Impeachment? Never Say Never

It is becoming the rite du jour here in Washington—and perhaps around America, if not the world--to attempt to unpack or parse the conflicting stories emanating from the White House on an almost hourly basis. It would appear there is no rhyme or reason to account for the miasma of messages that begin with an early-morning Trumpian Tweet, spread as “Breaking News” into the national newsrooms, ooze into Congressional offices, and invade the personal messaging spaces of the average American—only to be refuted by Sean Spicer at his daily news briefing a few hours later. And then to be re-refuted, retracted, or morphed into a new reality by the President by Tweet the next morning.

What are we to make of this broken chain of custody of the truth? More important, is there any truth to begin with? There is a reality show—of that there can no longer be any doubt—but is there any reality to it? Is there any “there” there? Evidence welling up from sources within and outside the White House suggests that whatever the definition of “there” is, it is not a place where facts, discussions, open debate, honest counseling, and hard decisions on behalf of the nation are made. I recently created a graphic of a Schrödinger’s White House, inside of which truth is both alive and dead.

With respect to the latest story about Mr. Trump’s decision to discuss, imprudently to say the least, matters of great national and international security with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, I heartily recommend a close reading of a blog posted by Lawfareblog.com, and written by Jack Goldsmith, Susan Hennessey, Quinta Jurecic, Matthew Kahn, Benjamin Wittes, and Elishe Julian Wittes. Titled, “Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on Washington Post’s Game-Changing Story,” the article posits nine points of consideration addressing Trump’s behavior and its ramifications. 

Among the questions the authors address are: whether Trump “leaked” classified information or broke a law; the degree of urgency the breach imposed on the intelligence community; why sources and methods must be protected; the possibility that the breach violated the president’s oath of office; the impact of any previously-unknown Trump-ordered recording system on this particular matter; the ramifications the incident may have on the selection of a replacement for recently-fired FBI Director James Comey; and the question of whether or not there is any measurable level of competency in the nation’s chief executive.

It is not my intention here to review or re-state the LawFare blog; the authors speak eloquently and credibly. But I mention the blog because it responds calmly to an otherwise visceral impulse on the part of many Americans to throw up their hands in disgust and dismay and wonder what last-straw is needed to collapse the Trump presidency?

That’s not all Americans, of course, because, there are, as my wife noted when the news broke and we were discussing just how long even the most ardent Trump supporters could hold on to their God-elect, there are sure to be some “Trot-‘em-out-apologists” eager to appear on the media stage to heap praise on Trump and throw cow patties at the media. [as an aside, I must say that when it’s italicized, Trotemoutapologists does look a bit like an endangered species]

Well, I hate to break it to those who are looking at this event as the final straw, but it was not that straw. It was not even close. This is a most inconvenient truth for many Trump deniers, but truth it is.

I must admit that when I saw the Washington Post’s “breaking news” banner scroll across my monitor, the headline seemed to present the ultimate indictment of the president’s incoherence in all things pertaining to his job. I was overtaken by a thrill of watching the bull of the media finally lays its horns deep into the matador who has been relentless in diverting and wounding the bull. “Ah ha!” now he’s done it!” was my very first reaction. I actually poured myself a martini in a pre-celebratory spirit. I can be forgiven, I hope, for such a thought, because earlier in the day I’d watched Sean Spicer’s WH press conference during which Sean repeatedly pushed back on questions about the possibility of a recording system in the White House by saying, over and over, “The President stands by his position.”

Time and again, Spicer and his backup colleague, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, have used the press room podium as a pedestal from which to regurgitate flat-out lies, misinformation, and nonsensical statements of implausible and indefensible presidential comments and Tweets. From the size of inaugural crowds to attacks on federal judges and circuit courts, to denials about Michael Flynn, to the firing of Sally Yates and the mashup of mixed stories surrounding Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Jim Comey’s dismissal, to the veiled threats to use “tapes” of conversations, to this latest breach of intelligence information to the Russians, the increasing volume of Babel-esque noise from the White House has reached brain-hurting levels.

But then, as the martini began to hit me, I remembered this miserable fact: Not one thing the president has done so far is enough to move the needle off the peg of stupid toward the peg of impeachment or indictments for high crimes. The president can, at will, reveal the most highly sensitized information—he’s the ultimate declassifier.

As one pundit observed on CNN yesterday, if the president wanted to write down the nuclear codes on yellow sticky and take a picture of it, he could. If he wanted to—or if he has—set up a private recording system in the White House, he could and not be breaking any law (the recordings belong to the public, so he can’t walk out the door with them, and he can’t destroy them). He can fire his appointees, or certain appointed officials (like Comey) with impunity. He can even see to it that his children and their spouses are accommodated in White House offices. And, he can share sensitive information with an adversary who is playing him like a balalaika.

Now, if ignorance, arrogance, self-aggrandizement, self-endowed invulnerability to facts, abuse of trust, sexist braggadocio, humiliation, creepiness, and running roughshod over democratic values were impeachable offenses, Trump would be out by now. But he gets a pass on all those negatives because no matter how distasteful his actions are, they are only embarrassments that stain America in the eyes of the world. And that’s not a crime for which he can be punished except at the ballot box.

