Collusion, Treason, Trump and Putin

Collusion 1. a secret agreement, especially for . . . treacherous purposes; conspiracy

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally . . . or to appear as adversaries though in agreement

-- Dictionary.com

Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, . . . adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason . . . and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

-- 18 U.S. Code §2381 (1994)

Impeachment The President . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

-- U.S. Constitution, Article II, §4 (The 25th Amendment to the Constitution provides alternative procedures following a finding that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.")

_______________
What can we pluck from the speculation and wild accusations, alternative facts and devious denials, regarding Russia's involvement in our last presidential election? Here's a quick, three-part summary:

Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin was not fond of Hillary Clinton and preferred Donald Trump as the next U.S. president. Individuals in Russia were involved in hacking into computers of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton Campaign, and facilitating release of some of their content. They, or others in Russia, prepared propaganda and false damaging information about Clinton and distributed it throughout the U.S. through social media. However probable it may be that some voters were, to some extent, influenced in their opinions of the candidates, and even ultimate choices at the ballot box, there is no procedure for collecting the data necessary to prove or disprove such suspicions. It is unlikely that, but for these Russian efforts, Clinton would have won the electoral vote (although there's no way that can be proved or disproved). There have been assertions that Russians wanted to manipulate voting machines, but no evidence that, if so, they were successful in doing so.

Trump. A second, related, line of inquiry has involved the past and present ties that Trump, his family, campaign and other associates, may have with Russian oligarchs, banks, politicians and government officials. This includes Americans' interests in investments there (or payments from there) and Russians' investments or payments here. A significant number of individuals in both countries, meetings, and transactions have been identified and reported. Of course, a substantial impediment to a thorough understanding is Trump's refusal to comply with the norm that presidents reveal their past tax returns. And the Trump Team's case has not been strengthened by the number of instances in which their contacts with Russians (or payments from Russians) have been denied, only to have been unequivocally confirmed later.

Collusion. A third, and seemingly final inquiry addresses the possibility that there was "collusion," a "conspiracy," among the joint forces of Putin and Trump, working together in their efforts to defeat Clinton and elect Trump. Such a finding ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible to prove without documents (e.g., electronic messages, meeting notes, transcripts of conference calls) or the testimony of those present at such meetings. If a "secret agreement" or "conspiracy" (as "collusion" is defined at the top of this post) can be shown, fine. But an inability to do so should not be the end of the matter. Indeed, it should not have been the beginning, either.

Here is an effort at an explanatory analogy for where the Putin-Trump inquiry should have begun.

Consider the terrorist attack on 9/11. That involved collusion, or a conspiracy -- an organization, communication and control, financing, training, a plan, and the execution of that plan. That was the case with some of the terrorist attacks in Europe and elsewhere. But as our government, intelligence community, and international cooperation became more sophisticated, loose affiliations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS found it increasingly difficult to carry out such organized attacks. Did they give up? No. What did they do? They changed strategy and procedures.

They began sending out to everyone in the world with an Internet connection the equivalent of the computer-generated emails we all get from time to time notifying us that we can't "reply" to the email. They said, in effect, "Don't leave your country; don't try to contact us or come to the Middle East for training; don't try to organize massive destruction like 9/11. Do what you can do where you are: shoot somebody or throw them off a rooftop, make a car bomb or drive your car into a crowd." Many to most of those who were persuaded by these Web pages and social media messages, persuaded to engage in some terrorist act, were not a part of a conspiracy, or collusion with a terrorist organization's leadership. They had attended no meetings, had no conversations, received no electronic communications personal to them. What they do is "consistent" with the organization's goals and strategies, but it does not constitute "collusion."

This is something we experience in our daily lives. Local street demonstrations -- whether the global "Women's March" demonstrations on January 21, or those throughout Russia on March 26; whether those of the Tea Party or Occupy -- often emerge and grow without any need for a conspiracy, collusion, or communication. Nor need it always be as dramatic as terrorist acts or demonstrations. The same is true of fads in food, dress, sports, or smartphones.

And that, I believe, is how we should approach the actions of Putin and Trump before, during, and after the November 8, 2016, presidential election. It is not necessary that they and their teams talked strategy with each other, or enabled each other's actions, or coordinated their campaign strategies and tactics. [Photo credit: Reuters/Alexander Zemlianichenko, AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Business Insider/Skye Gould]

"Treason," defined at the top of this post, only speaks of "giving [enemies] aid and comfort." Clearly, Putin derived "aid and comfort" from the outcome of the election, and the attitudes and actions of Trump's Team that have paralleled Putin's own.

