Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 27, 2017
The Real Foreign Policy Scandal Is Its Sabotage By Trump Enemies

During the election campaign Donald Trump argued for better relations with Russia. He wanted to engage in a common fight against the Islamic State and other terrorists. Hillary Clinton argued for a confrontational policy against Russia and a new cold war. The foreign policy establishment, the media and the CIA were solidly on Clinton's side. The people of the United States made their choice. It was Trump and his views of policies that were elected.

After Trump had won the election, he advised his staff to set up a confidential track-2 communication channel with the Russian government. He rightfully did not trust the established official channels through the State Department and the CIA. His incoming National Security Advisor Flynn and his foreign policy advisor Kushner worked on his behalf when they soughed contacts with Russian officials. Such diplomacy is by nature not acted out in public.

But now the U.S. people are told by their media that it is a scandal, A SCANDAL, that President Trump's advisors pursue the policies the candidate Trump had argued for. Today's headlines: NYT – Kushner Is Said to Have Discussed a Secret Channel to Talk to Russia; WaPo – Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin; The Hill – Kushner wanted secure line with Kremlin before inauguration: report; The New Yorker – Jared Kushner’s Russia Problems; Reuters – Exclusive: Trump son-in-law had undisclosed contacts with Russian envoy – sources.

The various formulations in those pieces are painting the discrete diplomatic contacts as something sinister and illegal:

NBC News reported on Thursday that Kushner was under scrutiny by the FBI, in the first sign that the investigation, which began last July, has reached the president’s inner circle.

FBI investigators are examining whether Russians suggested to Kushner or other Trump aides that relaxing economic sanctions would allow Russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to Trump, said the current U.S. law enforcement official.

But paragraphs down from that:

While the FBI is investigating Kushner’s contacts with Russia, he is not currently a target of that investigation, the current law enforcement official said.

There may not have been anything improper about the contacts, the current law enforcement official stressed.

The WaPo author has at least the honesty to note:

It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials.

As an aside the Washington Post leakers reveal that U.S. intelligence can listen to Russian diplomatic communication between the embassy in Washington and Moscow. This is a criminal breach of a "sources and methods" secrets that should be punished.

The scandal here are not various contacts of Trump advisors with Russian and other country's diplomats. The scandal is the undermining of the constitutional prerogative of the elected President of the United State to set foreign policy:

Under the Constitution, the President serves as head of state and head of government. [..] As head of government, he formulates foreign policy, supervises its implementation and attempts to obtain the resources to support it. He also organizes and directs the departments and agencies that play a part in the foreign policy process. Along with the Vice President, he is the only government official elected nationally. This places him in a unique position to identify, express and pursue the “national interests” of the U.S.

The scandal here is not Trump and are not his advisors' contacts with Russian officials. The scandal are the leaks by "officials" about confidential diplomacy, the sham FBI "investigations" and the general undemocratic hostility and resistance of the foreign policy establishment, the security services and the media towards the president's chosen policies. This is completely independent of whether one likes those policies or not.

Comments

b: As an aside the Washington Post leakers reveal that U.S. intelligence can listen to Russian diplomatic communication between the embassy in Washington and Moscow. This is a criminal breach of a “sources and methods” secrets that should be punished.
Certitude about conjectured criminality is precisely what “liberal press” is doing, and surely that does not make it right. (1) Personally, my impression from WP article was that US intelligence knew what Russian Embassy told Russian Foreign Ministry, and that could mean “signal intelligence”, or a mole in the Embassy or a mole in the Ministry. So there is not too much of a disclosure of “sources and methods”. (2) WP probably did not make a “criminal breach”, but merely passed a story peddled by “well informed” ones who were telling it to all and sundry, so it was not a secret. (3) The “well informed” often themselves pass rumors, and it is a distinct possibility that the ultimate source could be a Russian working for RF. Electing Trump was better for RF than Clinton, he is making a mess but a less harmful mess from the point of view of RF. But once Clinton is relegated to the ranks of “former senior statespersons”, impeachment investigations in USA are actually good for RF, especially if unsuccessful. They do not need any “American help”, they need USA to get out of the way.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 29 2017 5:11 utc | 101

