When Trump was on the campaign trail, and he clearly stated, into the microphone, that he hoped that Putan and Co. had hacked the DNC, and he hoped that they would release more......hiding in plain sight !
8
Oh give us a break, Brooks. Good grief. Trump has set the agenda ever since he became a candidate and he hasn't changed the dance yet. This last quote you have by him: “They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story.” This is just Trump trying to stay out in front of breaking headlines. His modus operandi is and always will be to strike first and strike hard. He's a man who skates the edge of legality and morality so the only way he can keep the masses from hanging him in the street is to point to somebody else and say, 'It wasn't me.'
The Russians were involved with our last election. Trump denies this and says it's fake news. He doesn't want any sort of investigation of their meddling, even one that doesn't focus on him. Trump is obstructing the investigation therefore he is obstructing justice. It's simple logic. Don't try to parse it.
The Russians were involved with our last election. Trump denies this and says it's fake news. He doesn't want any sort of investigation of their meddling, even one that doesn't focus on him. Trump is obstructing the investigation therefore he is obstructing justice. It's simple logic. Don't try to parse it.
10
For the life of me, I can't fathom how David Brooks' mea culpa (20 years overdue) from his days at the Wall Street Journal gives him credibility in arguing that the press should go easy on the multiple scandals of Trump & Co.
16
I never doubted that Obama had been born in Hawaii or that he had a birth certificate. I don't think that Trump did either.
No one ever asked why Obama was unwilling to put the entire issue to rest by simply releasing a public record in 2008. Instead he spent years and millions of dollars defending law suits and jerking people around. He enjoyed it because it was another way to belittle his political opponents. The media and his partisans enjoyed taunting them as birthers. Brooks does it still in this article although the record was finally released in 2011, after Obama had dragged the nonsense out for more than three years. It was all a successful political bully's game by Obama.
These investigations are attempts by the political opposition to delegitimize and hamper the administration from enacting policies they oppose. There is no there there but fruitless and expensive investigations driven by illegal leaks to an eager and complicit media will accomplish their goal. When you don't win at the polls, call in the lawyers.
No one ever asked why Obama was unwilling to put the entire issue to rest by simply releasing a public record in 2008. Instead he spent years and millions of dollars defending law suits and jerking people around. He enjoyed it because it was another way to belittle his political opponents. The media and his partisans enjoyed taunting them as birthers. Brooks does it still in this article although the record was finally released in 2011, after Obama had dragged the nonsense out for more than three years. It was all a successful political bully's game by Obama.
These investigations are attempts by the political opposition to delegitimize and hamper the administration from enacting policies they oppose. There is no there there but fruitless and expensive investigations driven by illegal leaks to an eager and complicit media will accomplish their goal. When you don't win at the polls, call in the lawyers.
The only thing Whitewater did was suggest the Clintons were greedy yuppies. The current resident of the WH confirmed that status on himself years ago and it doesn't seem to have been interpreted as a negative quality by a lot of the GOP.
7
It goes far beyond the "Russian" connections, Trump represents the realization of the downward spiral and decline of the U.S. into a mutant 3rd world country with gross inequality for many, the 1% plutocracy and criminal and corrupt corporate state. The loss of common decency, integrity and honesty. Republicans will not even demand Trump's tax returns!
26
The Times has been an active particant in rumormongering, anonymous source reporting, and the politics of personal destruction vis President Trump.
Holder, Rice, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Lynch...
Not so much.
Holder, Rice, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Lynch...
Not so much.
3
Some of Putin's henchmen attempted, with debatable success but nefarious methods, to influence the outcome of the American presidential election of 2016. This is a fact established by every major national spy agency.
Donald Trump refuses to acknowledge that this even happened, let alone condemn it. This is also a fact.
Let's get carried away. Away from Trump's insane narcissism in which the only measure of anything is how fares his ego and toward some kind of sense of national responsibility that certain hacking is beyond the pale of even the most partisan political hackery.
Donald Trump refuses to acknowledge that this even happened, let alone condemn it. This is also a fact.
Let's get carried away. Away from Trump's insane narcissism in which the only measure of anything is how fares his ego and toward some kind of sense of national responsibility that certain hacking is beyond the pale of even the most partisan political hackery.
14
I suspect this will a situation where the coverup is worse than the crime. Or else the original crime is money laundering.
5
"...politics of democracy." Mr. Brooks, all of your arguments take but not a whiff of the stink. Rather than try to explain away, you should look at your party and cry. From decent conservatives, we have now ended with a pseudo-white nationalist "rough-them-up" caudillo that shames nothing but the worst banana republic tyrants. Your party, Mr. Brooks, is wallowing in the disgrace that is Trump and you should know the verdict of history will not be kind. Have you no respect for your own ideals sir?
18
Mr Brooks has finally lost his way, again. I thought for a while that he had seen the light about Trump, but this essay is as banal and dishonest as Ryan's excuses for Trump, saying he has no experience, so of course he will make certain mistakes. Mr. Brooks has disregarded as other readers have said the obstruction of Justice. And what is this business about his folks being "pubicly and proudly pro-Putin...Yes, there were some meetings. That is the whole point. What were these meeting about. Was it just Flynn and other's trying to make money deals or were they offering to lift sanctions...what was the quid pro quo. I cannot believe that after all Brooks has written about Trump that he ends up becoming an apologists for him at this stage as more and more is revealed. This piece is quite disconcerting. And what of the announcement Trump made after the Comey's firing about the Russia investigation? Mr. Brooks does not seem to be concerned about Russia's role with the American election. He dismisses all of this and goes on to conclude that there was no collusion or at least we have not seen hard evidence yet. Should we see that at this stage of the special investigation? I think not. We will await the process to unfold, but you are relegating this investigation to what? Issue 971 on Brooks list.Yes, it is legal to to kowtow to thugs and undermine the "norms" of democratic behavior, but he has done nothing illegal, just stupid. Is that the Brooks defense of this man? issue
16
Both political parties have utterly failed the people of the United States. Perhaps we should emulate the French and throw all of the rascals out, forming new parties in the process.
5
I'm sorry, Mr. Brooks. Gotta take issue w/you on at least two points:
"The politics of scandal is delightful for cable news. It’s hard to build ratings arguing about health insurance legislation."
Gee -- didn't the cable networks -- FOX, Breitbart -- build significant ratings year over year when ACA (Obamacare) was in its genesis, and then in the relentless call for its undoing (in between the birther madness, of course)?
And, reputable sources/polls show that not many people are all that interested in the Russia/Trump possibilities. Inside DC, or especially, away.
They DO care about healthcare legislation, however, and now, the Republicans in charge are willing to write and pass that in the dark.
Something's very fishy with this administration. It may or may not be Russia, but I, for one, would really like to know.
And beyond that, I'd also like a lot more clarity and transparency regarding healthcare legislation changes ahead.
If it's so awesome, and they're so proud of it, why not bring it to the light of day?
"The politics of scandal is delightful for cable news. It’s hard to build ratings arguing about health insurance legislation."
Gee -- didn't the cable networks -- FOX, Breitbart -- build significant ratings year over year when ACA (Obamacare) was in its genesis, and then in the relentless call for its undoing (in between the birther madness, of course)?
And, reputable sources/polls show that not many people are all that interested in the Russia/Trump possibilities. Inside DC, or especially, away.
They DO care about healthcare legislation, however, and now, the Republicans in charge are willing to write and pass that in the dark.
Something's very fishy with this administration. It may or may not be Russia, but I, for one, would really like to know.
And beyond that, I'd also like a lot more clarity and transparency regarding healthcare legislation changes ahead.
If it's so awesome, and they're so proud of it, why not bring it to the light of day?
14
Do not normalize this President!
15
I just don't think our President should be sightseeing his golf courses and designating foreign policy favorably to those countries where they exist.
5
Is Mr.Brooks naive or what? Yes we don't know if Trump and his minions colluded with the Russians as of now. But as Bob Dylan sang, "you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing." As a seasoned journalist Brooks should be a little more percipient. To paraphrase him, this investigation is very low on his list. Wrong. And Robert Mueller's investigation will prove that David is a babbling brook.
7
Trump new the Russians were up to something and actually encouraged the Russkies to hack and release Clinton's emails. That is not collusion?
Trump's children's have touted Trump's Russia money infusions in the past and now deny getting any money from Russia. Then if you have nothing to hide release your tax records and prove Russian money has not streamed into your coffers.
Flynn buddy of Putin denied being paid for his Russian speech(es). He was only paid by his speaking bureau - sure thing. Warned about him he stayed in place until he lied to the VP - sure nuf.
Bank dealings with Russian could implicate Trump directly through his taxes. Follow the money investigators. To Trump, to his son in law, to Flynn, to Manfort (? sic)
Trump's children's have touted Trump's Russia money infusions in the past and now deny getting any money from Russia. Then if you have nothing to hide release your tax records and prove Russian money has not streamed into your coffers.
Flynn buddy of Putin denied being paid for his Russian speech(es). He was only paid by his speaking bureau - sure thing. Warned about him he stayed in place until he lied to the VP - sure nuf.
Bank dealings with Russian could implicate Trump directly through his taxes. Follow the money investigators. To Trump, to his son in law, to Flynn, to Manfort (? sic)
6
Surprised and disappointed by this article. I don't believe this investigative story will turn out to be all smoke and mirrors. You know what they say, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck," then, "Lordy", it's most likely a duck.
I've watched you. Mr. Brooks, talk about how you think this is mostly a psychological issue involving Trump. So perhaps this article was written in the same vein of thought. But surely your article should not be titled, "Let's Not Get Carried Away" but "Let's Not Dare to Look Away".
Whatever mental malformations you attribute to Trump (bottomless insecurity, greed as purpose in life, never meeting a law he wasn't willing to ignore, etc.), they are only part of the cause of the corruption he brings to D.C.. It isn't the heart of the issues we need we need to investigate and resolve.
I've watched you. Mr. Brooks, talk about how you think this is mostly a psychological issue involving Trump. So perhaps this article was written in the same vein of thought. But surely your article should not be titled, "Let's Not Get Carried Away" but "Let's Not Dare to Look Away".
Whatever mental malformations you attribute to Trump (bottomless insecurity, greed as purpose in life, never meeting a law he wasn't willing to ignore, etc.), they are only part of the cause of the corruption he brings to D.C.. It isn't the heart of the issues we need we need to investigate and resolve.
9
The Democrats need Russian collution to explain how Trump won, as they can't bear the face the other possibility - that losing the working class was their own fault and an unforgivable sin.
I voted for Clinton (and threw up in my mouth), but I accept that Trump won my home state of Michigan, not because the Russians hacked my ballot box or brainwashed the voters, but because my union member neighbors are concerned about jobs, illegal immigration, and parts of their home city where they feel like a foreigner. Trump spoke to them. The Democrats took them for granted.
I voted for Clinton (and threw up in my mouth), but I accept that Trump won my home state of Michigan, not because the Russians hacked my ballot box or brainwashed the voters, but because my union member neighbors are concerned about jobs, illegal immigration, and parts of their home city where they feel like a foreigner. Trump spoke to them. The Democrats took them for granted.
4
I am a liberal Mr. Brooks. In these troubled times, I look to Republicans like you to save us from this burning building that we call Washington DC. If I am honest with myself, I admit that the collusion thing seems weak. Not even Trump could be so stupid. We should be talking about how the republicans seem not to care if millions of poor people go without quality healthcare. How did we get here? How did republicans that I was once not afraid of become so craven and self serving? think Paul Ryan. I truly have a list.
However we get this train wreck out of office is fine by me. There is so much there. I remember the 90's and if oral sex can tar a presidency then being beholden to Vladimir Putin and gaming the presidency to make his family rich has to be a good place to start in order to reign him in or get him out. Really I think his financial records will shock us and make us rethink his presence in our Whitehouse. So unless I am not to believe my lying eyes, the real story is in his finances.
However we get this train wreck out of office is fine by me. There is so much there. I remember the 90's and if oral sex can tar a presidency then being beholden to Vladimir Putin and gaming the presidency to make his family rich has to be a good place to start in order to reign him in or get him out. Really I think his financial records will shock us and make us rethink his presence in our Whitehouse. So unless I am not to believe my lying eyes, the real story is in his finances.
10
With all due respects to Mr. Brooks -- and I deeply respect this educated, sophisticated, thoughtful man -- his attempt at deflecting ferocity from the Trump investigations based on Whitewater fails, for 2 reasons:
1. Whitewater was about possible grifting, money-grubbing, financially greasy behavior, and coverups following from it. This is noxious, but is not an existential assault on our polity. Possible collusion with our historic adversary, putting the thumb on the scales of our electoral process, is such an assault, however; it merits every possible turning over of every flat rock in the Trump regime, to catch everything that slithers out.
2. This is not, as Mr. Brooks asserts, 'the politics of scandal.' The behaviors and processes of this regime are scandalous beyond measure, starting at the top of the ticket, and Mueller's powers and the Democrats' support for them, are a modest attempt at saving our Republic, of purification of the miasma that has descended on us.
1. Whitewater was about possible grifting, money-grubbing, financially greasy behavior, and coverups following from it. This is noxious, but is not an existential assault on our polity. Possible collusion with our historic adversary, putting the thumb on the scales of our electoral process, is such an assault, however; it merits every possible turning over of every flat rock in the Trump regime, to catch everything that slithers out.
2. This is not, as Mr. Brooks asserts, 'the politics of scandal.' The behaviors and processes of this regime are scandalous beyond measure, starting at the top of the ticket, and Mueller's powers and the Democrats' support for them, are a modest attempt at saving our Republic, of purification of the miasma that has descended on us.
14
One of the huge missing pieces in the Russian puzzle is Trump's financial affairs. We know he owes hundreds of millions in loans to China. We know Russian oligarchs have bought tens of millions of dollars worth of Trump ocean front properties in Florida. The possibility does exist he owes the Russian banks or oligarchs lots and lots of money which could lead him to do things that could be deemed illegal to keep him and his corporations a float.
Only time will tell.....
Only time will tell.....
26
Remember the Russian delegation and Trump in the White House - all grinning ear to ear, with only Russian media in attendance - immediately after Trump fired Comey for refusing to be "loyal" and stop investigating Russian interference in the presidential election.?
If Brooks is saying that this smoke isn't caused by fire - then it must be fumes from some really nasty unbury-able nuclear waste. Hopefully the damage won't last for centuries.
If Brooks is saying that this smoke isn't caused by fire - then it must be fumes from some really nasty unbury-able nuclear waste. Hopefully the damage won't last for centuries.
20
Good grief, I haven't read anything from David Brooks recently that is quite this absurd. Politics of scandal? Yes, unless the politicians stop their bad behavior. Trump has behaved as one would expect from his record as a celebrity with nothing to celebrate. What, Mr. Brooks, should we do, just look the other way? Nothing to see here, is that it?
36
I wish that David Brooks looked upon Barack Obama with even half of the sympathy he extends to Donald Trump. Obama behaved with dignity despite all. Where was the compassion for him??
41
It is it is hard to believe that this column could read even worse now than it did 15 hours ago, but in light of the latest Michael Flynn news, it does.
Anyone and everyone who establishes a relationship with Trump comes out looking worse for it. The safe wager as a columnist whose words will be archived forever would be to avoid anything that resembles support for Trump. It will only be a matter of time before he sours your words and reputation.
(Hyperbole? Ask anyone who works for him who has come out in defense of one of his outlandish tweets, remarks, or accusations. Their defense is safe only until the boss speaks.)
If I were you, David, I would double down on the book reports and avoid trying to rationalize the grand old party as we currently know it.
Anyone and everyone who establishes a relationship with Trump comes out looking worse for it. The safe wager as a columnist whose words will be archived forever would be to avoid anything that resembles support for Trump. It will only be a matter of time before he sours your words and reputation.
(Hyperbole? Ask anyone who works for him who has come out in defense of one of his outlandish tweets, remarks, or accusations. Their defense is safe only until the boss speaks.)
If I were you, David, I would double down on the book reports and avoid trying to rationalize the grand old party as we currently know it.
26
There are some very solid facts that Mr. Brooks is ignoring. There is no doubt that the Russians meddled into our business. They did so very successfully when one considers the ensuing chaos. In addition, DJT fired the FBI Director during an investigation led by this same Director. DJT, in a taped interview with Lester Holt, stated that the FBI Director was fired because of the Russia investigation. He then yucked it up with the Russians in his office, commenting on his firing of the FBI Director and how this alleviated the pressure from the investigation. Irrespective of whether there was no collusion between the DJT campaign and Russian operatives, DJT attempted to obstruct justice. I am not going to shrug my shoulders on this point. There is no excuse or reason for interfering with an FBI investigation. None. Shame on you, David Brooks.
33
Wow - for once, I kind of agree with you, Mr. Brooks. Seems to me this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot, ready-made for my (former) Democratic Party to point fingers to, instead of looking inward as to the reasons why it lost the November election.
Wish it would, but with those corporate campaign contributions rolling in,this looks highly doubtful. It will take the Party sinking even lower before any sense sinks in - if then.
Wish it would, but with those corporate campaign contributions rolling in,this looks highly doubtful. It will take the Party sinking even lower before any sense sinks in - if then.
12
David, you sound exhausted by all of it, which is to be expected when someone of Trump's nature assumes power.
Distract to the point of exhaustion, with law suits as core strategy are Trump's MO, and he's executing it perfectly to gather the riches.
Let's not kid ourselves, he cares about money and himself, above everything and everyone. And that will, after I'm afraid major damage is done, will be his legacy.
Distract to the point of exhaustion, with law suits as core strategy are Trump's MO, and he's executing it perfectly to gather the riches.
