Friday, October 11, 2024

Then What About Russia?


J.D. Vance is right. and not only in the manner in which he suggests.

 

If CBS News does have integrity, it will release the full, unedited interview. The media should leave it to the individual campaigns to edit remarks by their opponents. Notwithstanding Donald Trump's claim(s), it is not illegal or an example of "fake news," however that's defined. However, it is not the responsibility of a news outlet to do the messaging of either the candidate or the opponent of the candidate.

Of course, 60 Minutes and much of the broadcast media omit portions of an interview from that which is telecast. However, this is a candidate for office, the most important one in the land, and everything said by the interviewer and interviewee should be telecast. If that's not done- whether it makes the candidate look better or worse- the interview shouldn't be shown at all.


             


So Vance is right about CBS ethical obligation to release the full interview and the importance of a presidential candidate to "answer basic questions about national security." Unfortunately, Donald Trump, refusing to sit for an interview with 60 Minutes, chose not to answer or even entertain questions about national security or anything else. Kamala Harris deserves a passing grade for effort and Donald Trump a failing grade for the same.

However, of greater importance than balking, thus far, at releasing portions edited out of an interview is failure to release 

In his new book, War, Bob Woodward has reported that

As the coronavirus tore through the world in 2020, and the United States and other countries confronted a shortage of tests designed to detect the illness, President Donald Trump secretly sent coveted tests to Russian President Vladimir Putin for his personal use.

The deal having been down on the down low, Putin wisely cautioned Trump to keep his mouth shut about the transcription.  America First! The collaboration continued post-Trump presidency as

Four years later, the personal relationship between the two men appears to have persisted, Woodward reports, as Trump campaigns to return to the White House and Putin orchestrates his bloody assault on Ukraine. In early 2024, the former president ordered an aide away from his office at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, so he could conduct a private phone call with the Russian leader, according to Woodward’s account.

The book does not describe what the two men purportedly discussed, and it quotes a Trump campaign official casting doubt on the supposed contact. But the unnamed Trump aide cited in the book indicated that the GOP standard-bearer may have spoken to Putin as many as seven times since Trump left the White House in 2021.

Trump may have violated the Logan Act, for which he would not be prosecuted if elected and for which he would not be prosecuted if defeated. Of more immediate concern-- more critical than Kamala Harris' answer about Israel- is whether Woodward's rendering is accurate and, if so, who initiated the calls and what was discussed.  A lawyer and former FBI agent understands

J.D. Vance believes a vague, somewhat meandering answer about national security should be

Failure to air  a vague, somewhat meandering answer about national security by a presidential nominee is irresponsible. Ignoring a credible report about a liaison of a presidential nominee with Vladimir Putin is irresponsible and deeply dangerous.

  

 





No comments:

"Qualified" is Not Enough

I like the Merriam-Webster definition of "qualified," especially on the (b) side: a fitted (as by training or experience) for a ...