Trump’s foreign policy positions are those of the elite he is aspiring to be one of.
1. Extend and maintain private global finance based on the US dollar…..let the killings and strife continue…..maybe even ramp them up a bit….
2. Grow the Trump financial trust base to approximate those of the global elite….think House of Saud…

Posted by: psychohistorian | May 29 2017 6:34 utc | 102

@101 pb, ‘They do not need any “American help”, they need USA to get out of the way.’
that goes for the whole world, not just the russians. merkel has latched onto the rump as her personal punching bag … others will soon follow. sure, easy way to make points with folks of all political persuasions. and … now with no obligations! all flash bang and smoke. as patented by the ‘master’ himself.
the rump’s ‘genius’ turned back upon himself.

Posted by: jfl | May 29 2017 12:10 utc | 103

@98 pb, ‘If they had “any brain”, or sufficiently broad vision, they would use all backroom tricks, never mind whether clean or dirty, to push Clinton out.’
that’s the problem … they’ve degenerated into nothing but a mob, and it was mob loyalty to the fairy godmother … and payday … that destroyed them.

Posted by: jfl | May 29 2017 12:14 utc | 104

In a recent interview with Telesur, a real President, Bashar al-Assad summed it up pretty well I think.
“The American President has no policies. There are policies drawn by the American institutions which control the American regime which are the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms and oil companies, and financial institutions, in addition to some other lobbies which influence American decision-making. The American President merely implements these policies, and the evidence is that when Trump tried to move on a different track, during and after his election campaign, he couldn’t. He came under a ferocious attack. As we have seen in the past few week, he changed his rhetoric completely and subjected himself to the terms of the deep American state, or the deep American regime. That’s why it is unrealistic and a complete waste of time to make an assessment of the American President’s foreign policy, for he might say something; but he ultimately does what these institutions dictate to him. This is not new. This has been ongoing American policy for decades.”

Posted by: Seby | May 29 2017 13:06 utc | 105

@105 seby.. that is a pretty bang on description from assad.. thanks..

Posted by: james | May 29 2017 14:34 utc | 106

Jackrabbit @100: I doubt it. You postulate totally unnecessary cooperation between parties that hate each other, presumably controlled by some invisible center of power. On more practical level, Trump is a genuine loose canon which is being tamed even as we exchange our comments, and Clinton genuinely wanted the Presidency, without the heed to her frail health, public image and questionable program. Democratic establishment is in my opinion genuinely blind to the demerits of that program, and again, this is easy to explain by the group thinking and the influence of money over that group thinking. Sanders’ popularity was probably not caused by his cranky old man who robotically stays on message, but by his lack of compromising record and the better message. Why would invisible powers pay him to popularize slogans against banks and for-profit medicine, two largest sources of private profits in American economy?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 29 2017 14:55 utc | 107

Piotr @107
You have to look through the narratives.
1) Sanders pulled many punches (“Enough with the emails”) and despite Hillary-DNC collusion, he STILL works closely with the Democrats. What happened to his vaunted principles? Why did he refuse to provide the press with his 2014 tax returns? (He made them wait for his 2015 returns despite calling his returns “boring”.)
2) Obama was a faux populist who broke promises and acted to undermine the people’s interest (weak ‘shovel ready’ stimulus; bank bailouts; ‘Fiscal Cliff’ sham; proxy wars; weak environmental action; etc.)
3) Trump was friendly with the Clinton’s for many years. After Hillary questioned if Obama was eligible to be President, Trump became a leader of the ‘birther movement’.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
totally unnecessary cooperation …
Colusion is essential when you intend to act against the interests of the majority. Do you fail to see the establishment consensus and the large number of Clinton loyalists?
a genuine loose canon …
Where you fooled by Obama’s act also?
her frail health …
Which was a frenzy for about a month. Since then … nothing. But “Hillary’s health issues” allowed Trump to say that he wouldn’t prosecute Hillary. Smells like “unnecessary cooperation” to me.
group thinking …
No. IN-GROUP thinking. Not just politics, POWER politics.
his lack of compromising record and the better message. Why would invisible powers pay him to popularize slogans against banks and for-profit medicine
Wake up! There is quite a lot of controlled opposition.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 29 2017 16:19 utc | 108