Let's not kid ourselves, he cares about money and himself, above everything and everyone. And that will, after I'm afraid major damage is done, will be his legacy.
14
The most unsettling fact that is not in dispute (except by Trump and his team) is the extent and the sophistication of Russia's invasion via the Internet. Instead of joining with the vast US intelligence community and issuing an alarm of his own, Trump has done nothing except to say the entire intelligence community is all wrong, that it could have been done by anyone. Trump paints near-halos over Putin and, by extension, the Oligarchs. At this point, we know nothing about Trump's possible indebtedness to Russian banks and bankers, and the oligarchs who appear to be totally owing everything to Putin. Donald Trump Jr has been quoted as sharing that the Trump organization has received financing from Russia and the Russians; if verified, this alone would show a clear potential for Trump to be vulnerable to Russian demands. And why all the obfuscation from so many of Trump's team, omitting and lying about contacts with Russian officials and bankers? Finally, how long did it take for the "truth" to come out during Watergate? I think you are underselling the potential for something quite serious.
13
"at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington." He's back to being the willfully blind David Brooks of old in this opinion piece at least. What was Whitewater about? Some failed real estate deal? What is this investigation about? A foreign adversarial power interfering with U.S. elections to favor a candidate whose appointees held secret meetings and lied about them during confirmations? Okay. Whitewater was "far more substantive." The American punditry is not absent true intellects, but there are shallow ones for sure.
19
I don't like the Trump presidency one bit, but I have to admit that I don't really see the collusion either, at least not by Trump himself. The fact that he's so clueless and unaware about ethics and power dynamics that he actually "obstructs" justice because that's how "business" is done seems to indicate that he likely wouldn't be able to "collude," much less understand what the concept/idea of collusion means. Hopefully he will trip himself up enough to get ejected before he does the country too much damage.
9
What? "In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown. And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington."
You are kidding, right Mr. Brooks? When there is proof that the Russians manipulated OUR U.S. Presidential race to help The Con Don win? And there is more and more evidence of criminal/corrupt/ mafia activity by The Con Don and his bedfellows?
What universe do you reside in? Not OUR America if you care no more for truth than this.
You are kidding, right Mr. Brooks? When there is proof that the Russians manipulated OUR U.S. Presidential race to help The Con Don win? And there is more and more evidence of criminal/corrupt/ mafia activity by The Con Don and his bedfellows?
What universe do you reside in? Not OUR America if you care no more for truth than this.
23
The Con Don made his money in real estate and gambling. Mafia. It's pretty plain that he and his cohorts are simply criminals and I would bet a lot of money that all these supposed "terrorist" attacks around the world and in America are actually International-mafia contracted work. Common criminals are doing the deeds - not "radical islamists". Interesting that the attacks pick up speed when The Con Don wants the heat off him and that the press dutifully shoves the non-stories down our throats.
It made me sick to see him go to Camp David. It needs a good sanitizing now.
Are we a nation of crooks and criminals and no social conscience? I pray not and that we will purge these democracy/civilization destroyers out of every government at every level and lock them up for eternity.
It made me sick to see him go to Camp David. It needs a good sanitizing now.
Are we a nation of crooks and criminals and no social conscience? I pray not and that we will purge these democracy/civilization destroyers out of every government at every level and lock them up for eternity.
7
Agreed that scandals damage the national psyche. It seems, however, the bigger problem is that people first choose sides and then cherry pick the endless flow of reports and analyses that support their pet position. Scandals involving assertions that lack legitimacy become a way of reinforcing a broader position with fallacious reasoning; e.g., I am convinced that Clinton is a reprobate therefore Whitewater must be true.
Trump has lived his life intent on drawing the spotlight to himself and scandals are useful vehicles to achieve that end. Characters such as Paul Manafort, who tecognize Trump' addiction to being served by sycophants are able to play him by feeding his self-obsession.
Mike Flynn, after living a lifetime in the rigid structure of the military, was unable to cope with the greater freedom of choice of civilian life and easily concluded that the rules didn't apply to a decorated three-star with an expired top-secret security clearance. The results are scandals galore.
Scandals are part and parcel of the Trump M.O. He quite apparently isn't capable of playing it any other way. They can't be wished away and we must insist that Congress and the Special Prosecutor cooperate fully to get to the truth on all fronts. then we should brace ourselves for the possibility that there are more on the way.
Trump has lived his life intent on drawing the spotlight to himself and scandals are useful vehicles to achieve that end. Characters such as Paul Manafort, who tecognize Trump' addiction to being served by sycophants are able to play him by feeding his self-obsession.
Mike Flynn, after living a lifetime in the rigid structure of the military, was unable to cope with the greater freedom of choice of civilian life and easily concluded that the rules didn't apply to a decorated three-star with an expired top-secret security clearance. The results are scandals galore.
Scandals are part and parcel of the Trump M.O. He quite apparently isn't capable of playing it any other way. They can't be wished away and we must insist that Congress and the Special Prosecutor cooperate fully to get to the truth on all fronts. then we should brace ourselves for the possibility that there are more on the way.
17
The major media and left of center political rhetoric "got carried" away decades ago when it became a routine NY Times and academic neo-Marxist tactic to accuse anyone (or get some sacred victim group that for a grant will accuse anyone) who has a not "liberal" or democrat or globalist position on an issue of being a racist, xenophobe, anti Semite, misogamist or some kind of a bigot in order to discredit or silence them.
6
Brooks writes "In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown." In retrospect? Really? It seemed overblown to me at the time. There's much more here than meets the eye, and if many of Trump's closest appointees and cabinet members' associations with Russia are merely circumstantial and inconsequential, then why the outcry against the investigation? Why the firing of Comey? Why the uproar? That suggests to me there is something to hide. If I had nothing to hide, I'd say, "Investigate away!"
17
I wonder why Trump won't share his tax returns?
21
It's the worst nonsense you have ever written, you are so bias you can't see or think straight.
Take a vacation, rest, your grey cells might recover.
Take a vacation, rest, your grey cells might recover.
1
Oh my. Where has your excellent judgement gone?
True...the fire hasn't been found...yet.
But how can you breathe through all that smoke?
True...the fire hasn't been found...yet.
But how can you breathe through all that smoke?
25
David Brooks needs to focus on the troubling reality that Trump fired the FBI director because he wanted to kill the Russia investigation. If a Democrat had done this, Brooks would be outraged. So why did Trump want to kill the Russia investigation? If Trump has nothing to hide, then let the investigation run its course. Americans deserve to have some certainty about what Russia actually did to influence the election. They also deserve to know why Trump is determined to be so cosy with a hostile foreign government. Don't you agree, Mr. Brooks.
24
Just when I was finding your column readable you allowed yourself to be pulled back (like Pacino) into the weird weird world of the Grand Ugly Party. With all due respect sir, it's as if you want us to feel sorry for our unhinged President who has a totally inexplicable love affair with Russia.
Last time I checked, one plus one does equal two. Speaking of two things, 1) keeping Flynn on after the White House knew he was still on foreign payrolls & compromised no less (!) and 2) firing Comey...those two things are absolutely in the category of high crimes and misdemeanors. The "high" refers to the office he holds as you well know. He is supposed to be held to a higher standard as a result of his position. Has anyone debased the office of the presidency more?
n.
Last time I checked, one plus one does equal two. Speaking of two things, 1) keeping Flynn on after the White House knew he was still on foreign payrolls & compromised no less (!) and 2) firing Comey...those two things are absolutely in the category of high crimes and misdemeanors. The "high" refers to the office he holds as you well know. He is supposed to be held to a higher standard as a result of his position. Has anyone debased the office of the presidency more?
n.
19
Oh, David, shame on you. Why didn't you write this column during the Whitewater Investigation? Why didn't you write this column when they dragged poor Monica Lewinsky before a roomful of questioners & asked her for details of her private sexual life? Why didn't you write this column & say the whole Whitewater Investigation was a probe in search of a scandal & that the questioning of Bill Clinton about his little affair was a cornering of him they hoped to use to impeach him? Shame on you, David. You might well have ended your Whitewater story with a possible B. Clinton quote "They made up a phony Whitewater story, found zero wrongdoing, so now they go for perjury because I protected my own, my family's & my liaison's privacy, which had nothing to do with criminality or running the country." The Russian Hacking is a very important breach of the democratic system & Trump and all his cronies are fair game. No stone should be left un-turned. He is part of the story. There may very well be reasons that he was left untouched by the Russians. We need to find out. The real scandal is that someone as inept as he is President of the USA & the Republican Congress is hell-bent on putting the thumb screws to the people of the USA, forcing down our throats legislation no one wants, putting in place a Supreme Court Justice illegally, thumbing their noses at the former President, a direct subversion of the democratic process & an insult to the millions who voted for President Obama twice.
39
Second wiff in a row for Brooks. Flynn's behavior is already obviously against the law and treasonous. Trump has publicly admitted to a pattern of trying to obstruct justice. Stop your whitewashing, Brooks. Let the investigation end. But of course you are afraid Trump will fire Rosenstein and Mueller and end his presidency. You'll come up with some reason then why that obstruction will olso be "ok".
14
What with six jungles deep and six ways to Sunday, I could really use a sabbath right soon.
2
I'm totally game to hear brooks explain whitewater. He wont do it because he's just trolling.
2
Mr. Brooks, the perverbial blind squirrel, alas, has found the single nut after a 7 month hunt.
2
This is unbelievable even for DB. The lying on vetting forms for cabinet positions, the public comments by the tRump family they they're almost fully financed by Russia, the lack of tax returns being released, constant lies dripping out of pumpkinhead's mouth, the fact that 17 intelligence agencies in our country agreed that Russia interfered in our election, that tRump fired Comey and is said to be thinking about firing Mueller, I could go on and on but I won't. I simply say to you David, for whom I have lost all respect in the last year, to have you equate white water with a treasonous interference in our election is unbelievable! Whatever is there needs to be found based on constant lying, the increased secrecy, the continuing lack of press conferences, and the hatred, xenophobia, and bigotry, that has yielded corrupt and hateful "policies" that are not anything more than a toddler signature on a piece of paper also gives lie to your so called argument. He's putting forth no policies, and Congress is now working in secret. Does that feel like a democracy to you David? This investigation is vitally needed, and for you to say otherwise is staggering.
16
I aspire someday to be one of those NYT commentators with the coveted green checkbox, the happy few whose comments sail through without moderation. It’s an unrealistic goal, I know—a man can dream, can’t he?—but it’s also beyond question that were I to vent my response to this column with the full range of invective and abuse it so richly merits, then that prospect, however remote it is now, would of a certainty be foreclosed for all time, and that my future contributions would be marked for the autoclave.
I will accordingly confine my remarks to observing that Mr. Brooks, who is reliably disingenuous in his columns, has here crossed the line well into outright mendacity.
I will accordingly confine my remarks to observing that Mr. Brooks, who is reliably disingenuous in his columns, has here crossed the line well into outright mendacity.
21
I know - I want a checkmark, too! (And a Pick on Dowd's column.) I get so mad and sad on Saturday nights - I will write my comment, but it won't post. I will watch all the other comments come in, beating me to the thought. I have to wait until the next day. Then, I look like, I'm copying.
Ya me too, but I give up --- born to the wrong parents, I guess!
1
David: I didn't know you were the op-ed page editor for the WSJ during the Whitewater scandal. In light of that information, your comments today reminded me of that quip from the movie, "The Big Chill". "I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex."
1
Mr. Brooks, grow a brain. It is impossible for a decent, ethical and patriotic American to be "proudly and publicly pro-Putin." That should be enough to set off alarm bells
8
Yeah!!! David Brooks is finally on board the TRUMP TRAIN. Maybe he can blow the whistle.
8
(Correction): Right, let's not get carried away.
Donald Trump is far more "dumb" (figuratively; actually he's quite smart) than nefarious. As Richard Nixon, he feels he's entitled to princely privileges (Nixon earned, Trump by “birth”).
The dumbness of Trump is unfortunately from his illness - he's clearly hypomanic & also paranoid, which gets worse as stress mounts. His (profound) popularity is confined to his base, based almost entirely on inborn charisma, a nebulous, inscrutable asset, more recognized in olden days but ignored lately. This split, his base fawning, while the rest sneering, makes him naturally paranoid & irritable/angry.
Perhaps, a respectable group of men & women, from both parties should meet with him at a comfortable place (for him) and tell him, patiently but firmly, if necessary repeatedly, until it sinks into him: The message is, “Either shape up, or get impeached & removed” - impeachment is political; no legal threshold is required to cross for it.
Donald Trump is far more "dumb" (figuratively; actually he's quite smart) than nefarious. As Richard Nixon, he feels he's entitled to princely privileges (Nixon earned, Trump by “birth”).
The dumbness of Trump is unfortunately from his illness - he's clearly hypomanic & also paranoid, which gets worse as stress mounts. His (profound) popularity is confined to his base, based almost entirely on inborn charisma, a nebulous, inscrutable asset, more recognized in olden days but ignored lately. This split, his base fawning, while the rest sneering, makes him naturally paranoid & irritable/angry.
Perhaps, a respectable group of men & women, from both parties should meet with him at a comfortable place (for him) and tell him, patiently but firmly, if necessary repeatedly, until it sinks into him: The message is, “Either shape up, or get impeached & removed” - impeachment is political; no legal threshold is required to cross for it.
5
Mr. Brooks! What happened? Come on!!! A good journalist can smell "something's rotten in Denmark." I am going to assume that you have a head cold and your olfactory glands have shut down.
Hope you feel better soon!
Hope you feel better soon!
3
Normally I admire Mr Brook's comments and his perceptive insights. In this instance I think he's missed the point.
It may or may not be the case that some in the Trump orbit made contact with and/or colluded with the Russians. I make no judgement nor do I wait with baited breath.
On the other hand, it is seems 100% clear that the Russians got involved with our election. This is what is put my undies in a bundle and caused all sorts of chaffing. We need to assure that every involvement of the Russians is isolated, described and punished. Most importantly, that our efforts to stop them in the future are effective.
What bothers me about Trump is that he has no curiosity about the Russians and decries those who state the obvious truth -- that they were involved. Whether or not his team colluded with them, Trump is a problem in-as-much-as he is in denial about their activities.
It may or may not be the case that some in the Trump orbit made contact with and/or colluded with the Russians. I make no judgement nor do I wait with baited breath.
On the other hand, it is seems 100% clear that the Russians got involved with our election. This is what is put my undies in a bundle and caused all sorts of chaffing. We need to assure that every involvement of the Russians is isolated, described and punished. Most importantly, that our efforts to stop them in the future are effective.
What bothers me about Trump is that he has no curiosity about the Russians and decries those who state the obvious truth -- that they were involved. Whether or not his team colluded with them, Trump is a problem in-as-much-as he is in denial about their activities.
6
Little David Brooks the Trump-hater only gets aroused by the crease in Barry Soetoro's pants. Now he is hedging his Trump-derangement-syndrome bets.
1
How about the cheerleading during the campaign, "I hope Russia hacks their emails. . ." That, in and of itself is collusion, as Trump is trying to be cute but actually signaling for them to do all they can.
8
though a liberal, I'm not prone to conspiracy theories and I initially doubted that Trump and his minions colluded with Russia in the troubling interference in our election because, well, -- who would be that stupid?
however, over the past months, with the endless revelations of lies about meetings with Russian officials, complete lack of any concern on the part of this administration over Russian interference, the many attempts by Republicans, from congressmen to Trump himself, to subvert and shut down any investigation, I've come to believe there is something rotten behind the smoke, mirrors and lies and that yes, these people really are that stupid!
however, over the past months, with the endless revelations of lies about meetings with Russian officials, complete lack of any concern on the part of this administration over Russian interference, the many attempts by Republicans, from congressmen to Trump himself, to subvert and shut down any investigation, I've come to believe there is something rotten behind the smoke, mirrors and lies and that yes, these people really are that stupid!
7
If anyone but Trump's son-in-law Kushner had sought to establish a back channel with Russia using Russian spy techniques--to avoid notice by the US--they would be arrested under suspicion of espionage.
Was it most likely just a sleazy back room deal for money? If like Trump: yes. But, it would have laid Kushner open to blackmail and he--even more than Trump was privy to all US intel.
And Trump--quite possibly--participated in Deutche Bank's Russian money laundering scheme. You know, right when Donny Jr said a disproportionate amount of money for Trump business came from Russia!
Trump is a business sleaze taking money from his charity and his son's and fleecing people with Trump U--you don't think he took Russian money when US banks would not lend to him?
But Congress hasn't yet asked.
Was it most likely just a sleazy back room deal for money? If like Trump: yes. But, it would have laid Kushner open to blackmail and he--even more than Trump was privy to all US intel.
And Trump--quite possibly--participated in Deutche Bank's Russian money laundering scheme. You know, right when Donny Jr said a disproportionate amount of money for Trump business came from Russia!
Trump is a business sleaze taking money from his charity and his son's and fleecing people with Trump U--you don't think he took Russian money when US banks would not lend to him?
But Congress hasn't yet asked.
8
Mr. Brooks, you should know better. The Republicans have been operating on a wink-wink, nod-nod basis for a long time now. It was an easy way for the racists to identify each other--talk about Obama's birth, wink-wind, nod-nod. Democrats know this. Independents (like me) know it. I'm sure the Russians know it too.
So why is not possible for the Russians to tell a Trump associate "we have Clinton's emails. Interesting stuff." with a raised eyebrow. Wink-wind, nod-nod, followed a few days later not by headlines saying "Trump campaign says Russia admits hacking Clinton" but by "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton, release emails."
Collusion? Maybe not. But certainly not taking the high road.
