme Court. Which has a new justice, who ostensibly subscribes to the conservative movement’s staunch support of state’s rights. It remains to be seen if this support holds if the state in question happens to be blue.