The timing was exceptionally awkward
Mr. Trump refused to say that he believed American intelligence agencies’ findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 United States election, as a news conference where international affairs were expected to dominate turned again and again to the president’s domestic political troubles. The timing was exceptionally awkward, just days after the Justice Department indicted 12 Russian intelligence agents on charges of hacking the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, in an attempt to aid Mr. Trump.
For “exceptionally awkward” read “treasonous.”
Asked whether he believes his own intelligence agencies, which say that Russia interfered in the 2016 United States election, or Mr. Putin, who denies it, Mr. Trump refused to say, but he expressed doubt about whether Russia was to blame.
It’s rather as if Charles Lindbergh had been elected president in 1940.
Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, and other American intelligence officials “said they think it’s Russia,” Mr. Trump said. “I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
Emphasis added.
But when asked directly whom he believes, Mr. Trump changed the subject to misconduct by Democrats during the campaign.
The president’s ambivalence, after the indictments of Russian intelligence agents for the election hacking, and after the findings of congressional committees, represents a remarkable divergence between Mr. Trump and the American national security apparatus.
For “remarkable divergence between Mr. Trump and the American national security apparatus” read “treason.”
“I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections,” Mr. Trump said. “I felt this was a matter best discussed in person. President Putin may very well want to address it, and very strongly, because he feels very strongly about it, and he has an interesting idea.”
Ah yes, best discussed in person, between a ruthless murderous former KGB operative and an ignorant reckless toddler.
Mr. Trump began the day of the meeting by blaming the United States for its poor relationship with Russia, casting aspersions on the federal investigation into Moscow’s cyberattack on the 2016 presidential election, even as he said he felt “just fine” about meeting with Mr. Putin.
In a pair of tweets sent on Monday before he headed for breakfast at Mantyniemi Palace, a residence of the Finnish president, Mr. Trump twice branded the special counsel investigation into Russia’s election interference the “Rigged Witch Hunt.”
That investigation, and “many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity,” he wrote, are why the United States’ relationship with Russia “has NEVER been worse” — a bold claim, given that the history includes periods like the Cuban missile crisis, and the wars in Korea and Vietnam.
For “bold” read “treasonous.”
Mr. Trump reiterated the point in his prepared remarks at the news conference with Mr. Putin, saying: “Our relationship has never been worse than it is now. However, that changed as of about four hours ago. I really believe that.”
Asked at the news conference if he held Russia at all responsible for conflict with the United States, Mr. Trump said: “Yes, I do, I hold both countries responsible. I think the United States has been foolish. I think we’ve all been foolish.”
But he did not cite a single specific thing Russia had done to contribute to tensions. And as he often does, Mr. Trump pivoted from the question that was asked to declaring his innocence of collusion with Russian election meddling, and boasting about his electoral victory.
“That was a clean campaign,” he said. “I beat Hillary Clinton easily and frankly we beat her. We won that race and it’s a shame that there can even be a little bit of a cloud over it. The main thing and we discussed this also: zero collusion.”
“There was no collusion,” he added. “I didn’t know the president. There was nobody to collude with.”
For “no collusion” read “treason.”
At this point, this might be a bad analogy. An ignorant reckless toddler can do a lot of local damage, but they can’t destroy the world. I know we think it’s bad having a toddler at the helm with his finger on the nuclear button, but I just can’t use that phrase anymore. Toddlers are cute, they are curious, they are exploring, they are learning. Trump is none of that. He is a malignant, malevolent, vicious narcissist with a large enough ego to declare himself a stable genius. I’d rather have an ordinary toddler, frankly.
Comparisons with Chamberlain at Munich are inappropriate. The British PM was ‘negotiating’ with the leader of a more powerful country and he was prepared to sacrifice ‘faraway countries’ in the vain hope of peace, or at least, to delay the inevitable. Trump has absolutely no idea, he’s sacrificing faraway countries for no advantage whatsoever. Perhaps he really doesn’t care.
Another puzzling aspect of this debacle is, why oh why was Putin granted a summit with the mighty US as if Russia was a near equal in military or economic power? It’s not the Soviet Union. Russia’s economy is about the size of Italy’s, I heard one US commentator claim that it’s about the size of New York State’s.
Because Trump likes him. And that seems to be the only criteria for anything now, what Trump wants to do. Any other president, even the worst of them (Dubya comes to mind) would let themselves be guided at least in part by what is in the best interests of the US. And while that doesn’t always come off well, especially for the rest of the world, it actually fits within the job description of POTUS. Being praised by people who recognize your weakness for flattery is a job description for a monarch, not a democratically elected (or unelected democratically but winning by a technicality) leader of a republic.
Trump doesn’t care about any of that, because his perception of the president fits much better with absolute monarchy than one branch among three equal branches, subject to restraints by the other branches. He also perceives the interest of the US to be totally tied up in the interests of Trump enterprises. If it makes Trump rich, it’s the right thing to do. If it doesn’t, then throw it under the bus, drive over it as many times as it takes to kill it, stomp it a few times, and throw it on the fire. Which is what he has basically done with the country soon to be known as The United States of Putin.
Pee tape.
iknklast @3
I’d agree entirely with your second paragraph.
Trump seems to think that he’s the CEO of a very large corporation, not the leader of a nation-state. Such a limited intellect.
Unfortunately he’s a global problem, with his hare-brained trade wars and and bullying attitude towards allies. There are some indications that Trump’s blundering could paradoxically, encourage free trade between other nations, significantly without the US. Autarky is counterproductive in the long term, as the Imperial Chinese and the Japanese discovered. I have no idea as to whether Trump or his monumentally ignorant supporters will ever really understand. Perhaps he really doesn’t care, next year is the far future.
They will do like they always do when a Republican president wreaks havoc at home and abroad – they will blame it on the Democrats. The ones I know have lived through several painful lessons, and no matter how many trips behind the woodshed, they don’t learn a damn thing. They think their painful lesson is the direct result of the fact that the Democrats (or liberals or socialists or feminists or immigrants, or whatever their preferred bogeyman) are out to get them. It proves their superiority to them when everything crashes, because for some reason, when they are the ones at the wheel, they always seem to think someone else drove us into the ditch.
This crash could be the most fiery of them all, and even more globally disastrous than anything they’ve ever done. I doubt they will learn. It will be (Pick one): God kicked out of schools; Obama/Hillary/Bernie/Elizabeth/Nancy taking all the guns away; those damn feminists; too much diversity; the extreme socialism that we have lived under for the past 50 years (yeah, there are people who really believe this); Deep State and government regulations; income taxes; property taxes; women’s suffrage; legal abortion; any combination of the above.
iknklast
That mentality isn’t confined to the US. There’s also a significant percentage of dopey voters who will blame, say, a recession on a current government, when it’s obviously the result of policies introduced by a previous administration.
Well, you know, “[y]ou also had some very fine people on both sides.” /s
RJW @2
I don’t think American readers will get the reference but yes, Chamberlain isn’t the right comparison. Petain, Laval, and Quisling are.
@9 John the Drunkard
Yes, there are alarming similarities.