DC Examiner Deputy Editor Jay Caruso and investigative journalist Matt Taibbi agree:
Having played ball for many years with La Cosa Nostra and the Kremlin, and not being encumbered by the requirements of political correctness or good manners, he would not hesitate to blackmail a United States senator.
A Democratic member of the other legislative chamber points out
Share |
I’m no fan of Lindsey Graham, but this practice of casually suggesting that disliked public figures are being blackmailed has gotten so far out of hand - it’s gone from being a major ethical taboo to commonplace. https://t.co/lXMdVuEmE2
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 16, 2019
It's difficult for Taibbi, Caruso, and other journalistic heavyweights who have a career to protect and live inside the Beltway. on the West Coast, or the West Side of Manhattan to break cultural taboos. However, Lindsey Graham must be quite sensitive to his constituents in South Carolina, which may be even further culturally than geographically from these areas.
Stephanie Ruhle has the courage to say,
and Taibbi and Caruso do not, and have little interest in investigating. Donald Trump probably has something on Lindsey Graham, which
may be the latter's sexuality or something entirely different.
Mr. Trump boasted periodically during the campaign of being
politically incorrect, as when he said on Face The Nation "I'll tell you
what's wrong with political correctness. It takes too long. We don't have enough time. We don't have enough time." and has publicly ridiculed numerous individuals, politicians and
otherwise, with insults common only to little boys on the playground.
Having played ball for many years with La Cosa Nostra and the Kremlin, and not being encumbered by the requirements of political correctness or good manners, he would not hesitate to blackmail a United States senator.
Now chairperson of the Judiciary Committee, the South
Carolinian is a powerful senator, indeed. He is, however, not nearly as
powerful as Mitch McConnell, another individual whose personal life is being
ignored by the press at the expense of the national interest. Greg Sargent
reminds us
top Obama administration officials privately asked senior
congressional leaders in both parties to go public with a united front against
Russian interference. But (Senate Majority Leader Mitch) McConnell refused,
claiming (in The Post’s words) that “he would consider any effort by the White
House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.”
McConnell also questioned the intelligence demonstrating Russian sabotage.
Cue to the Trump Administration and
The refusal to hold votes on legislation protecting the
special counsel. In fairness, Trump has still not moved successfully against
Mueller. But McConnell scuttled efforts to protect Mueller even though Trump
privately tried to fire him twice. There’s still time for Trump to act, and passing
such protections — which the Democratic House would support — would plainly
make any such action, and the damage it would cause, less likely.
There’s also a forward-looking dimension here. As the
Lawfare podcast notes, if FBI officials opened a separate investigation into
whether Trump was obstructing the probe to help Russia, it’s plausible
McConnell and other congressional officials were briefed on this. That would
make the failure to act to shield Mueller worse. We need to know more about this,
too.
On the shutdown front, McConnell continues to refuse votes
on bills reopening the government that have already passed the House. McConnell
claims there’s no point, because Trump wouldn’t sign them. But this actively
shields Trump from having to veto bills funding the government, which would
make it much harder for him to keep holding out. Worse, McConnell privately
told Trump in December he has no leverage and no endgame here, meaning
McConnell knows full well that not forcing Trump’s hand leaves us adrift with
no exit in sight.
"We need to know more about this, too," recognizes Sargent, who understands that McConnell's motives are probably not beyond reproach. The media should end its de facto prohibition on consideration of the Majority Leader's possible motives in remaining loyal to a President whose statements and behavior constitute an unprecedented threat to the institutions and security, hence economy, of this country.
It can start by acknowledging that McConnell is married, probably not coincidentally, to Secretary of the Treasury Elaine Chao.
"We need to know more about this, too," recognizes Sargent, who understands that McConnell's motives are probably not beyond reproach. The media should end its de facto prohibition on consideration of the Majority Leader's possible motives in remaining loyal to a President whose statements and behavior constitute an unprecedented threat to the institutions and security, hence economy, of this country.
It can start by acknowledging that McConnell is married, probably not coincidentally, to Secretary of the Treasury Elaine Chao.
A Democratic member of the other legislative chamber points out
As @senatemajldr prolongs the #TrumpShutdown for a second time, he is choking America. McConnell is ensuring that 800,000 federal employees struggle without pay, that National Parks go untended, that airports and coasts and borders become less safe.— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) January 15, 2019
Ascribing motives without evidence is perilous. Fortunately, here there is evidence, which goes unnoticed while Matt Taibbi and some others turn a curiously blind eye to power brokers whose highest priorities appear not to include the national interest.
Share |
No comments:
Post a Comment