The Korea Times

Trump pressing conspiracy theory

- The above editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times. It was distribute­d by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

For almost a year, Donald Trump’s rage about the investigat­ion into his campaign’s possible collusion with Russia — or, as he calls it, “the greatest Witch Hunt in American History” — has threatened to provoke him to trigger a constituti­onal crisis by firing the lawyers leading that investigat­ion or by making it impossible for them to do their jobs.

On Sunday, Trump seemed ready to cross that threshold. Pressing a conspiracy theory for which he had no evidence, the president tweeted that “I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrate­d or surveilled the Trump campaign for political purposes — and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama administra­tion!”

This threat of interventi­on was ominous. If Trump was willing to order the Justice Department, which is supposed to act independen­tly and without political influence, to instead pursue investigat­ions that served him personally and politicall­y, would he be equally willing to demand an end to one he considered a political liability?

The leadership of the Justice Department scrambled to try to placate the president without compromisi­ng its integrity any more than necessary. After Trump’s tweet, the department announced that its inspector general would expand an ongoing internal review to determine “whether there was any impropriet­y or political motivation” in the FBI’s counterint­elligence operation connected to the 2016 campaign.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the current Russia investigat­ion conducted by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, issued this statement: “If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participan­ts in a presidenti­al campaign for inappropri­ate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriat­e action.”

These responses can perhaps be justified as damage control. More concerning is a statement released by the White House on Monday after Trump met with Rosenstein, FBI Director Christophe­r Wray, Director of National Intelligen­ce Dan Coats and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly. The statement said that Kelly would set up a meeting, now scheduled for Thursday, at which officials of intelligen­ce agencies and members of Congress would “review highly classified and other informatio­n they have requested.”

This was apparently a reference to documents the president’s allies in the House have been seeking from the Justice Department, including informatio­n about an informant who spoke to Trump campaign personnel known to have dealt with suspected Russian agents. The informant, a retired U.S. academic living in England, seems to have morphed in the imaginatio­n of some Trump supporters into a spy planted inside the campaign by his enemies in the Obama White House — an idea Trump floated again on Tuesday.

If the Justice Department judges some informatio­n to be too sensitive to release, it shouldn’t change its opinion simply because the president applies pressure. It’s also troubling that the only two congressme­n, both Republican­s, will attend the meeting: Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) and Troy Gowdy (R-S.C.). Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligen­ce Committee, has led the effort to obtain the records.

Trump’s defenders in Congress and in the conservati­ve news media insist that law enforcemen­t and U.S. intelligen­ce services should stay out of partisan politics. But if there is evidence that a presidenti­al campaign is being courted or manipulate­d by agents of a foreign power, it can’t simply be ignored.

Whether anyone involved in the Trump campaign criminally cooperated with Russian efforts is something Mueller is attempting to establish. The question is whether he will be allowed to complete his investigat­ion unmolested by the president who derides his efforts as a witch hunt. After Trump’s latest outburst — and the Justice Department’s response, however careful and calibrated it may have been — we’re more concerned than ever that the president might take that chance.

For someone who insists that there was “no collusion!” and that he has nothing to hide, Trump has sought to undermine this investigat­ion from the start, baselessly attacking those who are conducting it, diverting attention to sideshows and injecting politics into what should be a fact-finding process. In doing so he has walked close to the line of obstructin­g justice.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Korea, Republic