Adviser is out like Flynn, but many questions linger
Michael Flynn was a loose cannon long before he became President Trump’s deeply flawed choice to be national security adviser, a post he resigned late Monday after getting caught lying about dealings with the Russians.
As a military intelligence officer serving in Afghanistan in 2009-10, Flynn riled superiors with his careless sharing of sensitive information with Pakistan and other allies. His later mismanagement of the Defense Intelligence Agency created so much turmoil that Flynn was pushed out of the job a year early.
He then showed up at a paid appearance in Moscow, seated with President Vladimir Putin during an anniversary party for Russia’s propaganda television network. And as an early supporter of Trump, Flynn called President Obama a “liar,” tweeted that “fear of Muslims is RATIONAL,” and joined the “lock her up!” chant about Hillary Clinton at the Republican convention.
Rewarded with the national security adviser post, Flynn lasted less than four weeks. Trump asked him to resign, the White House said Tuesday, after Flynn lost the trust of top officials. Flynn had falsely told Vice President Pence that sanctions hadn’t been discussed during a December phone chat between Flynn and the Russian ambassador.
Flynn won’t be missed, and the search for his replacement offers the Trump administration an opportunity to tack even faster toward the more reasonable foreign policy positions it has taken since Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson entered the picture. These positions include backing away from a vow to tear up the Iran nuclear agreement, embracing the “one China” policy with respect to Taiwan, calling for Israel to curtail new West Bank settlements and letting Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, talk tough about Russia’s renewed interference in Ukraine.
Even so, it’s impossible to know yet whether Flynn’s exit is the last chapter in a fumbled first decision by Trump to fill a vital security position, or the opening salvo in a high-stakes international scandal. Among the many questions that remain about the dealings of Trump supporters with Russia, both before and after the election:
Did Flynn lie about his Russian conversations when he was interviewed by the FBI shortly after the inauguration? It could be a felony if he did.
Why wasn’t he fired sooner after the acting attorney general warned the White House on Jan. 26 that Flynn had misrepresented his conversations with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, opening himself to blackmail?
Was Flynn acting purely on his own when he discussed sanctions with Kislyak? Trump didn’t give him the go-ahead, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Tuesday. Is it credible that someone accustomed to working within a chain of command would engage in this sort of backchannel freelancing?
Did Flynn have any involvement in the effort by Russian hackers to undermine Clinton’s campaign and tilt the election toward Trump?
Even before this week’s drama, the GOP-led Congress was under pressure to thoroughly investigate Team Trump’s connections with Russia. The Flynn affair gives investigators even more reason to act, and to do so swiftly.