So simply for the right that every American has--to know the truth about how its leaders are elected--it's important to know a couple things. To use Watergate phraseology: what did the donald's associates know and when did they know it? And what did the donald know and when did he know it?
So why is not possible for the Russians to tell a Trump associate "we have Clinton's emails. Interesting stuff." with a raised eyebrow. Wink-wind, nod-nod, followed a few days later not by headlines saying "Trump campaign says Russia admits hacking Clinton" but by "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton, release emails."
Collusion? Maybe not. But certainly not taking the high road.
So simply for the right that every American has--to know the truth about how its leaders are elected--it's important to know a couple things. To use Watergate phraseology: what did the donald's associates know and when did they know it? And what did the donald know and when did he know it?
7
I have to say i agree with brooks, which i almost never do. I believe completely that there was no collusion with Russia. I think that's true for a large variety of reasons. First, I don't think the Trump campaign was competent enough to collude with the russians and not have someone within the administration/team leak it basically instantly, and secondly, I think Trump never thought he was going to win the presidency and didn't really take any steps to win (has everyone already forgotten his noncampaign??)
The Flynn thing very well may be obstruction of justice, but I honestly think that's all we're going to get out of this.
The Flynn thing very well may be obstruction of justice, but I honestly think that's all we're going to get out of this.
1
No point in reading this commentary after the comparison to White Water. Of course then Republicans like you thought it fine to have a wide ranging fishing expedition and end up with the Lewinsky scandal and a phony impeachment process. But now you seem to agree that it is all a made up Witch Hunt even though Russians clearly tried to disrupt the election and Trump clearly does not care and has done everything he can to disrupt the investigation. Some days you should just take a day off rather than writing convoluted things like this and gives us all a break.
11
Candidates for president or any other office and his representatives have the legal right to not only talk to representatives of foreign governments, but if they so desire they can orchestrate their campaign with these foreign governments. Clinton, Sanders or Trump had the legal right, for instance,, to go on a national tour of the US with Putin, or the heads of state of Germany (Merkel), Trudeau of Canada, or whomever, and that head of state could openly endorse that candidate and bash all others, on the same stage as the candidate. Most foreign leaders endorsed Clinton and bashed Trump, openly. There is no statute forbidding that, or for that matter a foreign head of state alerting a candidate or candidates to the existence of damaging info, including emails. Many have said this. Here's Hillary supporter, liberal Democrat Dershowitz on the subject. Not one person on any talk show has been able to provide Dershowitz with the statute, the law, that was violated by communicating with Russia or any other country. http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/19/alan-dershowitz-questions-russia-s...
1
I pretty much agree, but I am waiting to see Trump and Associates (esp. Steve Mnuchin) financial relationships with the Bank of Cyprus brought to light. Other than that I don't expect much will be uncovered other than naive sycophantic salivating by folks sensing Proximity to Power (Carter Page) and possible quid pro quo with Ukraine weapon delivery minimization for Clinton Team wikileaks (Paul Manafort, J.D. Gordon). I would much rather see a serious response from GOP senators who value country over party to remove a President who is incapable of doing his job because he is mentally, educationally, and experientially unqualified. The 25th amendment provides that opportunity.
5
Oh please. Conspirators make string attempts to hide their conspiracy. That's why it took so long to put a dent in the mafia, Vinny didn't call Joey and say "hey did you kill Frankie yet?" He would say "did you take care of that thing?" It will be difficult to get rock solid beyond reasonable doubt evidence but all the contacts with Russian spies seems a bit odd to this reader . At the risk of sounding like a 3rd grader thanks David for admitting that the right stoked the politics of scandal 'bigly' when Clinton was President.
3
"And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington."
Um, nope. Doesn't have to be confessed.
Whitewater: Failed land deal in Arkansas (!!!!) in which there might have been some collusion between developers and the Clintons.
Russia: Successful hacking of the American presidential election (!!!!) in which there might have been some collusion between a hostile foreign and the Trumps.
DOES NOT EQUAL!!!!
Um, nope. Doesn't have to be confessed.
Whitewater: Failed land deal in Arkansas (!!!!) in which there might have been some collusion between developers and the Clintons.
Russia: Successful hacking of the American presidential election (!!!!) in which there might have been some collusion between a hostile foreign and the Trumps.
DOES NOT EQUAL!!!!
6
And now the word is that Flynn is cooperating with Mueller's investigation, which, to me, can only mean that he he is concerned about going to jail and that there may be some other people who are nervous about what he is saying. Was he immunized or maybe just cut a deal for his cooperation?
Put the Kool-Aide down, David! Trump's tweets may be sweet, but they are filled with the poison of a a narcissistic liar.
1
You forget one thing. America voted for Trump & the Republicans. I like you live in fear for the Republic.
If there's nothing there, then why all the lying and obfuscation by Trump and his people? Probably Trump himself didn't collude, but I wouldn't be surprised if his people did. And I'm almost certain that by the time Mueller is done, he will have uncovered a myriad of sleazy, maybe criminal, financial dealings by Trump and his gang.
3
In retrospect, lots of things look different. Whitewater looks overblown. And non-citizens training to fly planes looks overwhelmingly ominous.
However, if there is no "there there," then I would expect to see the White House concerned about the major cyber attack perpetrated by the Russians. Instead, the single group not acknowledging this attack is...the White House.
However, if there is no "there there," then I would expect to see the White House concerned about the major cyber attack perpetrated by the Russians. Instead, the single group not acknowledging this attack is...the White House.
7
Confusion has been created because different people mean different things when they refer to the Russia investigation. When Trump says the Russia investigation is fake news he means that the examination of possible collusion has no basis in fact. Those who are attacking Trump believe he means that the entire Russia investigation is fake news, even whether the Russians tried to interfere with our election. This misunderstanding is understandable because Trump at first said their was no attempt by Russia to influence our election, a claim he dropped after he saw the overwhelming evidence to support the claim. The two sides need to make clear what they mean when they refer to the Russia investigation. Do they mean interference, collusion, or both.
2
If Trump is indeed innocent (as I think is possible, even likely), he would have been well-served to release his tax returns.
Past talk from his own family about Russian financing together with all the unusual meetings and dealings with Russian proxies and subsequent denials make people suspicious.
Past talk from his own family about Russian financing together with all the unusual meetings and dealings with Russian proxies and subsequent denials make people suspicious.
1
It's probably not whether Mr. Trump personally knew about any shenanigans with his then staff regarding Russian election tampering. But it's his likely loan and debt liability with the Russians. He, our President, is subject to blackmail from a foreign nation. Follow the money. That's all he's ever cared about. And the brand it supports.
4
Nonsense. This is a Trump apologist piece posing as moderate moral-equivalence. There've been lots of bogus scandal claims and real concerns that uncovered minimal wrong-doing. This is neither. The Russians hacked our election. Trump asked Putin to do so. Manafort was cozy with Putin associates and Flynn was in-bed with the Russians. Kushner and Trump had business dealings with the Russians and other related shady characters. It's not a witch-hunt to see if any of those dots are connected. It's also not gotcha-politics like Whitewater and Benghazi. There is a legitimate basis for concern both about the Russians and whether Team Trump had a role. It's double-nonsense that Trump was somehow entrapped. No President has ever been more reckless. He interrupts his own PR staff to blurt out that he fired Comey due to the investigation. He bragged to the same Russians. He blurts out State secrets because he's an ego-maniac that can't believe he actually won. This isn't a series of mines that any reasonable person would step on. Any sane person would keep his mouth shut and let the investigation go forward. Trump doesn't fit that bill. The fault lies not in his stars, but in himself. Maybe there's no Russia involvement. How epically ironic then if the mere questioning leads to his downfall - at his own hand.
6
Even if there's no proof of collusion -- and I'd call trump asking the Russkies to hack Hillary's e-mail collusion -- he obstructed justice. That alone merits impeachment and removal from office.
He is not a normal president; he is a threat to our democracy and country even if he's not beholden to the Russians, which he may well be.
He is not a normal president; he is a threat to our democracy and country even if he's not beholden to the Russians, which he may well be.
Who are you telling to "not get carried away?" Since the Republican party has made innuendo & fake news a part of their political message, and the current President called Obama a member of Isis, Clinton would be put in jail, six hearings on Benghazi that showed no wrongdoing, and a plethora of other junk, you have to wonder who exactly are you talking to? The "drive-thru" media has owned the airwaves for years and have hounded the citizenry with their blather for over several decades.
No Mr. Brooks, we are already carried away. Democracy is finished. It's done, and you are out of ideas.
No Mr. Brooks, we are already carried away. Democracy is finished. It's done, and you are out of ideas.
7
oh please, if there is not here there, why all the dissembling, calumny and hysteria from the white house? why not just give a press conference and answer alkali the questions forthrightly ? Mr brooks are you being willfully obtuse or just partisan?
4
Nobody except Trump is getting carried away. Everyone except him and his supporters and apologists (Brooks?) want Mueller to quietly go about his investigation updating Congress and all of us (who are paying for the investigation) as appropriate. I, for one, trust Mueller to discern when and how to update, inform and request resources in the form of funds and documents.
I've lost so much respect for Brooks who I've heard repeatedly ask, "where's the beef?" in regard to the Russia collusion probe. There might not be a big side of beef for all to see, but there sure is a big pot of beef stew - enough to serve to all of Trump's enablers with plenty left for his apologists.
I've lost so much respect for Brooks who I've heard repeatedly ask, "where's the beef?" in regard to the Russia collusion probe. There might not be a big side of beef for all to see, but there sure is a big pot of beef stew - enough to serve to all of Trump's enablers with plenty left for his apologists.
5
But most voters DO care! Why do you think both politicians AND journalists are regarded so poorly by Americans. After all, the true collusion appears to be between the political establishment and the media. This is a massive obstruction to the operation of our government that, apparently, is not just an irrational response, but is also engineered. Who will accept responsibility for this huge waste of time and resources if it turns out to be completely unfounded?
And where was this article six months ago? Let's face it, it would have never gone this far if Trump was a true Republican. Both parties and the media are seriously threatened by him - but not America's vast workforce of limited means and prospects.
And where was this article six months ago? Let's face it, it would have never gone this far if Trump was a true Republican. Both parties and the media are seriously threatened by him - but not America's vast workforce of limited means and prospects.
3
You write, "There’s just something worrisome every time we find ourselves replacing politics of democracy with the politics of scandal." And, to your credit, you add, "Donald Trump rose peddling the politics of scandal."
But who replaced the politics of democracy with the politics of destruction and obstruction and "alternate facts"? Atwater, Gingrich, the "religious" right, Rove, the alt-right. They did it -- not us liberals.
But who replaced the politics of democracy with the politics of destruction and obstruction and "alternate facts"? Atwater, Gingrich, the "religious" right, Rove, the alt-right. They did it -- not us liberals.
7
It's absolutely nutty to think that Putin would ever let Trump in on anything. Of course Trump has no direct knowledge of anything. He is a blabbermouth. That doesn't mean Putin didn't give Trump the WH or that Trump doesn't have financial obligations that explain his silence on all things Russian. Trump could still be corrupted to the point he should be impeached. Trump is great at stonewalling with lawyers. This could take years. It is more likely Trump will resign at a moment when he can claim victory as the greatest President ever driven out of office by dark forces.
3
Golly gee, Mr. Brooks have you read the article by your colleagues today about how Gen Flynn compromised national security while the President looked the other way?
"Time and again, the Trump administration looked the other way in the face of warning signs about Mr. Flynn. Mr. Trump entrusted him with the nation’s secrets despite knowing that he faced a Justice Department investigation over his undisclosed foreign lobbying. Even a personal warning from President Obama did not dissuade him."
You may think that being a mere duffus is not enough reason to investigate a Leader who has put his country's sacred secrets in jeopardy but I do.
It is reasonable to to hold as truth that anyone over the age of six knows that possible apostates such as Flynn are not to be entrusted with ones treasures. Our President left the barn door wide open. Why?
"Time and again, the Trump administration looked the other way in the face of warning signs about Mr. Flynn. Mr. Trump entrusted him with the nation’s secrets despite knowing that he faced a Justice Department investigation over his undisclosed foreign lobbying. Even a personal warning from President Obama did not dissuade him."
You may think that being a mere duffus is not enough reason to investigate a Leader who has put his country's sacred secrets in jeopardy but I do.
It is reasonable to to hold as truth that anyone over the age of six knows that possible apostates such as Flynn are not to be entrusted with ones treasures. Our President left the barn door wide open. Why?
5
An important piece of evidence that leads me to think we should be looking into this whole affair carefully, is the Trump Administration's complete disinterest in knowing and/or doing anything about how the Russian's influenced our elections through falsifying stories online, hacking the Clinton email system, and most importantly, attempting to hack our voting machines in 39 states. The administration's disinterest in protecting our democracy through safeguarding our elections from future Russian influence, indicates something is truly amiss with the Trump administration and the Russians. This Russian influence issue seems far more important than Watergate or anything else investigated within a White House Administration since.
6
Why is it with Republicans it's always "well, we did it but you shouldn't. "
3
That's all fine, except that nobody seemed to mind when "a democratically unsupervised, infinitely financed team of prosecutors [took aim] at [Bill Clinton] [with] power to subpoena his staff and look under any related or unrelated rock in an attempt to bring him down". Or WASN'T there an impeachment and Senate trial over a tawdry affair?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Got it. But I wonder whether the right can grasp how fingernails-on-a-blackboard annoying their solicitude for Trump comes off compared to their indifference to the havoc theiy wrought on Bill Clinton (and, now that I think of it, Hillary Clinton (for the fabricated Benghazi 'scandal').
Two wrongs don't make a right. Got it. But I wonder whether the right can grasp how fingernails-on-a-blackboard annoying their solicitude for Trump comes off compared to their indifference to the havoc theiy wrought on Bill Clinton (and, now that I think of it, Hillary Clinton (for the fabricated Benghazi 'scandal').
4
It's a decoy, Dave.
1
Publish the taxes. That is where the evidence exists.
Trump is an established, proven, and documented liar:
1/ birther nonsense - Obama was born to an American citizen in Honolulu
2/ guilty of racketeering with trump "university", paid out 25 million
3/ thousands of cases for breach of contract
The list is endless. Follow the money and the players, publish the taxes.
This is one of those rare instances in American history where we was must go full bore, get carried away if necessary. America has passed a critical mass of stupidity, congress is bought, we seem to about to cross a point of no return, to decency, to the rule of law, etc.
Trump is far from normal, and apologists like yourself are part of the problem, the problem of normalization for one.
Trump is an established, proven, and documented liar:
1/ birther nonsense - Obama was born to an American citizen in Honolulu
2/ guilty of racketeering with trump "university", paid out 25 million
3/ thousands of cases for breach of contract
The list is endless. Follow the money and the players, publish the taxes.
This is one of those rare instances in American history where we was must go full bore, get carried away if necessary. America has passed a critical mass of stupidity, congress is bought, we seem to about to cross a point of no return, to decency, to the rule of law, etc.
Trump is far from normal, and apologists like yourself are part of the problem, the problem of normalization for one.
7
Whitewater was part of a general scheme to take down the Clintons by any means necessary. He was this bubba from Arkansas who, despite his Yale law degree and years as governor, the established powers generally believed he had no right to the presidency. The potentials of the Russia mess are very different. They speak to the very foundations of our democracy.
Trump has behaved like a teenager fleeing the scene of petty theft. His actions clearly have appeared to be motivated by what lawyers call "guilty knowledge". How do police catch crooks in crowds of hundreds? They go after the guy who is running away. Trump acts like he knows there is something there and doesn't want anyone to find out.
Trump rode into town with his metaphorical guns blazing. He thinks he can bully his way through anything, the same way he bullied his way to whatever number his fortune actually adds up to. What if he had just left Russia and the possibilities around it alone?
Trump has behaved like a teenager fleeing the scene of petty theft. His actions clearly have appeared to be motivated by what lawyers call "guilty knowledge". How do police catch crooks in crowds of hundreds? They go after the guy who is running away. Trump acts like he knows there is something there and doesn't want anyone to find out.
Trump rode into town with his metaphorical guns blazing. He thinks he can bully his way through anything, the same way he bullied his way to whatever number his fortune actually adds up to. What if he had just left Russia and the possibilities around it alone?
2
"...there’s a pretty good chance you could spur even this modern paragon [Lincoln] to want to fight back. You could spur even him to do something that had the whiff of obstruction." I doubt that. A. Lincoln was a lawyer, and perhaps a pretty fair legal scholar He wouldn't have had to be cajoled to stay off Twitter, in order to not provide fodder to his "enemies."
David, this has got to be the dumbest article you've ever written. Or at least the dumbest one I've read that you've written. Just because there has been no notification of collusion at this point in the investigation doesn't mean there was or was not collusion. So far, the only phony view is that collusion is made up and phony, as if the investigation is completed and with none found. You and Trump are the one's jumping to phony predetermined conclusions. And, if Trump is so confident he's in the clear, why is he at the same time calling this issue phony and a hoax? Why isn't he encouraging and cooperating with the investigation. And, one does not eliminate the other - there very well could be collusion along with obstruction of justice. One does not automatically negate the other. This Russian intrusion is a scandal. Trump has been scandalous. It does not need to be hyped. It is what it is. If nothing of collusion or obstruction is found, so be it. Trump can than praise himself, as he surely will, as truly vindicated.
3
David Brooks, do I recall you speaking out against scandal hysteria during the Hillary character assassination attempts, a.k.a. Benghazi, and the Clinton email server freak-out? Or perhaps not. I agree these feeding frenzies can be overblown. However, any effort -- within bounds of the law -- to remove or disarm the current incompetent occupant of the oval is fair game in my view. Which is more dangerous ... a scandal craze, or a crazed president?
