Tools in place to probe Russian ties
Possible outcomes range from exoneration if the inquiries fail to establish collusion with the Russians to criminal charges and even impeachment if the most portentous suspicions prove true.
T he tools appear to be in place to get at the heart of the “Russian thing,” to use President Trump’s words. Last week’s appointment of a special counsel combined with what appears to be renewed vigor by the Senate and House intelligence committees to get at the facts suggests that the Trump administration will not be able to employ prevarication to get past this matter.
These varying investigations should clarify the nature of the Russian meddling in the 2016 election. They should determine whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives in seeking to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign and, if so, whether Trump was in the loop.
These inquiries also will explore whether the president sought to obstruct the investigatory process and if any business ties between the Trump business empire, whether legitimate or otherwise, played a role in the events.
Trump insists there is nothing to any of it. Yet for a man with nothing to hide, he has come across as terribly defensive, complaining in a tweet that he is the subject of the “single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!”
Little wonder that Americans are confused and divided over the matter. Those who remain supportive of the president see the inquiries as an effort by the Washington establishment to inhibit a maverick president bent on challenging the status quo. Critics of President Trump see a corrupt administration that Congress and the legal system must hold accountable.
Possible outcomes range from exoneration if the inquiries fail to establish collusion with the Russians to criminal charges and even impeachment if the most portentous suspicions prove true.
Given the level of public confusion and the high stakes, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made the right decision in naming former FBI chief Robert Mueller III as a special counsel to manage the criminal investigation into the Russian connection and associated actions.
After Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, the need for an independently led inquiry became unassailable. Reportedly the president fired Comey after failing to win a pledge of his loyalty or to convince him to stop the FBI’s digging into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s dealing with Russian officials.
“When I decided to just do it (fire Comey) I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won,’” Trump said in an interview with Lester Holt.
Rosenstein, meanwhile, provided a memo that the Trump administration used to justify the Comey firing. Rosenstein’s boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the Russian probe after he failed to disclose to a Senate panel, during the confirmation process, his discussions with Russian ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak.
Given all those conflicts, the need to appoint independent special counsel was clear and Mueller, an apolitical lawman who can be trusted to follow the evidence where it leads and to acknowledge if it leads nowhere, is a solid choice. At 71 and having completed a successful career, Mueller will be motivated by a sense of public service, not by trying to prove his worth by nailing someone.
Meanwhile, while a nonpartisan special commission would have been our preferential choice to examine all aspects of the Russian election interference and any connections with the Trump campaign or White House, it appears the public may have to settle for inquiries by the Senate and House intelligence committees.
In that regard, at least the lawmakers are saying the right things in vowing to get at the facts. Next week Comey is expected to sit down with the Senate intelligence committee and answer questions about published reports that Trump sought to discourage his continuing investigation, conversations that Comey reportedly kept notes about.
It appears Flynn won’t be appearing before either panel anytime soon. On Monday, Flynn, whose lawyers indicated earlier wants a deal protecting him from prosecution in return for telling his story, invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination in refusing to hand over documents sought under subpoena by the Senate panel.
Flynn’s stance suggests that digging into the Russian connections will not prove fruitless.