Happy 44th anniversary
Adam Davidson at the New Yorker notes that 44 years ago today Nixon released the “smoking gun tape” after the Supreme Court ruled that he had to; three days later he resigned.
On August 5, 2018, precisely forty-four years after the collapse of the Nixon Presidency, another President, Donald Trump, made his own public admission. In one of a series of early-morning tweets, Trump addressed a meeting that his son Donald, Jr., held with a Russian lawyer affiliated with the Russian government. “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics – and it went nowhere,” he wrote. “I did not know about it!”
The tweet contains several crucial pieces of information. First, it is a clear admission that Donald Trump, Jr.,’s original statement about the case was inaccurate enough to be considered a lie. He had said the meeting was with an unknown person who “might have information helpful to the campaign,” and that this person “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children.” This false statement was, according to his legal team, dictated by the President himself. There was good reason to mislead the American people about that meeting. Based on reporting—at the time and now—of the President’s admission, it was a conscious effort by the President’s son and two of his closest advisers to work with affiliates of the Russian government to obtain information that might sway the U.S. election in Trump’s favor. In short, it was, at minimum, a case of attempted collusion. The tweet indicates that Trump’s defense will continue to be that this attempt at collusion failed—“it went nowhere”—and that, even if it had succeeded, it would have been “totally legal and done all the time.” It is unclear why, if the meeting was entirely proper, it was important for the President to declare “I did not know about it!” or to tell the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to “stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now.”
Because Trump is too stupid not to try every possible lie, including those that contradict each other.
The President’s Sunday-morning tweet should be seen as a turning point. It doesn’t teach us anything new—most students of the case already understand what Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner knew about that Trump Tower meeting. But it ends any possibility of an alternative explanation. We can all move forward understanding that there is a clear fact pattern about which there is no dispute:
- The President’s son and top advisers knowingly met with individuals connected to the Russian government, hoping to obtain dirt on their political opponent.
- Documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee and members of the Clinton campaign were later used in an overt effort to sway the election.
- When the Trump Tower meeting was uncovered, the President instructed his son and staff to lie about the meeting, and told them precisely which lies to use.
- The President is attempting to end the investigation into this meeting and other instances of attempted collusion between his campaign staff and representatives of the Russian government.
So, now what? Who knows.
It’s surprising just how many people I’ve met (always business people or lawyers), who will argue that if something is not explicitly illegal it’s ok. Even if something is explicitly illegal, they argue that as long as no demonstrable harm has occurred, it’s ok anyway.
Funnily enough I’ve never met anyone from a STEM field who is comfortable with this. I imagine people from ethics backgrounds turn slightly pale as well.
Rob@#1:
Actually, that is a long established principle in lawmaking, going right back to the legendary Moses and his Ten Commandments. (NB, there were originally twelve, but according to that eminent authority Mel Brooks, Moses tripped on a rock or something on the way down the mountain and two of them got smashed. God only knows what they said.)
The negative form (Thou shalt not…) is far more definitive than the positive form (Thou shalt….) Once what one may not do is set out, the rest is easy. But defining what one may do is a minefield.
Rob @1
Yes, as a former business person myself (accountant) I’d have to reluctantly agree. The reason why so many capitalists are moral imbeciles is simple, competitive pressure, With a few exceptions, ethical business practices as distinct from from legally enforced ones, are rare. There have been some business scandals here, employers in the restaurant industry underpaying staff thousands of dollars, they’re accurately characterised as ‘wage thieves’. Their excuse is that the law regarding appropriate wage levels is complicated, it’s an honest mistake. I don’t know of any occasions when restaurateurs have overpaid staff because they were ‘confused’. A Royal Commision has revealed how bankers actually preyed on customers and squandered their money, that’s not just one bank, btw, but all of them. These scandals are an inevitable result of the deregulation mania that infected the English-speaking countries decades ago.
Trump’s problem is that he’s just inept at covering his tracks.
Rob,
PS
Scientists don’t always behave ethically, do they? Cyril Burt and Andrew Wakefield are two of the most notorious examples, Wakefield’s pernicious influence has infested the net.
RJW, Scientists are of course human and so you will find examples of fraud, unethical work and plain old venality.
I’ve never met a scientist who behaves that way (whereas I have with lawyers and business people). Cyril Burt I don’t know any details. Andrew Wakefield in my view falls on the fringe of being a genuine scientist. Yes, he did do research, but I’ve met too many doctors who do medical ‘research’ that frankly wouldn’t pass an undergraduate chemistry lab. I know there are very good rigorous medical researchers around in contrast. But yes, I take your point,scientists don’t always meet the pure standard. I guess it’s a case of saying that hearing about fraud and unethical behaviour in science (as opposed to just being wrong) is eye popping. In business, not so much.