9
Can anyone tell me what the investigation is about? What exactly did Trump do to collude with Putin?
This is a dangerous precedent to set, as the Democrats are now finding out with the end of the filibuster and the use of executive orders. They abused Constitutional tradition, and now find much of Obama's legacy being burned to the ground by the fires that the Democrats themselves started.
We could investigate whether Bernie Sanders kidnaps children, or whether Nancy Pelosi is a member of a Mexican drug cartel.
Do I have any proof?
No.
But how can we know for sure unless we appoint an army of hard-core GOP prosecutors to investigate?
This is a dangerous precedent to set, as the Democrats are now finding out with the end of the filibuster and the use of executive orders. They abused Constitutional tradition, and now find much of Obama's legacy being burned to the ground by the fires that the Democrats themselves started.
We could investigate whether Bernie Sanders kidnaps children, or whether Nancy Pelosi is a member of a Mexican drug cartel.
Do I have any proof?
No.
But how can we know for sure unless we appoint an army of hard-core GOP prosecutors to investigate?
3
This is the most reasonable thing I've read in six years. Please God let there be a market for this kind of level-headedness. Of course I just commented on a news article, so who am I to talk about things like "reason" or "sanity." [Read Chris Farley air quotes].
3
I'm a big fan of David Brooks. But, I'm a little nonplussed why he argues that Whitewater was more substantive than the Russian-collusion scandal. The convergence of political interest, financial codependency, and data sharing is not just smoke. It's fire.
1
I can't say I necessarily believe this, but I do realize the possibility remains that Trump's behavior during the Russia investigation has been one long sucker play to further discredit the media.
What if after all of his strange, bombastic ranting there really is no actual evidence to be found? Does anyone really think that he will not jump all over that opportunity to further demean the press, paint himself as a martyr, and maybe even attract more converts?
It's a scary thought.
What if after all of his strange, bombastic ranting there really is no actual evidence to be found? Does anyone really think that he will not jump all over that opportunity to further demean the press, paint himself as a martyr, and maybe even attract more converts?
It's a scary thought.
3
Mr. Brooks, what is your motivation for writing this piece? You must know that comparing Whitewater, a botched real estate deal, to possible collusion and treason is a false equivalency. We're talking molehill and mountain there. And certainly comparing investigating Trump to investigating Abraham Lincoln, with the goal of, in your words, attempting "to bring him down," frames the issue as a spurious Democratic vendetta vs. finding out the truth about serious threats to our democratic republic. Not to mention the utter inanity of your comparison--
This is much more than a scandal, and while it may be great for cable news ratings, or lawyers, this too misses the point.
And why would you give a proven pathological liar the last word? That makes zero sense. Again, why are you writing this piece?
I don't believe "most voters don't really care". I think if Trump did indeed collude with Russia to interfere with our national election, and the mountain of lies and evasions from Trump and his staff supporting this are staring us in the face, most voters would care a great deal. If the evidence is there, most voters, as they did in Watergate, will respect the legal process and the truth, and will not tolerate a president who not only scammed his way into the White House, but colluded with a hostile foreign government to do so.
You are completely missing the seriousness of the allegations, Mr. Brooks, in service of... what?
This is much more than a scandal, and while it may be great for cable news ratings, or lawyers, this too misses the point.
And why would you give a proven pathological liar the last word? That makes zero sense. Again, why are you writing this piece?
I don't believe "most voters don't really care". I think if Trump did indeed collude with Russia to interfere with our national election, and the mountain of lies and evasions from Trump and his staff supporting this are staring us in the face, most voters would care a great deal. If the evidence is there, most voters, as they did in Watergate, will respect the legal process and the truth, and will not tolerate a president who not only scammed his way into the White House, but colluded with a hostile foreign government to do so.
You are completely missing the seriousness of the allegations, Mr. Brooks, in service of... what?
8
I, along with most of the public, just want Trump and the Republicans let the intelligence community (including Mueller) do it's job. We know the Russians interfered in the November election. We need to know how, and if there was any collusion by any Americans. Brooks already giving Trump the last word is ridiculously premature. All we want is the truth, and Trump is the last person I would trust to give it to us.
4
Dear Mr. Brooks
Did you write a similar column in the Wall Street Journal during Whitewater. I guess when the shoe is on the other foot we evolve.
Thanks for nothing.
Did you write a similar column in the Wall Street Journal during Whitewater. I guess when the shoe is on the other foot we evolve.
Thanks for nothing.
2
The idiocy of so many of my fellow democrats and liberals is they refuse to face the inconvenient truth that the Russians did not cause Clinton's loss, but James Comey—a new hero for the most demented of our side—DID. Without his dedication to the good of our FBI secret police and his own narcissistic passion for authoritarian control, Trump would not be President. Comey's outrageous October surprise and despicable behavior just days before the election turned it around and won it for Trumpistan. A huge problem for 21st America is the hunger of intelligence services (i. e., the USA's secret police) for their own power rather than the nation's good--as Iraq & the debacle of the Mideast (the CIA and NSA acquiescence to "Weapons of Mass Destruction") and Comey's 2016 FBI destruction of Hilary and election of Trump prove. But wait!! —to stand up to the dedication of our secret police to their own power-crazed procedures—to their authoritarian ambitions, narrow interests, & war on transparency & democratic faith? That could be hard, unpopular—responsible, maybe, but a tough dangerous fight. Better to blame Putin. Let's pretend Russia's hacks us and not talk about how China does the same thing and more. We need Chines cash & credit. So how about that fat Russian ambassador? Easy to hate, right?
No! Our President Trump asked the Russians for help and they wanted to destroy one of our candidates for President. Kind of like; make American democracy like Russian democracy. He said something to the effect of, "bring it on".
If this is our culture, and people hated Obama so much, why wasn't he under investigation? It is not normal.
The Russians hacked the DNC, Podesta, et al., to steal e-mails and information and delivered them to WIkiLeaks to be weaponized. The Russians also built a fake news network that created mountains of phony stories. And every day during the campaign, Trump and his pals flogged these stolen e-mails and the bogus stories to his supporters and a credulous media; Trump even told us he "loved WikiLeaks." It's unclear to me why this is not considered collusion on the part of the Trump campaign.
1
The true true investigation has just begun.Why are you so quick to write that that Trump's commentary may well be accurate. That is just the latest con he is peddling.
1
Wow, another profile in courage winner. I believe Mr. Brooks to be among the smartest living Americans, so this piece got me to think. Although I still cannot believe Trump is president, the energy against his winning in the manner he did is overwhelming. Most of us abhor group think. Are we not succumbing to it with this widespread Trump bashing? It is possible that the Russian hacking was simply directed AGAINST Hillary, requiring no collusion with trump. Thanks David for doing your job so well, making us think a little bit more critically. Tikun olam!
3
David Brooks is right. But it's fun watching Trump and his gang squirm.
Dear David Brooks, saying that the Whitewater investigation was 'more substantive' than the Russia probe reveals an astounding lack of sense of proportion on your part. Whitewater was about a trivial land transaction and ultimately about a sex affair unrelated to any national policy issue. The Russia affair - where you parrot the Fox News argument that we have 'no evidence' of collusion (of course not - no findings of any kind have been published, and any evidence from intercepted Russian communications remains classified and secret) - the Russia affair involves possible treasonous relations with a major foreign policy adversary, who is trying to split the US major foreign-policy alliance (NATO), and where details include falsification of the security-clearance application of Trump's nominee for National Security Advisor (Flynn) and his payments from Russia. Whitewater was 'more substantive'? Please, Mr. Brooks, your comparison is crazy.
Even if no strict 'collusion' is found, relations between Trump's associates and Russia urgently demand investigation and airing. This is top-level national policy, not the trivial Whitewater land deal.
Even if no strict 'collusion' is found, relations between Trump's associates and Russia urgently demand investigation and airing. This is top-level national policy, not the trivial Whitewater land deal.
5
Mr. Brooks agree with the general premise you have written in your Op-ed page. However the circumstantial evidence points to egregious behavior and possible stupid dealings by the erstwhile and present administration team members.
Further it is gratuitous to describe Whitewater as more serious criminal infraction when it was a 7 year fishing effort to criminalize any possible behavior of the Clinton White House by the Republican Party.
Further it is gratuitous to describe Whitewater as more serious criminal infraction when it was a 7 year fishing effort to criminalize any possible behavior of the Clinton White House by the Republican Party.
2
The President taking the FBI director aside, demanding loyalty, and firing him when he didn't get it isn't real enough for you, David?
3
Trump praised Putin on multiple occasions.
Trump asked Putin to get Hillary's emails.
Trump praised Wikileaks for publishing emails hacked by Russian intelligence
Trump never condemned Russia for subversion of US electoral process.
Trump had extensive financial dealings with Russians.
Trump has returned to saying anyone could have done hacking.
Trump knows his past shady financial dealings will be investigated.
Trump has been fined for money laundering related activities.
Trump fired person in charge of investigating him.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS!
MOVE ALONG!
Trump asked Putin to get Hillary's emails.
Trump praised Wikileaks for publishing emails hacked by Russian intelligence
Trump never condemned Russia for subversion of US electoral process.
Trump had extensive financial dealings with Russians.
Trump has returned to saying anyone could have done hacking.
Trump knows his past shady financial dealings will be investigated.
Trump has been fined for money laundering related activities.
Trump fired person in charge of investigating him.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS!
MOVE ALONG!
6
Mr. Brooks,
It is dumbfounding how wrong a normally astute observer can be, in the effort to seem fair-minded. There is evidence of guilt -- if not active collusion, passive abetting and neglect of US national security -- in plain sight. Yes, of course we have to await the final results of the investigation underway. But people are anxious to guess the outcome because they see the damage that Trump is doing to the country, to individuals' lives, and to stability in the world. We need a return to the rule of law, let's just hope that the law can act swiftly.
It is dumbfounding how wrong a normally astute observer can be, in the effort to seem fair-minded. There is evidence of guilt -- if not active collusion, passive abetting and neglect of US national security -- in plain sight. Yes, of course we have to await the final results of the investigation underway. But people are anxious to guess the outcome because they see the damage that Trump is doing to the country, to individuals' lives, and to stability in the world. We need a return to the rule of law, let's just hope that the law can act swiftly.
2
Agreed we need to follow the money and follow the dead Russians as some suggest--I've been following the foreign policy since the primaries and in that area Trump has been remarkably consistent-- for him. There is every reason to suspect there has been and is undue influence.
1
Let us not forget that mobsters who couldn't be convicted on their actual crimes sometimes were brought down by marginal charges, such as tax evasion.
3
I agree that it's unlikely that Trump or anyone all that close to Trump explicitly colluded with the Russians who interfered with our elections. I'm not so sure about some of the Trump hangers-on and wannabes, like Roger Stone, who seems to have known about the Podesta e-mail hack before the e-mails were publicly disclosed.
I also agree that Trump, by his own buffoonery, has made the collusion investigation more serious than it needed to be. But Brooks overlooks what I think is Trump's more fundamental errors. Instead of denying Russian interference into the election, then belittling the investigation into that interference as a partisan witch hunt by bad, conflicted people, a more serious president would have acknowledged Russian interference and unequivocally condemned it as a threat to our democracy and therefore to our way of life, swearing whole-hearted cooperation with the investigation. A more serious president would never have appointed Mike Flynn and Jeff Sessions, both of whom held secret meetings with Russian representatives and lied about them; and would never have permitted his son-in-law to meet secretly with Russian representatives before taking office.
The fact is that Trump's own conduct has made the collusion investigation what it is, and, at least in the public eye, has displaced the critical investigation into election interference with what is likely a side show about collusion.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
I also agree that Trump, by his own buffoonery, has made the collusion investigation more serious than it needed to be. But Brooks overlooks what I think is Trump's more fundamental errors. Instead of denying Russian interference into the election, then belittling the investigation into that interference as a partisan witch hunt by bad, conflicted people, a more serious president would have acknowledged Russian interference and unequivocally condemned it as a threat to our democracy and therefore to our way of life, swearing whole-hearted cooperation with the investigation. A more serious president would never have appointed Mike Flynn and Jeff Sessions, both of whom held secret meetings with Russian representatives and lied about them; and would never have permitted his son-in-law to meet secretly with Russian representatives before taking office.
The fact is that Trump's own conduct has made the collusion investigation what it is, and, at least in the public eye, has displaced the critical investigation into election interference with what is likely a side show about collusion.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
3
It's hard for me to believe that Pence, and Trump's lawyer, would be hiring private lawyers to defend themselves against nothing.
7
Like most Americans, I do feel HRC did wrong by setting up a private email server when she was Secretary of State. However, we all must acknowledge that that happened a long time ago (2009).
Until last summer, I'd thought that "Clinton scandals" were at least a fixed quantity that would never get larger. Whatever one felt about them, they were history, and probably would diminish in importance as time passed and memories faded.
That changed when Bill Clinton visited Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at Phoenix airport -- a friendly visit to discuss grandchildren and such things, not Lynch's investigation of Bill's wife. I realized at that moment that I'd been naive to imagine that we'd never have another Clinton scandal. We might not have another Clinton scandal caused by Hillary -- in fact, I considered that likely (others will disagree) -- but as long as Bill was vertical and drawing breaths, we could pretty much count on new Clinton scandals.
Many people -- I included -- criticized Comey for "editorializing" last July when he announced the FBI had decided not to recommend criminal charges against HRC. But, justifiably or not, Comey's testimony of two weeks ago makes clear that he'd felt Loretta Lynch had left him no choice but to "editorialize." I still think he should have kept his mouth shut, but there's no real question that Lynch acted improperly.
Until last summer, I'd thought that "Clinton scandals" were at least a fixed quantity that would never get larger. Whatever one felt about them, they were history, and probably would diminish in importance as time passed and memories faded.
That changed when Bill Clinton visited Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at Phoenix airport -- a friendly visit to discuss grandchildren and such things, not Lynch's investigation of Bill's wife. I realized at that moment that I'd been naive to imagine that we'd never have another Clinton scandal. We might not have another Clinton scandal caused by Hillary -- in fact, I considered that likely (others will disagree) -- but as long as Bill was vertical and drawing breaths, we could pretty much count on new Clinton scandals.
Many people -- I included -- criticized Comey for "editorializing" last July when he announced the FBI had decided not to recommend criminal charges against HRC. But, justifiably or not, Comey's testimony of two weeks ago makes clear that he'd felt Loretta Lynch had left him no choice but to "editorialize." I still think he should have kept his mouth shut, but there's no real question that Lynch acted improperly.
5
This is fundamentally wrong -- going down the path of trying to have better relations with Russia is not a reason to open a criminal investigation. It is a legitimate policy difference and in fact where Barack Obama was when he mocked Romney for suggesting that Russia was a threat. And it was Barack Obama who whispered to the Russians he was open for business after the election. The Russians have been trying to get into elections for quite some time including 2012 -- would this be a reason to investigate Obama? Of course not. If the policy position of a long-shot campaign is the evidence necessary for a massive investigation, something has gone very wrong with this country.
3
If Mr. Putin did buy Mr. Trump, he certainly does not seem to be getting the benefit of his bargain.
I concede the possibility that Mr. Brooks is correct, that there isn't any there there. What President Trump does often enough is to create suspicion by making outlandish charges at others, concealing his own returns and business interests while violating the emoluments clause. All he would need to do is to ask Congress for an exception so that his holdings would be exempt, but he hasn't done that. The real issue is that Trump raises fear in the hearts of Democrats, not because of his policies, but because he is so erratic, impulsive, and reckless. Some of us fear that the Republic won't survive 4 years of a Trump presidency. However, I'm 90% sure that when Mueller looks through Trump's finances, there will be some there there.
3
Republicans and Fox News have succeeded in replacing our tradition of politics of democracy, as you say with politics driven by scandal. Politics of scandal drives our current political arena precisely because Trump's career is driven by scandal, self promotion, lies, all self-reinforcing. Russian interference with our democracy and Trump and republicans benefiting from that interference is the ultimate scandal facing our democracy. We have a chance of returning to democratic politics once this attack on our democracy is understood. If Trump and company get ensnared in these investigations, then so be it. They created the monster, now they must live with it. I agree a little civility would be refreshing but lets face it, we are living in the era of hype.
Nice try with the false equivalence tween Whitewater and the Russia investigation, David.
Whitewater was a money-losing land deal from a dozen years before Clinton won the 1992 election.
There is far more to investigate in Trump's University or his "charity" than there was in Whitewater.
But David Brook's. being a Republican, implores us that Whitewater is the same as a potential act of treason by the President of the United Staes.
Whitewater was a money-losing land deal from a dozen years before Clinton won the 1992 election.
There is far more to investigate in Trump's University or his "charity" than there was in Whitewater.
But David Brook's. being a Republican, implores us that Whitewater is the same as a potential act of treason by the President of the United Staes.
3
Was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's (D-RI) suggestion that Michael Flynn, who was caught dead to rights as an unregistered foreign agent and owing hundreds of thousands in restitution for violating the Emoluments Clause, has "flipped" something meta? Or is he supplying info on dubious financial arrangements between Trump and Russian mobsters?
We've only been looking at this for two months. The GOP had five years on Benghazi, and if Clinton had won, they promised to continue. What a double standard!
We've only been looking at this for two months. The GOP had five years on Benghazi, and if Clinton had won, they promised to continue. What a double standard!
2
Mr. Brooks, you suggest that Trump campaign personnel meeting with Russians were "no more than you’d expect from a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin." Is your suspicion not aroused in the first place by a campaign that, in 2016, was "publicly and proudly pro-Putin?"
I tan tell you that mine is, and was, as soon as then-candidate Trump began and continued articulating his passionate Putinism. The fact that neither Trump, nor anyone else in his astonishingly adoring Cabinet, has yet to utter a peep of concern about the "heinous," as you put it, Russian contamination of American democracy.