So where's the evidence? Here are some excerpts from Newsweek's take last August:

Not since the beginning of the Cold War has a U.S. politician been as fervently pro-Russian as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. . . . Trump has praised President Vladimir Putin as a real leader, “unlike what we have in this country.” Trump has also dismissed reports that Putin has murdered political enemies (“Our country does plenty of killing also,” he told MSNBC) . . .. When Russian hackers stole a cache of emails [from the DNC] . . . Trump called on “Russia, if you’re listening,” to hack some more. . . .

“Trump advocates isolationist policies and an abdication of U.S. leadership in the world. He cares little about promoting democracy and human rights,” [says U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014] Michael McFaul. “A U.S. retreat from global affairs fits precisely with Putin’s international interests.” . . . Kremlin-sponsored propaganda outlets like Sputnik and RT . . . have lavishly praised Trump, . . . supported Trump’s assertion that Barack Obama “founded ISIS,” and Russia’s world-class army of state-sponsored hackers has targeted Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. . . .

[T]he Kremlin’s support for Trump is part of a longstanding strategy to sow disruption and discord in the West. Whether it’s by backing French ultra-nationalists . . . or boosting Donald Trump’s chances by blackening the Democrats, the Kremlin believes Russia benefits every time the Western establishment is embarrassed. . . .

Former CIA Director Mike Morell wrote . . . that Putin “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation” with flattery. But the truth is more nuanced. Trump’s pro-Putinism goes back to at least 2007, when he told CNN that [Putin] was doing “a great job” rebuilding Russia. Trump was pushing real estate deals in Moscow at the time and, according to one Moscow-based American businessman . . . Trump’s admiration for Putin was rooted in “pure self-interest. . . . He was looking to make friends and business partners” among Russia’s politically connected elite. . . .

Trump’s . . . political career has made him an important part of Putin’s wider strategy to weaken the West and court conservatives around the world . . .. into a grand anti-liberal alliance headed by Russia. In August, Moscow hosted a gathering of nationalist and separatist activists from all over Europe and the U.S. . . ..

“The target of the hacks wasn’t just Clinton,” [former head, Estonian intelligence] Eerik-Niiles Kross, wrote . . .. "What the Russians have in their sights is nothing less than the democratic fabric of American society and the integrity of the system of Western liberal values. . . . The political warfare of the Cold War is back -- in updated form, with meaner, more modern tools, including a vast state media empire in Western languages, hackers, spies, agents, useful idiots, compatriot groups, and hordes of internet trolls.” In other words, Trump is merely a useful stooge in the Kremlin’s grand design to encourage NATO disunity, U.S. isolationism and the breakup of Europe.

Owen Matthews, "How Vladimir Putin is Using Donald Trump to Advance Russia's Goals," Newsweek, August 29, 2016.

OK; keep the search for "collusion" or a "conspiracy" on the back burner. But what the media's investigative reporters, House, Senate, and any other investigative committees ought to be focusing on is making the case for what Putin and Trump are doing in parallel that results in weakening the world's great democracies -- whether or not it is the result of joint planning.

_______________
Comparable analyses and conclusions are found in many other sources, including "The view from the Kremlin: Putin's War on the West," The Economist," Feb. 12, 2015; and Mark Galeotti, "Putin’s Chaos Strategy Is Coming Back to Bite Him in the Ass," Foreign Policy, October 26, 2016 ("The Russian president has sown confusion and conflict around the world the past two years. But his short-sighted meddling isn’t the work of a mastermind.")

And compare what Putin and Trump are seemingly trying to accomplish with this 2004 UN General Assembly list of the necessary elements of a successful democracy:

• Separation and balance of power
• Independence of the judiciary
• A pluralistic system of political parties and organisations
• Respect for the rule of law
• Accountability and transparency
• Free, independent and pluralistic media
• Respect for human and political rights; e.g., freedoms of association and expression; the right to vote and to stand in elections

Michael Meyer-Resende, "International Consensus: Essential Elements of Democracy," Democracy Reporting International (October 2011).

And see also, "Tracking Trump," November 9, 2016-January 19, 2017; "Resources for Trump Watchers," February 11, 2017.

# # #

When Obstruction Becomes Treason

July 30, 2011, 7:00 p.m.

There Are Many Ways to Bring Down a Government

In an [October 2010] interview with the National Journal [the Republican U.S. Senate Majority Leader] Senator [Mitch] McConnell was asked what "the job" of Republicans will be if they gain a majority in Congress. McConnell's response was,

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

McConnell could have mentioned any one of a number of other priorities . . . Helping the country recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression; Protecting the country from another terrorist attack; [or] Ensuring the success of the United States' missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, McConnell made clear that the Republicans will be thinking about 2012 as soon as the 2010 midterm elections are over. [emphasis supplied]

Ryan Witt, "Republican leader says GOP's number one goal is defeating Obama in 2012," Examiner.com, October 25, 2010.

This was scarcely a casual slip of the tongue. "N2K Top 10: Let Me Repeat; Regrets? Not a One," National Journal, November 4, 2010 ("Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will deliver a speech at the Heritage Foundation that reiterates why making President Obama a one-term president is the GOP’s top priority.").