@2 Khalid
Agree…the Trump pandering that goes on here is farcical. I don’t wish to see him ousted and someone like Pence taking over but how anyone can still say that Trump has a plan and if it weren’t for his enemies Trump would be a competent leader…that really is just as stupid as claiming Obama was an awesome president whose great plans were sunk by his enemies. Get real.
(As far as Trump’s campaign promises to end America’s wars, detente with Russia etc., yes he did say those things…he also said he was raising the “defense” budget, that he would kill ISIS members families, that he would have stolen more Iraqi oil, that America needs a strong military…and he than proceeded to stuff his cabinet with generals and ex-Goldman Sachs people. WAKE UP. Trump told people want he thought they wanted to hear and you guys fell for it by hearing only what YOU wanted to hear and blanking out the rest.)

Posted by: Temporarily Sane | May 30 2017 6:00 utc | 109

@109, ts ‘you guys fell for it by hearing only what YOU wanted to hear and blanking out the rest’
that’s the name of the game in lessor of two evils politics. obama did the same thing, it was plain he was in the bag before he was elected in 2008. the same applies to micron in france, now. candidates chosen top-down are never what they (hope to) seem. they always require the willing-suspension of disbelief to seem in any way appealing. ‘even’ jeremy corbyn will stay on track with ‘the wars’, as would the bern have as well.
sitting on our hands and waiting for the 1% to choose our candidates is a fools’ errand, yet we qualify as fools time after time.

Posted by: jfl | May 30 2017 7:08 utc | 110

@33, etc. etc. etc. Khalid: You seem to be so determined to believe that b. and some of the posters here are “Trump shills” and “Russia defenders” that I felt I had to point out something so simple that one has to doubt your sincerity if you haven’t understood it by now:
Acknowledging the sanity of Trump’s pre-election stand on Russia compared to Clinton’s and recognizing the fact that he has been the target of a hysterical and largely non-fact-based campaign by the Democrat/Republican establishment and the media do not make one a “Trump supporter” or a “Trump shill”; recognizing that Russia under Putin is the target of a relentless, equally hysterical and groundless campaign to make Putin and his country into “America’s enemy” does not make one a “Putin apologist” or a “Russia defender”.

Posted by: Gene Poole | May 30 2017 12:15 utc | 111

there’s a good, more or less plain vanilla article on some americans’ trip to russia to ‘see for themselves’ at consortium news. nothing surprising to anyone here, i suppose, but good for an audience of ‘ordinary americans’. if ordinary americans read robert parry’s rag. it’s probably the most likely non-msm outlet they might read.
Comprehending Today’s Russia
but in the body of the article is a link that ought to put the charges of ‘russian interference’ in the 2016 election into perspective …
RESCUING BORIS

The outcome was by no means inevitable. Last winter Yeltsin’s approval ratings were in the single digits. There are many reasons for his change in fortune, but a crucial one has remained a secret. For four months, a group of American political consultants clandestinely participated in guiding Yeltsin’s campaign. Here is the inside story of how these advisers helped Yeltsin achieve the victory that will keep reform in Russia alive.

… of course it’s time magazine, so everything is ‘just as it should be’ for them. but the contrast is like night and day, as is the reality.
have a look and imagine a team of russian campaign mechanics showing up in the usofa and running the rump’s campaign. that’s exactly what happened in 2001. and yeltsin most probably would not have won without them.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 1 2017 1:52 utc | 112