I tan tell you that mine is, and was, as soon as then-candidate Trump began and continued articulating his passionate Putinism. The fact that neither Trump, nor anyone else in his astonishingly adoring Cabinet, has yet to utter a peep of concern about the "heinous," as you put it, Russian contamination of American democracy.
1
Pardon me?
"And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal ..."
There was NEVER any substance to the Whitewater scandal - it was naked politics and nothing but (yes, I was there, and paying attention). I don't know if there was collusion between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives, but I DO know there's infinitely more grist to the concerns about Trump's campaign than there EVER was about the Clintons' investment dealings, and comparing the two belittle's your argument to the point of inconsequence.
"And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal ..."
There was NEVER any substance to the Whitewater scandal - it was naked politics and nothing but (yes, I was there, and paying attention). I don't know if there was collusion between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives, but I DO know there's infinitely more grist to the concerns about Trump's campaign than there EVER was about the Clintons' investment dealings, and comparing the two belittle's your argument to the point of inconsequence.
3
"And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington."
Has David Brooks officially joined the Alt-Right?
Has David Brooks officially joined the Alt-Right?
3
That must be it!
"We keep reading that there is no evidence yet regarding Russia. ... Perhaps it just hasn't been disclosed to the public."
"We keep reading that there is no evidence yet regarding Russia. ... Perhaps it just hasn't been disclosed to the public."
I never thought meeting with the Russians itself was a big issue but why did administration personnel so consistently LIE about their meetings with Russian agents?
And, similarly, Trumps weird behavior (firing Corey, attacking Mueller before he even has started etc) leads me to believe there is something there he is very interested in keeping under wraps.
And, similarly, Trumps weird behavior (firing Corey, attacking Mueller before he even has started etc) leads me to believe there is something there he is very interested in keeping under wraps.
2
Brooks is right that no smoking guns have been found, and I would be surprised if they ever are. However, the volumes of protest coming from the White House send up a bright red flag which leaves the situation screaming for an investigation.
1
Mr. Brooks, you suppose that all of the contacts with Russia may have been "normal." I don't know from experience but it seems to me there were an awful lot of people talking to an awful lot of Russians multiple times. It's difficult for me to understand why and in my mind, that's reason enough for the investigations. I'd also like to remind those who have their hair on fire shouting "witch hunt" that Republicans rule both houses and lead all of the committees investigating Trump. If anyone's leading a "witch hunt", it's Trumps fellow Republicans.
1
The best way to make this investigation disappear would be to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary's private email server. It was obviously a violation of federal law, and the fact that the then sitting POTUS communicated with the sitting SecState on that illegal server using a pseudonym provides a special prosecutor with plenty of firepower.
Trump needs to punch back twice as hard by prosecuting not only his election opponent but the prior POTUS. He certainly would have the majority of Americans' backing.
Trump needs to punch back twice as hard by prosecuting not only his election opponent but the prior POTUS. He certainly would have the majority of Americans' backing.
2
We are indeed carried well away when a high-powered lawyer like Robert Mueller hires more than 13 other high-powered lawyers to prosecute a case with no crime and no target.
The only evidence we have so far is that Russia meddled in our election last year. And 14 lawyers are going to bill millions of dollars in fees to see if they can uncover something?
James Comey managed a witch hunt against the Democrats last year with Hillary Clinton and her emails, and one this year with Donald Trump and this Russians. He deserved to be fired. The FBI has plenty of other things to keep it busy instead of investigating political crimes like in some banana republic.
The only evidence we have so far is that Russia meddled in our election last year. And 14 lawyers are going to bill millions of dollars in fees to see if they can uncover something?
James Comey managed a witch hunt against the Democrats last year with Hillary Clinton and her emails, and one this year with Donald Trump and this Russians. He deserved to be fired. The FBI has plenty of other things to keep it busy instead of investigating political crimes like in some banana republic.
2
No, let's get carried away. Watergate was a big deal, as citizens saw dishonesty and corruption. It only looks less horrid because there wasn't a foreign power involved in the burglaries of the Democratic Party's campaign headquarters at the Watergate Building.
Cheating was called "dirty tricks" during the re-election of Richard Nixon.
But Nixon also used the CIA, FBI and IRS to harass people who protested the administration. 48 people were found guilty of crimes, many were white house officials. Nixon's ill advised secret tapes revealed he covered up activities that transpired after the break-in,using federal officials to obstruct the investigation.
It was a disgusting abuse of power. And a mammoth cover-up. Including attempts to obstruct justice. Trump's administration is far worse, as we will find out. But Watergate was still a big deal.
Cheating was called "dirty tricks" during the re-election of Richard Nixon.
But Nixon also used the CIA, FBI and IRS to harass people who protested the administration. 48 people were found guilty of crimes, many were white house officials. Nixon's ill advised secret tapes revealed he covered up activities that transpired after the break-in,using federal officials to obstruct the investigation.
It was a disgusting abuse of power. And a mammoth cover-up. Including attempts to obstruct justice. Trump's administration is far worse, as we will find out. But Watergate was still a big deal.
2
Amazing to take this stance given all the facts that point to something suspicious going on, including Trump acting very much like he is trying to keep things covered up. And it is ridiculous to criticize and investigation because it has not yet provided the evidence for guilt - that's what an investigation is for. If the evidence was already there, there would be little need for an investigation.
We need to see Trump's tax returns.
Don't you find it alarming how nonchalant our GOP Congress has behaved, knowing of Russia's proven interference in our election? It boggles the mind that the party that selfishly lays claim to 'patriotism' and 'freedom' would be so nonplussed at such egregious criminal behavior. And what of the myriad of conflicts of interest presented by Trump brands business dealings globally? Emoluments Clause, Mr. Brooks?
Don't you find it alarming how nonchalant our GOP Congress has behaved, knowing of Russia's proven interference in our election? It boggles the mind that the party that selfishly lays claim to 'patriotism' and 'freedom' would be so nonplussed at such egregious criminal behavior. And what of the myriad of conflicts of interest presented by Trump brands business dealings globally? Emoluments Clause, Mr. Brooks?
1
Mr Brooks, I am a big fan. But I submit to you, Donald Trump would be cooperating, turning over his tax returns, supporting the investigation, if nothing nefarious had transpired.
Apparently Mr. Brooks doesn't accept the reporting by the legitimate MSM including his own NYT. His editorial today indicates he his more inclined to accept the alternate reality perpetuated by FOX and other alt-right propaganda outlets.
There goes Mr. Brooks again - kowtowing to his Republican spin machine masters to come up with pro-Trump spin of his own. His points are that it's all a manufactured scandal created by the media; Whitewater was much worse (yeah, a real-estate deal in Arkansas is worse than siding with an enemy nation); and even President Lincoln, he adds, would get investigated by a special counsel in today's politics... Oh boy!
That's the spin, of course. What Mr. Brooks fails to mention is that Flynn is definitely under investigation for his secretive and illegal dealings with Russia and Turkey - with potential jail time for him. And that President Trump landed himself in obstruction of justice territory by attempting to manipulate Comey, then firing him, into dropping Flynn's case; along with asking Coats and Rogers to pressure Comey into dropping Flynn's case. That's the hot potato here, while collusion with Russia is a separate investigation that has more to do with the money trail. There's one more spin that Mr. Brooks throws at us, straight out of Fox News btw, the notion of the 'deep state'. Although he doesn't call it that, he writes instead of Trump skeptics within the administration out to get him. And since President Trump is too naive and new to politics, he goes on, he falls in all the traps laid for him. But there was nothing naive about President President Trump asking Pence and Sessions to leave the Oval Office so he could be alone with Comey and do the deed.
That's the spin, of course. What Mr. Brooks fails to mention is that Flynn is definitely under investigation for his secretive and illegal dealings with Russia and Turkey - with potential jail time for him. And that President Trump landed himself in obstruction of justice territory by attempting to manipulate Comey, then firing him, into dropping Flynn's case; along with asking Coats and Rogers to pressure Comey into dropping Flynn's case. That's the hot potato here, while collusion with Russia is a separate investigation that has more to do with the money trail. There's one more spin that Mr. Brooks throws at us, straight out of Fox News btw, the notion of the 'deep state'. Although he doesn't call it that, he writes instead of Trump skeptics within the administration out to get him. And since President Trump is too naive and new to politics, he goes on, he falls in all the traps laid for him. But there was nothing naive about President President Trump asking Pence and Sessions to leave the Oval Office so he could be alone with Comey and do the deed.
3
Mr. Brooks is correct. There are countless reasons Donald Trump is not fit to be president beside the flimsy, so far, Russian collusion allegations. I have always been an avid follower of American politics, but I am so sickened by endless investigations and politics of destruction that I now barely read the headlines. The Clintons were investigated to ad nauseam and nothing ever stuck, because there simply was nothing criminal. It's time our preening politicians stopped blowing up something wrong into something criminal. It's time congressional Republicans and Democrats given the honor of serving the American people actually served the American people.
So sad to see David Brooks, who I normally so much admire, unable to see past the fig leaf of righteousness that screens Trump's malfeasance. The firing of Comey after a demand for "loyalty," the mendacity surrounding the appointment of Flynn and the connections to Russia add up to an obstruction of justice charge -- at best. All that can be said for Trump in his incoherence is that he did no know what he was doing. And if ineptitude and brainlessness are legitimate defenses, then yes, "let's not get carried away."
2
It is not the "Russia-collusion" scandal that has us all hopeful that we can get rid of Mr. Birther. We are much too smart for that. That would be too good to be true.
But what we are anxiously waiting for is the day the wrecking ball comes down on Mr. Birther when it is announced that he has been laundering Russian money and working in cahoots with VEB sanctioned bank since the 1990's. And his son in-law, and his daughter, etc. etrc. Russian oligarchs et. al.
But what we are anxiously waiting for is the day the wrecking ball comes down on Mr. Birther when it is announced that he has been laundering Russian money and working in cahoots with VEB sanctioned bank since the 1990's. And his son in-law, and his daughter, etc. etrc. Russian oligarchs et. al.
David, you are just a partisan Republican defender to the end. You defend the Whitewater investigation of the Clintons and yet say there is little evidence to show collusion between Trump and the Russians. Well David, just as the country knew Nixon was a crook, we know Trump is probably a traitor. That Republicans chose him as their standard bearer shall be forever immortalized as the proof that the Republicans never had principle as a party, only an unquenchable thirst for power. Ask why Republicans would not hold Trump to task for not releasing his taxes? Just try and explain why that wasn't a raison d'être enough to disqualify him? I submit it is because the Republican party is devoid of principle. I, as a liberal, always used to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt that our disagreements on policy were based on each other being steadfast in their pursuit of principles they believed in. Now, I know that was just naive. It is so simple really - "lying" in Republican campaigning is a means to an end. It is a tactic only to further the action of giving tax cuts to the wealthy. Health reform - nope, just a ruse. Republicans lie to their base so Democrats shouldn't think they will be treated any differently. Witness the attacks on a Democrat running in the Georgia special election being slandered and accused of celebrating Republicans shot at the capitol. Lying and deceiving will not change the reality of the future. Your words are noise to be disregarded as a lie.
1
mrs. Clinton appeared before a congressional committee and testified for NINE HOURS. let's have the trump team do the same and I have a hunch we'll be a lot closer to the truth, and to the end of this fiasco/administration.
1
Brooks thought that at the time Whitewater looked to have the potential for serious revelations. I thought it was a 7-year tax payer-funded harassment campaign by a Republican party that had descended to a juvenile level. That in fact set the tone for Republican behaviour including making attacking Obama Job 1 and the Benghazi affair.
Brooks now thinks that the Russian investigation is overblown. Nothing at the level of Flynn or Comey happened in any of the Republican frenzies.
Perhaps Brooks needs to step back a little.
Brooks now thinks that the Russian investigation is overblown. Nothing at the level of Flynn or Comey happened in any of the Republican frenzies.
Perhaps Brooks needs to step back a little.
2
How many years did the Whitewater investigation take? How many years of investigation into Watergate? We are merely 6 months into this Russian mess, so let's let the special investigator have an unlimited budget to turn over every rock and maybe we will get Trump for sex crimes. Republicans want to investigate everything a Democrat does, but not a Republican. Investigate, investigate, investigate.
1
Hi David, you are one of very few reality based conservative commentators that I enjoy following. Unfortunately, while I agree with you there is not yet a lot of there there with regard to obstruction, I think you are way off base with respect to your remarks on collusion, "...it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred— that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians." Special prosecutor Mueller is still staffing up and compared to White Water, seven years and seven million dollars with nothing to show for it, this investigation has just begun. I expect this needs to and will go on for at least another year.
2
"You recognize that your opponents are legitimate, that they will always be there and that some form of compromise is inevitable."
Really? Someone tell this to Republicans.
Really? Someone tell this to Republicans.
3
Let's not get carried away indeed, or forget that the scandal is here with us, and not over there. Too much scandal in fact is the reason an outsider was elected over the established candidates of both the political parties. And until we investigate this epic fall from grace the system has suffered, or why Trump was ever elected, we will not be able to move forward from this impasse that is now our experience.
4
Brooks is confusing the publicly known reasons the Mueller investigation was started with the wholly unknown facts it could discover (by, you know, investigating) and conclusions it could reach.
Apparently Brooks assumes that anything substantive about a Russia connection or obstruction of justice must have leaked by now, and that therefore Mueller will discover nothing beyond what has already appeared in the news.
What a strange assumption, based on absolutely nothing.
Apparently Brooks assumes that anything substantive about a Russia connection or obstruction of justice must have leaked by now, and that therefore Mueller will discover nothing beyond what has already appeared in the news.
What a strange assumption, based on absolutely nothing.
13
The collusion investigation was started by the Obama administration based on absolutely nothing, so strange assumptions are nothing new here.
1
In real estate, there is the concept of 'passive investment'. The investor puts up money, but takes no active part in the operation of the property. I think there may very well have been no active collusion of Trump's campaign with Russian influencers, but there certainly was a passive investment, and maybe not so passive anecdotally. After all, Trump invited Russian hackers to hack into Clinton's email... and they did. Its almost eerie how that happened. And Trump certainly did nothing to condemn or discredit the Wikileaks that were exclusively anti-Clinton. That may have been Assange's axe to grind, but he sure got no push-back from Trump or his campaign regarding his outside interference. One might think that a candidate obsessed with "winning" would push back against outside interference that might cheapen or delegitimize his sure-to-happen on-his-own victory. Trump truly believes he is a self-made man, and that he solely won the election (despite that 2.8-million vote margin Clinton got overall). Its curious to me why he isn't more involved and vigorous in resolving any questions about Russian influence, which only makes his presidency more questionable than even his execrable performance has.
2
Trump didn't say to hack into Clinton's emails and then they did. He said, if you're listening because he knew they already were.
I don't get Mr. Brooks's logic here. He says that we haven't seen any evidence of collusion, and that therefore there isn't any collusion. Likewise, we haven't seen Trump's tax returns; therefore there isn't anything questionable in them.
The purpose of having an investigation is to see whether there is such evidence.
The purpose of having an investigation is to see whether there is such evidence.
9
Yes, follow the money - from Trump to Kushner's business dealings - should be enough to warrant an investigation.
4
"Russia’s attack on American democracy was truly heinous, and if the Trump people were involved, that would be treason."
The big problem for America is not Trump, but Trump plus the Republicans, who are undermining American democracy to get what they want (tax cuts for the richest people, prohibition of abortions in all cases, more spending for the military, a rollback on women's, LBQT rights, etc.). They apparently believe that once the conservative agenda is fully accommodated, we will all just ascend to Heaven (or be raptured). In fact, for most Americans it will be Hell on earth.
In the long run, as Mr. Brooks says, the Russian connection may prove to be a non-starter. But what is really hurting this country is Trump plus Republicans and their dark vision of the future.
The big problem for America is not Trump, but Trump plus the Republicans, who are undermining American democracy to get what they want (tax cuts for the richest people, prohibition of abortions in all cases, more spending for the military, a rollback on women's, LBQT rights, etc.). They apparently believe that once the conservative agenda is fully accommodated, we will all just ascend to Heaven (or be raptured). In fact, for most Americans it will be Hell on earth.
In the long run, as Mr. Brooks says, the Russian connection may prove to be a non-starter. But what is really hurting this country is Trump plus Republicans and their dark vision of the future.
5
I seriously doubt that Trump was involved in collusion with Russia to attempt to shape the election, although I have no doubt that Russia attempted to do so; but there's a possibility that "lower-downs" in the Trump campaign might have done something that could be seen that way, or actually was that way. But personal involvement or even knowledge of it? I doubt that.
That said, however, my theory (one of hundreds, surely) is that Trump is afraid of something more than interference with the progress of his policies, such as they are.
During the campaign and since, he's repeatedly avowed "no relations with the Russians" in one form or another. That's hard - almost impossible - to believe, even if restricted to financial matters... which he's also disavowed with "no loans or anything" statements. Those disavowals have a familiar ring along the lines of "I've had no financial relations with those Russians!"
In other words, the Big Lie.
I don't believe it. But such financial arrangements as borrowings and "special" (i.e., borderline legal) real estate deals may very well have been entirely legal under U.S. law. U.S. citizens can have many kinds of financial dealings with citizens and institutions of other nations within fairly broad limits.
It's exposure of the Big Lie that he fears.
That said, however, my theory (one of hundreds, surely) is that Trump is afraid of something more than interference with the progress of his policies, such as they are.
