Supervision
So is Putin really deciding what Secretary of State we can have?
Jane Mayer reports a memo of Christopher Steele’s that indicates a maybe.
In the spring of 2017, after eight weeks in hiding, Steele gave a brief statement to the media, announcing his intention of getting back to work. On the advice of his lawyers, he hasn’t spoken publicly since. But Steele talked at length with Mueller’s investigators in September. It isn’t known what they discussed, but, given the seriousness with which Steele views the subject, those who know him suspect that he shared many of his sources, and much else, with the Mueller team.
One subject that Steele is believed to have discussed with Mueller’s investigators is a memo that he wrote in late November, 2016, after his contract with Fusion had ended. This memo, which did not surface publicly with the others, is shorter than the rest, and is based on one source, described as “a senior Russian official.” The official said that he was merely relaying talk circulating in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but what he’d heard was astonishing: people were saying that the Kremlin had intervened to block Trump’s initial choice for Secretary of State, Mitt Romney. (During Romney’s run for the White House in 2012, he was notably hawkish on Russia, calling it the single greatest threat to the U.S.) The memo said that the Kremlin, through unspecified channels, had asked Trump to appoint someone who would be prepared to lift Ukraine-related sanctions, and who would coöperate on security issues of interest to Russia, such as the conflict in Syria. If what the source heard was true, then a foreign power was exercising pivotal influence over U.S. foreign policy—and an incoming President.
It’s just one source, and the source himself says it’s just “talk circulating in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs”…but as Mayer goes on to say, if you look at what did happen, it bears an odd resemblance to Putin’s likely wish list.
As fantastical as the memo sounds, subsequent events could be said to support it. In a humiliating public spectacle, Trump dangled the post before Romney until early December, then rejected him. There are plenty of domestic political reasons that Trump may have turned against Romney. Trump loyalists, for instance, noted Romney’s public opposition to Trump during the campaign. Roger Stone, the longtime Trump aide, has suggested that Trump was vengefully tormenting Romney, and had never seriously considered him. (Romney declined to comment. The White House said that he was never a first choice for the role and declined to comment about any communications that the Trump team may have had with Russia on the subject.) In any case, on December 13, 2016, Trump gave Rex Tillerson, the C.E.O. of ExxonMobil, the job. The choice was a surprise to most, and a happy one in Moscow, because Tillerson’s business ties with the Kremlin were long-standing and warm. (In 2011, he brokered a historic partnership between ExxonMobil and Rosneft.) After the election, Congress imposed additional sanctions on Russia, in retaliation for its interference, but Trump and Tillerson have resisted enacting them.
There was a headline in the Times yesterday, saying Congress gave the State Department $120 million to fight off Russian election-meddling, and the State Department has spent $0 of it. Zero. Zeeeeero.
blood running cold. this is very very creepy.
Isn’t it though?
But…but…Hillary’s e-mails! Hillary’s pant suits!
Damn, I am still hearing that stuff – if only Hillary had been warmer…stronger…weaker…more focused….less focused…more assertive…less bitchy…you name it, if Hillary had been it, we wouldn’t be in this mess now.
The reality is, if Hillary had been less competent, and a man, she might have won handily. Or not. But one thing Hillary was not – a tool of Russia. That might have been the most important feature of all, and most people overlooked it.
Have any of the Lefty Putin deniers apologized yet? The Stein-Assange-Greenwald crowd? The rejection of plain evidence is the last ‘bipartisan’ aspect of American culture.
John, not only have I not heard any apologies, some of them are doubling down. I was listening last night to yet another explanation of “what’s wrong with Hillary” and “why Hillary didn’t win”. Pointed out that Hillary got more votes. For my troubles, I was treated to a “yes, there are problems with the electoral college, but you know, I don’t really want to live under all the things they want in California, either”. So the answer is, California has to live under everything every regressive reactionary in the midwest wants…and besides, Texas has nearly as much population as California, so why is it always California we hear about?
Next time I hear that, I’m going to respond that I would much rather live under what California wants than to live under what Russia wants.
This is “coming out” now, but we ran it in mid-December 2016:
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1376738495677941/?type=3&theater