Oh, Donald: What is there to hide?
Trump’s behavior and his words indicate that he has everything to hide. I am referring to his tirade over the reporting on his campaign’s and administration’s contacts with the Russian government.
The results of the press’s investigations into this Trump-Russia nexus, which eventuated in Flynn’s ouster, are that the FBI and other intelligence agencies have concluded that there were frequent contacts between Trump campaign operatives and Russian officials, some in intelligence. (As an update I should add that WaPo has reported that some intelligence officials have called the previous claims, also by intelligence officials, exaggerated.)
Even though on the surface this relationship between the Trump camp and Russia is not incriminating in itself, it has been denied by the administration and by all involved in the campaign.
Further to this, the WH Chief of Staff liased with the FBI last week to induce that office to repudiate formerly reported claims of this contact. This questionable solicitation from the administration was reported by CNN last week.
The press has dutifully reported on numerous procedures in the WH since inauguration. But the area that induces the most choler in Trump and his officials is the question of Russian involvement in the election — particularly the reports that the Trump campaign was in communication with Russia during this involvement.
Trump’s recent speech at CPAC and the barring of certain press figures from a briefing raise the level of Trump’s resistance to discovery. Discovery is the key word. The press are clearly trying to discover the truth. And Trump is clearly trying to stop discovery. Attempting to stop discovery dramatically fuels suspicion that there is incriminating evidence to discover.
To threaten the messenger (the press) the way Trump did on Friday at CPAC (see below) is the mark of a guilty man. It is the sign of a man who has everything to lose from the truth, and whose only defense is to kill the messenger. And that is the core of the problem. Trump is behaving not like an innocent man who has nothing to fear from the truth but like a guilty one. His only hope of retaining power may be to use brute force against those who are seeking the truth about his election campaign.
The press are “. . . the enemy of the people . . . .”
“They have no sources, they just make them up . . . .”
They are “. . . dishonest people that do a tremendous disservice to our country, and to our people . . . .”
“. . . they get upset when we expose their false stories . . . .”
“ . . . the fake news [ie, NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc.] doesn’t tell the truth. Doesn’t tell the truth. . . . it doesn’t represent the people, it never will represent the people, and we’re going to do something about it . . . .”
The above sequence of quotes is equivalent to criminalizing the press for sedition. And the very last quote threatens action. And that may involve a call in Congress for committees to investigate the press on its sources with the specific intent of prosecuting sources and the press itself for the dissemination of state secrets. Already House Intel under Devin Nunes is said to be investigating leaks related to the ouster of Flynn.
A further possible future development may involve a Trump lawsuit (a device he has favored). Such a tort might be attractive to a high-risk president who would gamble that the NYT and CNN for example will be unwilling to subpoena their sources. It is the kind of tool that might be effective in inhibiting further disclosure from unnamed whistle blowers. It would be an unusual step, but Trump is an unusual human being.
The NYT has supported its story on Flynngate by saying that the fact of his ouster is proof of veracity. That does make sense, but it is not a water-tight argument. The proceedings would be complicated and costly.
In the shadow of this threat, the press must now reinforce their efforts as an investigative instrument — in default of congressional investigation. They have so far been highly successful in shedding light on what has been an illegitimate election (viz. the documented Russian involvement on behalf of Trump) and so far have caused Trump to virtually incriminate himself through his vociferous denunciation of apparent facts that in themselves are not criminal but which under their surface may lead to criminal investigation.
It is not Trump’s angry denunciation that causes suspicion; it is his total opposition to discovery of the truth.