During the campaign and since, he's repeatedly avowed "no relations with the Russians" in one form or another. That's hard - almost impossible - to believe, even if restricted to financial matters... which he's also disavowed with "no loans or anything" statements. Those disavowals have a familiar ring along the lines of "I've had no financial relations with those Russians!"
In other words, the Big Lie.
I don't believe it. But such financial arrangements as borrowings and "special" (i.e., borderline legal) real estate deals may very well have been entirely legal under U.S. law. U.S. citizens can have many kinds of financial dealings with citizens and institutions of other nations within fairly broad limits.
It's exposure of the Big Lie that he fears.
8
These cases build slowly; I was the Economics Correspondent for Time magazine during Watergate and was lied to more than once by people in the Nixon White House who later went to jail. (One lie was about the chairman of the Fed seeking a raise; the Journal swallowed the story, we didn't.) What is happening now may not be criminal with the exception of Gen. Flynn intruding on foreign policy with Russia as a private citizen, but it deserves the full disinfection of sunlight because as concerned citizens we can only watch pieces of skin being ripped from two centuries of America's body politic. It is worth noting that less than half of America polled ever heard of Watergate before Nixon was re-elected in a landslide. It was only after after a judge with sentencing power and elected officials with subpoenas did their work, that the criminality was exposed.
14
Excellent essay, containing valuable observations. I agree with David Brooks.
3
This is an exercise in false equivalency. Even if the original allegations in the Whitewater case had been proved, it still wouldn't have amounted to much, just a shady real estate deal - something about which our current president knows a thing or two - with zero bearing on the direction of American or even Arkansan democracy. But even if there is no evidence of direct collision between the Trump campaign and Russia - and I tend to think there won't be mainly because collusion offered no advantage to either the campaign or the Russians - the taint remains.
A foreign government interred with a national election in the US to the advantage of the winning candidate while that candidate simultaneously denied that interference and cheered it on. That in itself is well beyond anything to do with Whitewater.
A foreign government interred with a national election in the US to the advantage of the winning candidate while that candidate simultaneously denied that interference and cheered it on. That in itself is well beyond anything to do with Whitewater.
21
To everyone calling to see Mr. Trump's "tax returns", please refer instead to his "financials."
The tax returns alone will not tell us much. They will raise more questions than they will answer.
What we need to know is from which foreign entities his business have received money, what the fair market value of these transactions should have been, and to which foreign entities his businesses owe money. This information speaks directly to his potential conflicts of interest, and his disregard for the emoluments clause.
The tax returns alone will not tell us much. They will raise more questions than they will answer.
What we need to know is from which foreign entities his business have received money, what the fair market value of these transactions should have been, and to which foreign entities his businesses owe money. This information speaks directly to his potential conflicts of interest, and his disregard for the emoluments clause.
7
Interesting. So Trump has the last word because of the absence of leaks about any collusion or aiding and abetting Russian interference in our election. Why don't we simply give Special Counsel Mueller the last word. Investigations, as you know, take time and Mueller is hiring top-notch attorneys who understand the process.
12
Yes, there is no proof as yet that we know of Trump’s collusion with Russians in sabotaging the US elections. Past is often the prologue for the future behavior. Joining the dots of Trump’s (mis)deeds of the last several decades one is led to believe that Trump’s charterer is not as pure as the driven snow. Having missed the smarts and opportunity to question Trump’s unconventional behavior and fraudulent claims during the campaign, the media and the American people are challenging Trump’s every assertion with vengeance. The man had his opportunity and he availed of all the Get of the Jail passes. Given his history of quasi criminal and amoral past, the American voters cannot give him any more benefit of doubts. The Mueller investigation must reach is logical end. And nor should Republican been a given a free pass for having wasted tax payers money on the Benghazi and other so called scandals. Days are over when only Democrats can be the understanding, accommodating and compromising while Republicans party plays hardball hiding behind the fake patriotism and family values. Trump leadership is now the right metaphor for the Republican Party. Given Trump’s past he is guilty unless proven otherwise, regardless if he gets the first word or the last word.
6
As you state "there has been very little evidence that any underlying crime occurred", And what might that mean? Surely the investigation does not produce a daily update identifying all facts that have been determined to date, and whether or not any evidence has been uncovered. But hasn't the administration just recently begun to suspend briefings and Q&A, documentable by audio or video in daily press briefings? Should we therefore assume that having no concrete and reproducible evidence of governance occurring in the White House we should assume that there is none?
7
Mr. Brooks, You're right to say that the attention to the investigation of scandal distracts us from a legitimate political attack on issues. But unless you know something we don't know, you're wrong to say that there is little evidence of an underlying crime. In fact, since most of the evidence is classified, the public has not been told what evidence the special counsel or the Congressional committees have about the campaign's contacts with Russia. However, we do know that before, during, and after the course of his campaigning for Trump, Mike Flynn likely committed a number of crimes. We also know that while Paul Manafort was Trump's campaign chairman, he altered the Republican platform in Russia's favor.
7
Adopting a pro-Putin policy without offering any explanation as to why leads to valid questions about collusion.
12
Donald Trump made a few somewhat positive comments about Vladimir Putin, but he has never adopted a pro-Putin policy. There is no reason to suspect that Donald Trump has had any contacts with the Russian government, let alone colluded with it.
Russia is not a rich country, with a lot of social and economic problems and a declining population. It is not a particularly important country in the world and while not a friend of the United States, not an enemy either. The fact that so many Americans seem obsessed with Russia does remind me of the Red Scare decades ago. It's unfortunate.
Indeed, while Vladimir Putin's government has its faults, the current Russian government is the most democratic that it has had in its long history. We should be increasing our contacts with, and attempts to influence, the Russian government rather than demonizing them and anyone in our government who meets with them.
Russia is not a rich country, with a lot of social and economic problems and a declining population. It is not a particularly important country in the world and while not a friend of the United States, not an enemy either. The fact that so many Americans seem obsessed with Russia does remind me of the Red Scare decades ago. It's unfortunate.
Indeed, while Vladimir Putin's government has its faults, the current Russian government is the most democratic that it has had in its long history. We should be increasing our contacts with, and attempts to influence, the Russian government rather than demonizing them and anyone in our government who meets with them.
2
David, both the Trump and Kushner families were financially vulnerable. The facts seem to lead to a classic pay for play where they would go soft in exchange for lucrative financial arrangements. There is a reason Mueller has brought on experts in this area.
13
Mr. Brooks,
As a liberal Democrat, I largely agree with your points here. The Russian meddling in our electoral process is very serious. However, there is not yet any evidence of actual collusion by the Trump campaign. (But of course, we should allow the investigation to play out, and separate facts from innuendo.)
"But frankly, on my list of reasons Trump is unfit for the presidency, the Russia-collusion story ranks number 971, well below, for example, the perfectly legal ways he kowtows to thugs and undermines the norms of democratic behavior."
You are missing the elephant in the room: conflicts of interest. Emoluments clause. This is #1 on my list of why Mr. Trump is unfit to be president.
He has refused to properly separate his businesses from his public office. The mere appearance of a conflict of interest undermines the credibility of Mr. Trump, and of the United States.
Mr. Trump needs to choose between running his businesses and moonlighting as president.
As a liberal Democrat, I largely agree with your points here. The Russian meddling in our electoral process is very serious. However, there is not yet any evidence of actual collusion by the Trump campaign. (But of course, we should allow the investigation to play out, and separate facts from innuendo.)
"But frankly, on my list of reasons Trump is unfit for the presidency, the Russia-collusion story ranks number 971, well below, for example, the perfectly legal ways he kowtows to thugs and undermines the norms of democratic behavior."
You are missing the elephant in the room: conflicts of interest. Emoluments clause. This is #1 on my list of why Mr. Trump is unfit to be president.
He has refused to properly separate his businesses from his public office. The mere appearance of a conflict of interest undermines the credibility of Mr. Trump, and of the United States.
Mr. Trump needs to choose between running his businesses and moonlighting as president.
9
I loathe Mr. Trump but I pretty much agree with your assessment. My initial thought was that the Russians would never conspire with someone so reckless and impulsive. I keep hoping to see some signs that he's capable of learning on the job but each glimmer of growth is accompanied by another tantrum. Mr. Flynn, on the other hand, seems to have gone beyond inadvertent coziness, misrepresenting his activities and omitting obvious conflicts of interest.
6
Which is why Trump's interfering in Comey's investigation of Flynn was obstruction of justice. Trump told Comey in no uncertain terms what he wanted. It doesn't matter if it was an order or a request -- Comey took it as a suggestion and didn't do it. Trump's firing of Comey was evidence that it was an order. And firing someone for not illegally acting on your "suggestion" is obstruction.
1
I, too, thought Putin was too smart to engage with an idiot in a red cap as an equal, until I read in these pages recently that Putin is a whole lot like trump!
However, I am sure said idiot could have been easily duped, as he has duped his masses. I am also sure he was not smart enough to instigate the "Russian thing"....one of his minions did it for him, most likely without his knowledge. Mueller may find out who it was, but my guess is it won't be trump.
Meantime, let the whole bunch of them rack up legal bills until it hurts! Bigly!
However, I am sure said idiot could have been easily duped, as he has duped his masses. I am also sure he was not smart enough to instigate the "Russian thing"....one of his minions did it for him, most likely without his knowledge. Mueller may find out who it was, but my guess is it won't be trump.
Meantime, let the whole bunch of them rack up legal bills until it hurts! Bigly!
1
You have lost sight of the main thing: Russian invasion of our election! The possibility that Trump's associates were involved is secondary.
Your apparent need for absolution in aiding and abetting the hysteria over Whitewater has affected your perception, Mr Brooks.
Let's do get carried away with that.
Your apparent need for absolution in aiding and abetting the hysteria over Whitewater has affected your perception, Mr Brooks.
Let's do get carried away with that.
14
Let's not blur the timeline here - Trump's Twitter-storming, and his close associates lying about meeting with Russians, did not occur in defense against a special prosecutor, they were the actions that demonstrated the need for one. And the thing that causes people to worry about possible collusion is not Trump's disturbing pro-Russian stance, it's that he denies the conclusions of all the nation's intelligence agencies that Russian attempted to interfere in our election, and the certainty that they will try to do so again. It is his job to protect us from this sort of thing, and he is refusing to take it seriously and indeed, is throwing out roadblocks. As citizens, we deserve to know why. And if he is not going to protect us, we need to get a president who will.
17
Here here!
Thank you David for making sense. For a Times columnist it was a valiant act, and I hope you keep your job. But from the comments here I see it was futile to try to appeal to reason. The D base and the R base have gone to opposite extremes and are equally hysterical. Unless a new party can break through the institutional barriers it is goodbye USA. Our best hope now is probably to deconstruct the thing and go back to independent States.
7
You make a lot of good points, Mr. Brooks.
But I blame the Republicans.
You remember how Mr. Newt Gingrich enriched and enlivened political discourse in our fair land. You remember the sixty some eulogistic nouns and adejectives he taught his Republicans to use. "Principled," "stalwart", "American". The list goes on and on.
And the Democrats got equal time. They too came in for sixty some dyslogistic nouns and adjectives--"crooked", "corrupt", "bureaucratic", "un-American"--oh! THAT list too goes on and on.
So, Mr. Brooks--and I know YOU remember all this--the real nastiness, the venom, the toxicity entered American politics. Oh! we could be nasty enough before. I know. . . .I know. . .
But with Mr. Gingrich first and then with his adoring acolytes--"Oh teach us! teach us! Teach us HOW TO TALK LIKE NEWT!"--the venom, the toxicity was intensified. We got hatred on steroids. Opprobrious names, opprobrious epithets were flung about. Democrats were--and I hate the word but what else is there?--Democrats were DEMONIZED. They became traitors. Scum of the earth. Unworthy to be called Americans. Unworthy to be called even honest or honorable men and women.
Hence all that birther nonsense about Mr. Obama. Unworthy to be CALLED an American? Hey, fellas! He AIN'T an American. Et voila tout.
Mr. Brooks, I would love to hear a loud mea culpa--mea maxima culpa from the Republican party.
But--I'm not holding my breath.
But I blame the Republicans.
You remember how Mr. Newt Gingrich enriched and enlivened political discourse in our fair land. You remember the sixty some eulogistic nouns and adejectives he taught his Republicans to use. "Principled," "stalwart", "American". The list goes on and on.
And the Democrats got equal time. They too came in for sixty some dyslogistic nouns and adjectives--"crooked", "corrupt", "bureaucratic", "un-American"--oh! THAT list too goes on and on.
So, Mr. Brooks--and I know YOU remember all this--the real nastiness, the venom, the toxicity entered American politics. Oh! we could be nasty enough before. I know. . . .I know. . .
But with Mr. Gingrich first and then with his adoring acolytes--"Oh teach us! teach us! Teach us HOW TO TALK LIKE NEWT!"--the venom, the toxicity was intensified. We got hatred on steroids. Opprobrious names, opprobrious epithets were flung about. Democrats were--and I hate the word but what else is there?--Democrats were DEMONIZED. They became traitors. Scum of the earth. Unworthy to be called Americans. Unworthy to be called even honest or honorable men and women.
Hence all that birther nonsense about Mr. Obama. Unworthy to be CALLED an American? Hey, fellas! He AIN'T an American. Et voila tout.
Mr. Brooks, I would love to hear a loud mea culpa--mea maxima culpa from the Republican party.
But--I'm not holding my breath.
20
Brooks, you are correct regarding how the "politics of scandal," can cleave a society and a body politc...all the more reason to vote out the GOP as they are and have been the party of scandalizing and delegitimizing their opponents for more than twenty years. Pedaling scandal and fake news (even before the term was coined) has become the stock and trade of the Party and the right-wing media that, even more than the party itself, motivates GOP voters.
I'll grant you that we should be fact-based and wait for the proof and avoid hyperbole in the moment. However, the real tragedy here isn't whether Russia has breached in the inner sanctum, it is how we, under Trump, seem to be morphing into something more Russian, obliterating norms of behavior long accepted in American democracy and political behavior.
To reach this point, Russia (if their intention in meddling was to disrupt America and open a door to challenge our stability) did not need collusion or treason, they needed only - given their familiarity with him - to have Trump's ignorant, incompetent, egotistical presence in the White House.
It will take a very long time for America to recover, if it ever can, from the GOP scandal-mongering, voter-confusing, schism- producing, institution-bashing strategies of the GOP and the political right that culminated in Trump.
Russia has done nothing close to the damage wrought by these forms of collusion and only voters can solve that problem.
I'll grant you that we should be fact-based and wait for the proof and avoid hyperbole in the moment. However, the real tragedy here isn't whether Russia has breached in the inner sanctum, it is how we, under Trump, seem to be morphing into something more Russian, obliterating norms of behavior long accepted in American democracy and political behavior.
To reach this point, Russia (if their intention in meddling was to disrupt America and open a door to challenge our stability) did not need collusion or treason, they needed only - given their familiarity with him - to have Trump's ignorant, incompetent, egotistical presence in the White House.
It will take a very long time for America to recover, if it ever can, from the GOP scandal-mongering, voter-confusing, schism- producing, institution-bashing strategies of the GOP and the political right that culminated in Trump.
Russia has done nothing close to the damage wrought by these forms of collusion and only voters can solve that problem.
7
Why is David Brooks so keen on making the point that there isn't definite evidence of collusion? The investigation is barely a month old. We have no idea yet. This argument reflects a serious lapse in judgment by a generally thoughtful, moderate conservative. I'm very disappointed to hear him make this shallow, impatient argument. Then again, he did support and even champion the decision to evade Iraq -- so this is hardly the first time his thinking seems misguided.
13
"In democracy, the issues count, and you try to win by persuasion. You recognize that your opponents are legitimate, that they will always be there and that some form of compromise is inevitable."
It's amazing how R's always remember such lofty words of wisdom when it's their guy in the white house.
"The politics of scandal is delightful for cable news. It’s hard to build ratings arguing about health insurance legislation. But it’s easy to build ratings if you are a glorified Court TV, if each whiff of scandal smoke generates hours of “Breaking News” intensity and a deluge of speculation from good-looking former prosecutors."
I'm guessing "glorified Court TV" is code for FOX News but the 'good-looking' part is throwing me off.
It's amazing how R's always remember such lofty words of wisdom when it's their guy in the white house.
"The politics of scandal is delightful for cable news. It’s hard to build ratings arguing about health insurance legislation. But it’s easy to build ratings if you are a glorified Court TV, if each whiff of scandal smoke generates hours of “Breaking News” intensity and a deluge of speculation from good-looking former prosecutors."
I'm guessing "glorified Court TV" is code for FOX News but the 'good-looking' part is throwing me off.
5
mr brooks,
nice of you to couch your own hypocrisy in the context of a learned lesson. you admit stoking the flames of whitewater and are now damping the flames of russiaGate wondering how long this lesson will be "learned". until the next democratic administration? your characterization of the independent prosecutor's investigation seems so loaded as to call into question your new found objectivity. I for one believe that the special prosecutor has been charged with investigating whether there was criminal activity, not "look[ing] under any related or unrelated rock in an attempt to bring him [Trump] down"
nice of you to couch your own hypocrisy in the context of a learned lesson. you admit stoking the flames of whitewater and are now damping the flames of russiaGate wondering how long this lesson will be "learned". until the next democratic administration? your characterization of the independent prosecutor's investigation seems so loaded as to call into question your new found objectivity. I for one believe that the special prosecutor has been charged with investigating whether there was criminal activity, not "look[ing] under any related or unrelated rock in an attempt to bring him [Trump] down"
17
Donald Trump, of all people, should know to take the Russian accusations seriously, but not literally. Few Americans believe he was actually colluding with them on a plan to influence the outcome of the election. Many more likely believe he and his campaign were recklessly open with the Russians, broadly and aggressively courting them in their own self interest, not the nation's. If the President is ultimately cleared of collusion but judged to have abused power or obstructed justice in the course of the resulting investigation, he will claim, as your piece suggests, that he was somehow entrapped by the investigation itself. What he will fail to understand is that his conduct in the investigation, and his conduct managing his relationships with the Russians during the campaign, were wrong in exactly the same way.