In the middle of writing this piece, I took a break to watch General H.R. McMaster, the president’s national security advisor, brief the media in the White House press room on the president’s conversation with Lavrov and Kislyak. At no time, said McMaster, did the president do anything out of the ordinary in revealing information about ISIS and threats to aviation. McMaster, who was in the room at the time, along with other national security staff, said Mr. Trump was doing what any president would do to share important information that could help Russia identify the evolution of ISIS attacks that brought down a Russian airliner, in November of 2015.

It may be telling that McMaster would not say whether the information was classified (he batted away any media questions attempting to affirm the intelligence value of the information), and, in what was perhaps a misstep at the very end of the press briefing, he made it known that the president had not been briefed on the sources and methods by which one of America’s allies had obtained the information to begin with.

As far as McMaster is concerned, apparently, he’s okay with watching the president speak off-the-cuff, to an adversary, about national security matters about which he has not been briefed. No surprise there. Also no surprise was McMaster’s pivot from the president’s revelations to the Russians to the sources of the media leaks. Of much greater interest to the National Security Advisor (and to Trump, of course), are the sources and methods of leaks from within the government to reporters and other media outlets.

I’d like to equate Trump’s government inexperience and his obsession with finding leakers to the obsessive Lt. Commander Phillip Frances Queeg of the destroyer/minesweeper U.S.S. Caine, who descended into a black madness as his inexperience commanding a warship rendered him helpless in the face of mounting crises—real and imagined. However, in my opinion, such a linkage does Queeg a disservice, for, unlike Trump who is doing all he can to be a disruptor and a purpose-driven fomenter of distrust throughout the White House and his administration, Queeg was merely a man brought down by his own demons, aided and abetted by backstabbing officers (okay, maybe there is a parallel there). Queeg winds up in a remote supply facility in Iowa; Trump will at least go back his golden tower.

On January 13, just a week before Trump’s inauguration, I published a short piece in Huffington about the long-term effects of Trump’s hubris. I suggested then that the president’s lack of understanding—his purposeful disdain for technical knowledge, could lead to tragedy in a far-off land. After yesterday’s news, and in light of Gen. McMaster’s transparent tap dance around the core of the problem his president has with gaining, processing, understanding, and acting on the most sensitive issues facing our intelligence community, and the intelligence gathering challenges facing our allies, I offer up an updated excerpt from that column.

“Somewhere, in some Syrian town’s darkest alley, not far from an enclave where diabolical plans are being drawn up, an Israeli intelligence operative—is putting his life on the line to glean a piece of information vital to U.S. and global interests. [I use ‘his’ here to simplify the writing. “Her” would be just as apt and accurate] This field agent has spent years cultivating informants, tapping delicate resources, observing everything from construction projects to troop movements to dinner parties involving state officials and foreign visitors, and military personnel. The agent is probably known to some in the Russian or Syrian intelligence services, and they would love to find him and either kill him, or make an example of him.

But he is very good at his tradecraft, and, so far, what he has reported over the years has kept his country, and the United States and its allies one step ahead of its Russian or Syrian or any number of equally bad actors. The men and women who choose this career path—or who are invited into the black world of intelligence collection—are, on the surface, indistinguishable from your neighbors and friends. The men and women who choose this murky, risky world are driven by a deep-seated desire to protect the home country, even at great risk not only to themselves and families, but to the reputation and security of a free world. For them, failure is never an option; the stakes are far too high.

The agent gathering data on the Syrian enclave knows that 5,000 miles away, at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, there is a wall of stars dedicated to every fallen American agent who placed his or her own life below the lives of all other Americans at home and around the world. It is possible he knew one or more of them. It is likely there is such a memorial in Tel Aviv. His mission is both personal and patriotic. The altar of freedom is surrounded by stars of many shapes.

As a military child growing up on the front lines of the Cold War—living at Ground Zero—I have never forgotten or forgiven the treachery of the Soviets/Russians. As far as I am concerned, America elected a man who is putting it all back, in spades, because he chooses to: a) snuggle up with Vladimir Putin and Sergey Kislyak whose KGB/FSB roots are deep; b) places no value on the lives and veracity of the men and women of our intelligence services; and c) does not trust our allies who share the same high stakes.

The agent in Syria sends his report to Israeli intelligence. The report is collected and combined with dozens or hundreds of others. Some of that information moves to the American intelligence services. At seven in the morning, a briefing team from Langley arrives at the White House, prepared to give the president his daily intelligence briefing. The president, looking at the thick book, passes along a message of his own: “Give it to me in one page…this is too much to read.” He remembers only just enough to pass along to Lavrov and Kislyak what he thinks will please them. At least he got that right.”

It is quite possible that such Trumpian hubris, disrespect, and willful ignorance will lead to one more star on the wall at Langley, or on a similar wall in a private hall belonging to one of our allies.

If Trump continues to dismiss the need for secrecy, if he chooses to boast of his knowledge to our enemies, if he continues to flaunt his almost perfect invulnerability to accountability, if he continues to isolate the few people around him who could help—truly help—then the next three-and-a-half years will be years of new stars on walls. And he won’t give a damn.