Although the National Journal article containing the initial interview with McConnell does not appear to be available to the public on the magazine's Web site, the quote has been widely reported -- including in subsequent National Journal articles. Matthew Cooper, "Kaine, Axelrod Fire Back After McConnell's NJ Comments," National Journal, October 26, 2010 ("My colleague, Major Garrett, made news with his interview with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in which the Kentuckian said that making Obama a one-term president was his highest priority. Now Democrats are firing back. DNC Chairman Tim Kaine has issued a statement saying: '. . . the very man who set his Republican colleagues on a course of politically motivated obstruction even before the President was sworn into office -- is promising two more years of politics as usual . . ..'"); see also the related, Major Garrett, "After the Wave; Mitch McConnell wants to learn from history, but his new recruits will not be easily led," National Journal, October 23, 2010; Peter Baker, "Obama Forces Showdown With G.O.P. on Arms Pact," New York Times, November 19, 2010, p. A12 ("Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has said his top priority is to deny Mr. Obama a second term.").

Nor is the mission limited to this one Republican leader. The campaign of one of the Republicans' leading presidential candidates, Congresswoman Michelle Backman, has declared "Rep. Bachmann looks forward to working with the Governor [of Alaska, Sarah Palin] for the common goal of making sure President Obama is a one-term President." Elspeth Reeve, "Palin Rivalry Becomes Bachmann Campaign Strategy," National Journal, June 10, 2011.

Now I do not question the right of what the British call "the loyal opposition" to disagree with whomever happens to be the President of the United States regarding particular legislative and other proposals and programs -- including wars. That's politics, that's democracy, that's governing.

But when the opposition, the party that does not control the White House, declares that "the single most important thing we want to achieve" is for the President's administration to fail, for him to be a one-term president, this risks crossing the line from politics as usual into potentially treasonous territory. When one's "most important" goal is to cause someone to fail, however unseemly if focused on any fellow human, but that someone happens to be the President of the United States, it is in effect a goal to bring on the failure of the United States itself -- as we have seen during the last couple of weeks with regard to the debt ceiling. Not incidentally, President Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, and President George Bush seven times, with very little if any hoopla from Democrats.

At a minimum, the Republicans' acknowledgement of their "most important thing" calls into question every statement made by the Republican leadership, every legislative proposal, every vote they call for, every filibuster they threaten, every meeting they walk out of, and every charge they level at President Obama. Is it driven by the substance involved, or is it just another tactic in their strategy of presidential failure?

Am I charging some Republicans with a literal violation of our prohibitions of "treason"? No, of course not. Why "of course"? Because Article III, Section 3, of our Constitution was deliberately drafted to define "treason" much more narrowly than its dictionary definition. The Constitution declares that "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." From inside the White House, the Republicans' shelling may sound and feel like "war," but it's not what the Constitution's drafters had in mind.

No, I am speaking of "treason" in its more general dictionary usage:

"1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Synonyms 1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense."

"Treason," Dictionary.com.

At the outset, there is something troubling about candidates for federal office running against "government" -- as Grover Norquist puts it, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." [Photo credit: Wikipedia.org.]

I certainly support efforts to review government expenditures -- as I did as U.S. Maritime Administrator. Let us challenge what we're spending through the Defense Department (given that there have been retired admirals and generals who say more defense budget cuts could actually improve our national security), earmarks, the shockingly low tax rates for America's wealthiest 1% (who have more wealth than the bottom 90%), hidden corporate tax breaks and subsidies, and so forth.

But to refuse to provide a clean increase in the debt ceiling, as we've routinely done dozens of times before, to insist on cutting food, medical and other benefits for the poor, to refuse to ask for a dime's worth of increased revenue from the wealthy, and to be willing to bring down the global economy and the full faith and credit of the United States for the first time in over 200 years -- all in the cause of defeating an incumbent president -- does qualify, it seems to me, under the dictionary (though not the constitutional) definition of treason.

Why? Consider:

It is "acting to . . . harm . . . its sovereign [the president]," "a violation of allegiance," "the betrayal of a trust" [to "uphold the Constitution," to serve the American people and "the public interest"], "disloyalty to one's . . . government," an "attempt to . . . impair the well-being of a state," and it has certainly involved "speech . . . calculated to bring [the government and its president] into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection." Indeed, that would seem to be the laser focus of the drumbeat of attack provided by the Republicans' television and radio propaganda arms (Fox "News," Rush Limbaugh, et al).

Hopefully, the American people will reflect on the Republicans' behavior this past two and one-half years, and we'll be rid of the lot by November of 2012. But given the number of voters who are seemingly willing to give higher priority to "social issues" over even their own best economic interests, the outcome remains to be seen.

# # #