6
Trumpgate is merely a symptom of Russian influence over the 2016 election, that did in fact have a devastating impact on America.
The Russians fumbled their way into placing a historically incompetent individual in the Oval Office.
The collaborating Republicans who empowered this troubled president now realize that if America is not told the truth, Republicans might own the three branches of government for quite some time.
The Russians fumbled their way into placing a historically incompetent individual in the Oval Office.
The collaborating Republicans who empowered this troubled president now realize that if America is not told the truth, Republicans might own the three branches of government for quite some time.
7
This is a very sober view, Mr. Brooks, and there are certainly points worth considering. Here are a couple of others:
My understanding is that the broader investigation is not exclusively (or even mainly) about collusion between Trump the individual and Russia. It is, I believe, about further exploring the extent and impact of known Russian interference of our election. I think answering these questions is essential.
Presumably the next question being asked in this investigation is WHY the Russians interfered. It might be entirely internally motivated. But the Trump / Putin bromance is unusual and it is worth questioning whether (a) Mr. Trump or those close to him have undisclosed financial interests in Russia and (b) whether any of those people actively abetted the known election interference. Many in this administration are self-proclaimed deal makers after all.
Trump the man is being investigated for obstruction of justice. The good news is that making a case for obstruction requires the prosecutor to show intent, so Mr. Trump is well-protected from a "witch hunt."
From many years of observation, we know that Mr. Trump is driven by profiteering, self promotion and cronyism. Given that character, it seems highly reasonable for there to be questions about the highly-unusual circumstances surrounding this whole affair.
My understanding is that the broader investigation is not exclusively (or even mainly) about collusion between Trump the individual and Russia. It is, I believe, about further exploring the extent and impact of known Russian interference of our election. I think answering these questions is essential.
Presumably the next question being asked in this investigation is WHY the Russians interfered. It might be entirely internally motivated. But the Trump / Putin bromance is unusual and it is worth questioning whether (a) Mr. Trump or those close to him have undisclosed financial interests in Russia and (b) whether any of those people actively abetted the known election interference. Many in this administration are self-proclaimed deal makers after all.
Trump the man is being investigated for obstruction of justice. The good news is that making a case for obstruction requires the prosecutor to show intent, so Mr. Trump is well-protected from a "witch hunt."
From many years of observation, we know that Mr. Trump is driven by profiteering, self promotion and cronyism. Given that character, it seems highly reasonable for there to be questions about the highly-unusual circumstances surrounding this whole affair.
11
How did they interfere in the election? It seems to me, they interfered in the Democratic Primary?
1
Without in any way condoning Russian interference in our election (but also, let's not be naive about it – nations, including ours, do this to one another all the time), let's remind ourselves of just what they did: they made true and relevant information available to voters. Unless I'm mistaken, the emails they released were genuine. And the Times, at least, thought they were relevant, since it wrote about them. If an American had released this information, it presumably would have had the same effect on the outcome, whatever that effect was.
2
On only one of the major issues being investigated, a direct collusion of the Trump campaign and Russia, is it even vaguely possible to say that Whitewater was "more substantive". While there are several disturbing pieces of evidence that need further investigation, active treason is certainly the charge with the least evidence.
But there IS substantial evidence of Russian interference in the election. And there is substantial evidence that Trump personally sought to obstruct the investigation. Sadly I find it all too plausible that Trump might do something like this just to be able to maintain full bragging rights for winning.
It is still obstruction even if done just to sooth his ego, and the investigation being obstructed seems essential to protecting the basic machinery of democracy.
It might not serve the public interest for Trump's obstruction to end in impeachment. But he should acknowledge the limits of his office and apologize. And the investigation(s) should go forward.
But there IS substantial evidence of Russian interference in the election. And there is substantial evidence that Trump personally sought to obstruct the investigation. Sadly I find it all too plausible that Trump might do something like this just to be able to maintain full bragging rights for winning.
It is still obstruction even if done just to sooth his ego, and the investigation being obstructed seems essential to protecting the basic machinery of democracy.
It might not serve the public interest for Trump's obstruction to end in impeachment. But he should acknowledge the limits of his office and apologize. And the investigation(s) should go forward.
7
Absolutely! Even evidence that the Trump campaign alerted the Russians as to the most effective targeting of their fake social media campaign is important knowledge to have as we work toward trying to avoid future outside interference in our elections.
3
Let me understand this correctly Mr. Brooks. You are unconcerned about a connection between Trump and Russia via his aides? Have you forgotten that Trump invited the Russians to hack our election and they did? Putin has escaped any insults from Trump and Trump "kowtows" to him. Have you asked yourself why Trump "kowtows" to him? Putin is a dangerous thug and our relationship with Russia is not one based on mutual trust.
You slid past Comey being fired as if it were a casual mistake on Trump's part. He fired the man because he would not pledge loyalty to him and because he refused to stop the investigation of Flynn's connection to Russia. Trump made it clear to Comey his job was on the line. That is the same thing as intimidating a witness and why in the eyes of many the act of firing Comey rose to obstruction of justice.
Whitewater was not about treason, this is, and why it is not just something that should be relegated to a gossipy non-story. The Russians threatened our very democracy when they interfered with our election. I for one would like to know why so many Trump aides including the now AG denied contact with Russian officials and what was discussed at clandestine meetings between Trump's aides and those officials.
I trust Mueller to be fair, and thorough. Not all the facts are known to the public at this time about his investigation, and I am surprised at you Mr. Brooks for deciding there is nothing to this story. Based on what?
You slid past Comey being fired as if it were a casual mistake on Trump's part. He fired the man because he would not pledge loyalty to him and because he refused to stop the investigation of Flynn's connection to Russia. Trump made it clear to Comey his job was on the line. That is the same thing as intimidating a witness and why in the eyes of many the act of firing Comey rose to obstruction of justice.
Whitewater was not about treason, this is, and why it is not just something that should be relegated to a gossipy non-story. The Russians threatened our very democracy when they interfered with our election. I for one would like to know why so many Trump aides including the now AG denied contact with Russian officials and what was discussed at clandestine meetings between Trump's aides and those officials.
I trust Mueller to be fair, and thorough. Not all the facts are known to the public at this time about his investigation, and I am surprised at you Mr. Brooks for deciding there is nothing to this story. Based on what?
19
With the palpable fear that his buddy was facing charges for lying to the FBI, our Prez tried to cut through the thicket by demanding loyalty and urging Director Comey to demonstrate such loyalty by pulling the plug on the Flynn case. No matter that we now know that Flynn was an unregistered foreign agent several times over, and arguably treasonously so, because line-officers can be recalled to duty.
And so what if demanding loyalty from Comey and politicization of the FBI amount to abuse of power? Who really should care? The R's seem to be unfazed.
And so what if demanding loyalty from Comey and politicization of the FBI amount to abuse of power? Who really should care? The R's seem to be unfazed.
6
Brooks is certainly unconcerned about that. What kind of ethical man could possibly be trying to legitimize Trump's attempt to shut down an investigation before he was complete?
If Trump provokes the very scandals he's now defending himself from, let' not give him the "last word". Maybe give it to our cultural tendency to voyeurism, what fuels both the Trump scandal presenters and the endless causes of scandal--endless because he's endlessly immoral and provocative of tittilation. I seem have heard Mr. Brooks before on this subject and don't think he'd disagree.
1
Mr. Brooks,
Unfortunately for all concerned and despite Mr. Sekulow's illogical reasoning (Trump is under investigation but Trump is not under investigation) this is a serious matter.
First, the Clintons could not fire the Whitewater investigator, Ken Starr. Secondly, comparing an investigation of allegedly shady Arkansas land business dealings with that of Russian collusion that affected the votes of millions and undermines the very foundation of our democracy is frankly bizarre. Just ask Nixon how firing the investigator Archibald Cox turned out, for that is the real metric for Trump.
Finally, just because Mr. Jay Sekulow is an attorney who is so arrogant to believe that overnight he too can become a criminal lawyer illuminates the one truism, he has a fool for a client, or that's the only caliber of legal assistance willing to work for Trump. After all, when Trump loses, and he will, invariably he will sue Sekulow for malpractice---how fitting.
Unfortunately for all concerned and despite Mr. Sekulow's illogical reasoning (Trump is under investigation but Trump is not under investigation) this is a serious matter.
First, the Clintons could not fire the Whitewater investigator, Ken Starr. Secondly, comparing an investigation of allegedly shady Arkansas land business dealings with that of Russian collusion that affected the votes of millions and undermines the very foundation of our democracy is frankly bizarre. Just ask Nixon how firing the investigator Archibald Cox turned out, for that is the real metric for Trump.
Finally, just because Mr. Jay Sekulow is an attorney who is so arrogant to believe that overnight he too can become a criminal lawyer illuminates the one truism, he has a fool for a client, or that's the only caliber of legal assistance willing to work for Trump. After all, when Trump loses, and he will, invariably he will sue Sekulow for malpractice---how fitting.
7
Dear Mr. Brooks
First, let me applaud your ability to imply that even President Lincoln would have acted out Trump-style if he'd faced similar circumstances. Lincoln and Trump in the same sentence...Bravo'
I find it interesting that NOW you feel the need to lament the "scandal culture". Now...not during Whitewater (what was the big revelation from that investigation....that Bill Clinton was a horn dog? Gee that's news). Not during the Benghazi charades (how much money spent on that?). Not during the email server nonsense (I mean why bother securing data when the president is going to just tell the Russians secret info directly, right? No...now. Now that the imbecile that your party nominated, that your party enables, is drowning in disasters caused by his own incompetence and idiocy, now it's time to decry the national fixation on scandal. You don't get to hold open Pandora's Box while it benefits you and your side, the shed crocodile tears once the monster you helped nurture turns on you. That's just...how should I describe it...SAD!
First, let me applaud your ability to imply that even President Lincoln would have acted out Trump-style if he'd faced similar circumstances. Lincoln and Trump in the same sentence...Bravo'
I find it interesting that NOW you feel the need to lament the "scandal culture". Now...not during Whitewater (what was the big revelation from that investigation....that Bill Clinton was a horn dog? Gee that's news). Not during the Benghazi charades (how much money spent on that?). Not during the email server nonsense (I mean why bother securing data when the president is going to just tell the Russians secret info directly, right? No...now. Now that the imbecile that your party nominated, that your party enables, is drowning in disasters caused by his own incompetence and idiocy, now it's time to decry the national fixation on scandal. You don't get to hold open Pandora's Box while it benefits you and your side, the shed crocodile tears once the monster you helped nurture turns on you. That's just...how should I describe it...SAD!
18
Similarly, Barack Obama rose peddling the politics of scandal — oblivious to policy, spreading insane pronouncements about keeping your health insurance and doctor and other things — so maybe it’s just that he gets swallowed by it. But frankly, on my list of reasons Obama was unfit for the presidency, the Obamacare lie story ranks number 971, well below, for example, the perfectly illegal way he sicced the IRS on his opponents which was by far worse than anything Nixon ever did, much less Trump.
1
Common David, what did you think was going to happen. Scandal or policy it doesn't matter. They are both part of the job description, and Trump isn't up to anything the DC circus throws at him. If Hilary had won, w/ a majority in opposition, there would have been countless investigations, of Benghazi, the email, the FBI, the Foundation, to name a few. She would have been much better equipped to deal w/ them, having been down that road before. No one made Trump run, this is what he signed up for, even if the dope didn't realize it.
3
David, how many times in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has any campaign for president had so many contacts (unreported and lied about to Congress or vetters) with Russia? Manafort, Carter Paige, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Jeff Sessions....there's about seven of them I think. Rather high coincidence, don't you think? How many Russian oligarchs did his campaign have contact with? He won't release his tax returns and there is a reason for that. If he was proud of it, he'd release it in a nanosecond to prove what a great businessman he is (which he's not). He won't release them. Why not?
The Russians hacked our election. Maybe no votes were changed, or voter registrations changed this time but that might not be the case in 2018 or 2020. And how interested in it is Trump? Zero interest. A cyberattack that reached into our country and he has zero interest. Why not? Because Putin owns him, that's why not.
Who will loan Trump money? Nobody....except the Russians. Let's see those tax returns, Trump.
Trump is an existential threat to America, the enemy within. I want him stopped. Let him remain president. But stop him in his tracks from taking this country down.
Trump is making this country sick. As sick as he is. It's like living with a domestic abuser.
The Russians hacked our election. Maybe no votes were changed, or voter registrations changed this time but that might not be the case in 2018 or 2020. And how interested in it is Trump? Zero interest. A cyberattack that reached into our country and he has zero interest. Why not? Because Putin owns him, that's why not.
Who will loan Trump money? Nobody....except the Russians. Let's see those tax returns, Trump.
Trump is an existential threat to America, the enemy within. I want him stopped. Let him remain president. But stop him in his tracks from taking this country down.
Trump is making this country sick. As sick as he is. It's like living with a domestic abuser.
10
Wow. This has got to be one of the weirdest pieces I have ever read in the NYT. Is David Brooks actually saying that trump's actions are normal for someone falsely accused? Tweeting about tapes, firing the FBI Director, having Russians in his office the day after he fired Comey, calling Comey a nut job; well the list is endless. None of this is normal and is more indicative of someone hiding something.
15
I am also sick of the politics of scandal which seeks to obliterate your adversary rather than engage them in policy discussions. And I am with you David until you suggest "they made up a phony collusion". The Trump team's own behavior and omissions created the appearance of collusion. All I really want to know is what happened, and I don't understand why Trump is making it so difficult to find out.
6
"I am also sick of the politics of scandal which seeks to obliterate your adversary rather than engage them in policy discussions."...So lets have a discussion about healthcare. You know, some public hearings, advise from experts, maybe a CBO report.
This administration, and in particular Trump himself, seem to be telling the American people that their government is none of their business. It is the oddest, most unAmerican thing any of us have ever experienced. Wheather or not Trump is a literal traitor, he is certainly a megalomaniac. Of course he admires Putin and Kim Jung Il. And he knows, perhaps on an instinctual level, that our confusion and yours, Mr. Brooks, are the best weapons a brute can employ against a well-meaning believer in democracy.
In reading the comments, it seems that people missed the entire point of the article, which is that all the hype, while enticing, is focused on destroying the opposition rather than discussing issues in rational terms and doing what's best for the country.
Another point made by Brooks and missed by all the NYTimes picks (what is the criteria for these picks anyway?) is that the media is peddling outrage and then telling us that everyone is outraged. This is false. There's great noble people on both sides of the aisle who refuse to be manipulated by the hype, who are incredibly decent and smart.
The most worrisome thing about the whole Trump/Russia thing is that Russia has disrupted our whole government and society mostly because our free press sells hype and we buy it. I mean, people are talking about this being the second Civil War! In addition to that we all look quite stupid and biased because for the most part Trump supporters think the story is a conspiracy while Hillary supporters think Mueller will unearth the truth. We can all continue buying reporters' speculations on Trump/Russia and getting the news outlets rich, but there's one thing I can say for certain: about half the country will be wrong about this thing. I don't know about you, but I am sick of being manipulated by a dishonest and corrupt media.
Another point made by Brooks and missed by all the NYTimes picks (what is the criteria for these picks anyway?) is that the media is peddling outrage and then telling us that everyone is outraged. This is false. There's great noble people on both sides of the aisle who refuse to be manipulated by the hype, who are incredibly decent and smart.
The most worrisome thing about the whole Trump/Russia thing is that Russia has disrupted our whole government and society mostly because our free press sells hype and we buy it. I mean, people are talking about this being the second Civil War! In addition to that we all look quite stupid and biased because for the most part Trump supporters think the story is a conspiracy while Hillary supporters think Mueller will unearth the truth. We can all continue buying reporters' speculations on Trump/Russia and getting the news outlets rich, but there's one thing I can say for certain: about half the country will be wrong about this thing. I don't know about you, but I am sick of being manipulated by a dishonest and corrupt media.
2
Who are these great and noble Republicans of whom you speak? Why are they silent in the face of such continued disgrace?
1
Finally a reasonable column from Brooks. Keep it up and maybe I can put you back in the Conservative Columnist category for the N Y Times. It was quite refreshing to find a logical column in today's Opinion Section!
3
Better get a tongue swab for e-coli.
I neither like nor support the guy we elected president and I, too, was quite alive and 'with it' during the while Watergate debacle. I did not understand a lot of what I read and saw and probably still do not.
Of this, however, I am sure. The person occupying the Oval Office is neither crafty, sinister, nor smart enough to plan some of the things "we" think he did...or that we REALLY want him to have done.
He is a real estate developer, plain and simple. He did not really want the job he won and was totally shocked when he did win. He is totally incompetent and has no idea what to do as the head of the Executive Branch or how to appoint competent advisors; a *wedding planner* as the head of one of HID's divisions? Seriously? He only loves his family.
This guy is selfish and self-absorbed with the patience and self-confidence of an 8-year old. He's not smart enough to do what the liberals want him to have done.
Of this, however, I am sure. The person occupying the Oval Office is neither crafty, sinister, nor smart enough to plan some of the things "we" think he did...or that we REALLY want him to have done.
He is a real estate developer, plain and simple. He did not really want the job he won and was totally shocked when he did win. He is totally incompetent and has no idea what to do as the head of the Executive Branch or how to appoint competent advisors; a *wedding planner* as the head of one of HID's divisions? Seriously? He only loves his family.
This guy is selfish and self-absorbed with the patience and self-confidence of an 8-year old. He's not smart enough to do what the liberals want him to have done.
4
What? There was no Trump-Russia collusion, but for the fact that the Trump campaign was consistently pro-Putin? That is collusion! Putin was and is a criminal and a murderer. He has had enemies murdered in the US. How could any US candidate have been even neutral about that pig, let alone risibly hagiographic, as Trump was. Putin hated Clinton, and vice versa. If Trump did nothing but stand back and benefit from the serendipitous bounty of the Russian hacking, that too is collusion. Continuing to stubbornly deny that hacking even occurred is collusion. Come on people. Wake up and smell what's in the samovar. It's Russian coffee with just a hint of polonium.
4
What is Mueller has already moved on to investigating one of your reasons 1-970 why Trump is unfit for the presidency?
Your last sentence: And if it is the last word, it'll be the first time the trump ever told an actual truth. He'll probably choke on it.
2
What is the real Con here, because there's always a Con as far as the ruthless RepubliCon party's concerned. Is the master of the Con, Don The Con keeping our eyes on his twirling tweets while he builds his plutocratic dictatorship? That would be just fine with the nasty party. After all, Paul Ryan did complain about having to deal with another party. And now, the Con artists are free to sell any lie they want with their legion of alternative fact makers. All hail the CON.
1
Oh, David, David, David. He praises putin. He hires operatives with deep Russian ties. He denies Russian hacking. He denigrates our intelligence services. He fires investigators innapropriately. If the fire department doesn't show up when there is that much smoke, you need a new fire department.
5
If you add up all of the Russian meetings, the fact that they were not disclosed and/or lied about (under penalty of perjury), Trump's sons' admission that Russians made up a disproportionate amount of their business, the fact that Russia mysteriously hit the jackpot in their targeting of political markets with their propaganda (somehow without any help), Nigel Farage meeting with Assange and then immediately getting amnesia, etc, etc, etc...the improbability of no collusion is astounding. The question of whether or not it will be definitively found is another question.
4
I think Trump was the worst candidate ever put forward by a major party in the history of the Republic, but I find it very hard to believe he colluded with the Russians. I agree also that things have gone meta. The nation is expending a gigantic amount of sound and fury and energy over very little. This is a disease that began on the Right, with Whitewater and the seemingly endless Benghazi and email server investigations and the multiple wild accusations leveled by Trump. But it has now spread to the Left.
3
Why do you find it hard to believe? By 2004, Trump and his businesses had taken hit after hit, going bankrupt, defaulting on loans, etc, to the point that US banks would not loan to him. Coincidentally at that moment oligarchs in Moscow were desperate to find means of laundering the money that they were plundering by the ship-load from the Russian people. The two forces met, a match made in heaven. The Russian cash kept Trump happy, and the subjective nature of high end NY property values kept the oligarchs happy. The international economic disaster of 2008 was merely more spur to that horse.
There are some long responses in the comments.
I am not going to go into the weeds. I am just going put it simply:
There hasn't been a lot outright evidence but there also has been a lot of silence, inexplicable behaviors and unexplained but improbable circumstances that remain to be explored. It is this shady character of the whole thing that sticks out.
I am not going to go into the weeds. I am just going put it simply:
There hasn't been a lot outright evidence but there also has been a lot of silence, inexplicable behaviors and unexplained but improbable circumstances that remain to be explored. It is this shady character of the whole thing that sticks out.
6
But the smoke, the smoke, we're suffocating in smoke. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see whether there's a fire. The scandal is the result of the smoke. Trump and his people made the smoke, so it's only natural that they should suffer the scandal that follows. Even if Trump's campaign didn't collude with the Russians, the scandal would be just punishment for Trump's support for Putin and his campaign's inappropriate contacts with the Russians. And his inappropriate relationship with Russian has continued after becoming president. As McCain said, Lavrov and Kislyak had no business being in the Oval Office after Russia attacked our country. It's of course also possible that there was collusion but we won't be able to prove it.
I would rather Trump went down for collusion than for stupid obstruction of justice, but the obstruction of justice is still a reflection of his personality, and his personality is the source of all that's wrong with what he's doing. We must take what we can get, and if obstruction is all we can get, so be it.
I would rather Trump went down for collusion than for stupid obstruction of justice, but the obstruction of justice is still a reflection of his personality, and his personality is the source of all that's wrong with what he's doing. We must take what we can get, and if obstruction is all we can get, so be it.
1
Hey Brooks,
Put on your patience hat. Remember Benghazi? Didn't want to rush that investigation now did we. It was so important for so many years that it resulted in.........who knows? Remember Whitewater? You certainly didn't want to rush that investigation, now did you? It's not the politics of scandal that bother you David, it's when the scandal involves a republican being hunted that you get all high and mighty about democracy being at risk.
Let it run its course. The most unprepared, inexperienced, amoral man to ever deface the White House is under investigation. He has shown NO interest nor even feigned curiosity about the unanimous findings of the 17 US intelligence agencies: Russia interfered and swayed our election. You could avoid being a partisan hack and ask a more important question: Russia waged war on the US, why doesn't your master care?
Put on your patience hat. Remember Benghazi? Didn't want to rush that investigation now did we. It was so important for so many years that it resulted in.........who knows? Remember Whitewater? You certainly didn't want to rush that investigation, now did you? It's not the politics of scandal that bother you David, it's when the scandal involves a republican being hunted that you get all high and mighty about democracy being at risk.
Let it run its course. The most unprepared, inexperienced, amoral man to ever deface the White House is under investigation. He has shown NO interest nor even feigned curiosity about the unanimous findings of the 17 US intelligence agencies: Russia interfered and swayed our election. You could avoid being a partisan hack and ask a more important question: Russia waged war on the US, why doesn't your master care?
10
this is simply a stupid op-ed. i remember the whitewater investigation and, for me, it seemed a partisan game that went nowhere. to even compare that to the russian involvement into the 2016 election which seemed so obvious last year and trump's even current denial of it is appalling. trump's associates did have financial ties to russian oligarchs and to not see a problem here is to have your face buried in the sand. i watched the members of the agencies that refused to answer some very basic questions involving trump's wanting to squash the fbi probe and i watched sessions also continually weasel his way out of answering questions that he didn't want to answer. so, brooks ' comparison is dead wrong. everyone should be as made as hell about this election probe and, though thankfully not a lawyer, i see trump did, without a doubt, obstruct justice in the probe. the only surety here is that 1) the russians did have an unprecedented involvement in damaging our last election and 2) trump has, and will always be, an outrageously egomaniac who is also a pathological liar.
5
“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
That's Pumpkinhead just a year ago, long before Sessions lied to Congress, Flynn lied to everyone, Pumpkinhead fired Comey and then bragged about it to Russian officials at a meeting where the American press was banned. Golly, I wonder where people get these ideas about collusion. Must just be scandal-mongers, right? Couldn't possibly be that gleeful press shills for the Republicans like yourself can't get enough of lying to the public.
Are you suggesting Robert Mueller is wasting taxpayers' time and resources? He seems to be gearing up for a major, serious investigation, and as everyone should know, it's not likely to end where it starts. Watergate started over a botched third-rate burglary. Whitewater ended up being about Kenneth Starr's wet dreams.
I imagine we will have to endure hundreds of these red-herring editorials from right-wingers throughout the investigations--yeah, there's more than one. Let's just keep our eye on the ball, shall we? The government of this country has been illegally seized by a hostile nation and its thuggish plants. Why not just say you're okay with that, instead of all the misdirection and misrepresentation of what actually has happened?
That's Pumpkinhead just a year ago, long before Sessions lied to Congress, Flynn lied to everyone, Pumpkinhead fired Comey and then bragged about it to Russian officials at a meeting where the American press was banned. Golly, I wonder where people get these ideas about collusion. Must just be scandal-mongers, right? Couldn't possibly be that gleeful press shills for the Republicans like yourself can't get enough of lying to the public.
Are you suggesting Robert Mueller is wasting taxpayers' time and resources? He seems to be gearing up for a major, serious investigation, and as everyone should know, it's not likely to end where it starts. Watergate started over a botched third-rate burglary. Whitewater ended up being about Kenneth Starr's wet dreams.
I imagine we will have to endure hundreds of these red-herring editorials from right-wingers throughout the investigations--yeah, there's more than one. Let's just keep our eye on the ball, shall we? The government of this country has been illegally seized by a hostile nation and its thuggish plants. Why not just say you're okay with that, instead of all the misdirection and misrepresentation of what actually has happened?
12
I cannot agree that potential obstruction of justice on the part of the President is "meta." If Mr. Trump was in fact trying to influence Mr. Comey by threatening to fire him, I think it is important that Mr. Trump be held to account for such behavior. United States Presidents are not dictators. We should not be cavalier about a President who takes steps in that direction.
1
How fascinating, do tell us more David. I purposely did not read your article this morning, in hopes that you would not have gone this far out there. Bill Clinton lying about a sexual affair, that did not have anything to do with Whitewater, is more serious than obstruction of justice and possible collusion with the Russian government that was known to have hacked into the election? DO tell. David, I had hoped you had turned from this kind of BS, but I fear not . Once a hack, always a hack.
7
Mark, I'm sorry to say I had the same reaction to Mr. Brooks' silly display here. I had been starting to think he was beginning to see the light!
I've yet to hear a compelling argument for why the opening of an obstruction of justice line of investigation implies the close of the collusion investigation. I'm sure Mueller and his team are quite capable of investigating more than one line of malfeasance at a time.
5
My theory is Trump is motivated by embarrassment and his businesses. My understanding from reading articles - and I can't say this for certain - is that the only banks willing to extend credit to Trump any more are Russian banks. And Russian banks - again my speculation - are in tight with the leadership of that country. If Trump does anything but kowtow they will pull credit and may even bankrupt the guy. This would also explain his reluctance to open his tax returns to us. So, collusion, no. Back channels to ensure he is behaving properly to secure his credit, yes. Some would call this blackmail. Maybe, but that is hard to prove as well. But the overriding danger Trump opens us to is a result of the incompetence of his staff and cabinet. It's a joke. If only we could take those choices to court as citizens. So, again, collusion, no. Stupidity, absolutely.
2
It doesn't matter if obstruction of justice took place relating to a "phone story." It's still obstruction of justice. But I'm confident that aiming, "a democratically unsupervised, infinitely financed team of prosecutors" at Trump will result in finding something of substance. Perhaps Starr... er... Mueller will find that Trump lied about receiving oral sex. That was enough for the partisan zealots to go after President Clinton. I'm fine with impeaching Trump over something. Anything.
3
Thank you, David, for reminding us that we should not get carried away with rumors and scandal, whether is is Whitewater, Halliburton as a favored war profiteer, Hilary Clinton's emails, Bill Clinton's definition of "sex", Bernard Goldmine's vicuña coats, Teapot-Dome, Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, Benghazi, Trump's seeming indebtedness to Putin, or Trump's financial conflicts of interest. But some exposure is important to get these scandals investigated. When scandals are just swept under the rug and hushed up, like George W. Bush's draft dodging and drug experimentation, we end up hurting our democracy by not giving the electorate the information they need to make good decisions. So we should keep in mind that it is just rumors and scandal for now, but we should relentlessly investigate.
1
My mind keeps coming back to the question of why Trump, who is certainly not known as a foreign policy wonk and likely couldn't point out Ukraine on a map before the election, insisted on only one pre convention revision - for the GOP to pull it's pledge to give Ukraine weapons to fight the Russians.
2
" But frankly, on my list of reasons Trump is unfit for the presidency, the Russia-collusion story ranks number 971, well below, for example, the perfectly legal ways he kowtows to thugs and undermines the norms of democratic behavior." You equate potential treason with incompetence in the job, as if they are one and same. I cannot see how one is greater or less than the other. One is being qualified and capable to perform the job, the other has nothing to do with it. Each is very distinct. Your twisted thought process in this column is amazing and disturbing. It's not like your usual convolution.
2
Mr Brooks just when you were starting to win me over with thoughtful views from the moderate right, you go and write this piece and lose all credibility.
By his own words and actions Trump has brought this investigation upon himself and every week seems to make things worse. As an American citizen and voter, I can only judge the situation by what people say and do. In this case it was Trump himself who said he fired Comey over the Russia investigation. What more evidence of collusion do you feel is needed for an investigation? If it were Obama or Clinton who said that, there would be torches and pitchforks in front of the Oval Office (and rightly so). If anything I feel the Dems have shown far more restraint than their GOP counterparts would. We have Whitewater and Bengazi as proof.
By his own words and actions Trump has brought this investigation upon himself and every week seems to make things worse. As an American citizen and voter, I can only judge the situation by what people say and do. In this case it was Trump himself who said he fired Comey over the Russia investigation. What more evidence of collusion do you feel is needed for an investigation? If it were Obama or Clinton who said that, there would be torches and pitchforks in front of the Oval Office (and rightly so). If anything I feel the Dems have shown far more restraint than their GOP counterparts would. We have Whitewater and Bengazi as proof.
4
This from a shill from the house of lies (Trump and his Republican enablers) who admits he hounded the Clintons over Whitewater and now admits Whitewater "seems overblown," although he made his living overblowing it. Meanwhile, Trump has already followed the parallel track of Richard Nixon, who at least was a brilliant internationalist who opened relations with China and created the Environmental Protection Agency. Trump has actively tried to influence Comey's investigation of Flynn twice and then fired Comey for the admitted reason of "the Russia thing." He tried to elicit Comey's "loyalty" and to solicit public commitments from Comey that he is not being investigated. And Trump threatened Comey (the tapes) publicly.
"Let's not get carried away?" Let's ridicule a brazenly transparent surrogate's attempt to sweep criminal behavior under the rug, to condone thuggery and to weaken the fabric of our society, built on rule of law and a three-tiered system of checks and balances. And to add insult to injury, this bloviating writer uses the well-worn ploy of false equivalents, comparing Trump with past presidents; he even offers Abraham Lincoln as grist for his sleight of hand mill. What next, will David Brooks offer to be an apologist for the Assad government? I hear Putin is hiring obfuscates.
"Let's not get carried away?" Let's ridicule a brazenly transparent surrogate's attempt to sweep criminal behavior under the rug, to condone thuggery and to weaken the fabric of our society, built on rule of law and a three-tiered system of checks and balances. And to add insult to injury, this bloviating writer uses the well-worn ploy of false equivalents, comparing Trump with past presidents; he even offers Abraham Lincoln as grist for his sleight of hand mill. What next, will David Brooks offer to be an apologist for the Assad government? I hear Putin is hiring obfuscates.
6
The President could have avoided all of this mess if he hadn't called on Russia to continue to hack his opponents email; had his surrogates not gleefully talked about something big happening the day before Wikileaks's dumped the emails; had he not hired a known surrogate of pro Putin forces as campaign manager; had he not hired Mike Flynn after being warned about him; had he fired Flynn when Sally Yates told the White House that Flynn lied to the FBI; had he not fired Yates, all the US Attorneys and Comey. I could go on and on BUT the President did what he did and has only himself to blame for the mess he's in. This may turn out to be nothing but I doubt it just based on their behavior.
2
Ironic. Whitewater was the beginning of the steady stream of outrageous lies about Hillary Clinton.
3
Whitewater did not interfere with NATIONAL SECURITY. And there was NO CASE in Whitewater. 17 Intelligence Agencies did not concern themselves with Whitewater. The GOP just spent 100 million dollars to take down Democrats and the Clintons. It was a political mess, just like Benghazi and every other stupid investigation the GOP has cooked up for the past 8 years. It's about time the GOP had to face consequences for that and I hope voters deliver resounding defeat tot he GOP in 2018. Stop minimizing.
1
"Now I confess I couldn’t follow all the actual allegations made in those essays."
Oh my God, David. You were persecuting the President of the United States and twisting the public's perceptions based on nothing but the party line?
Shouldn't there be repercussions for your irresponsible behavior?
Oh my God, David. You were persecuting the President of the United States and twisting the public's perceptions based on nothing but the party line?
Shouldn't there be repercussions for your irresponsible behavior?
6
With the german election in 4 months, already german politicians are warning Russia not to interfere with the election and David Brooks pretends "see no evil- hear no evil? Please! Only an American could be so naive.
3
David, David, David,
After all your ostensible soul searching and spiritual contemplation of life, it is shocking that you can still be so tone deaf and partisan in your ideas! First of all there is no comparison to the Whitewater issue and this Russian involvement in our election - certainly an easy conclusion to come to if thought (prayed?) about for a half second. And your attempt to try to equate this investigation to the numerous silly "bengazi's" of the Republicans is shameful in its dishonesty. If you want us to take what you have to say more seriously, start writing and speaking with a bit more thoughtful and honest analysis than exemplified in this piece.
After all your ostensible soul searching and spiritual contemplation of life, it is shocking that you can still be so tone deaf and partisan in your ideas! First of all there is no comparison to the Whitewater issue and this Russian involvement in our election - certainly an easy conclusion to come to if thought (prayed?) about for a half second. And your attempt to try to equate this investigation to the numerous silly "bengazi's" of the Republicans is shameful in its dishonesty. If you want us to take what you have to say more seriously, start writing and speaking with a bit more thoughtful and honest analysis than exemplified in this piece.
3
David, do you actually read the investigative reporting on Cypriot money-laundering banks run my the Sec. of Commerce, 60 million dollar profits on 4 million dollar houses sold by Trump to Russian oligarchs, the hacking of a Presidential election and voting apparatus in 39+ States and counting by a foreign government, reports of contact with the President's inner circle with Russian operatives by half a dozen allies through their intelligence operations, Russian oligarchs following Trump to rural NC airports in their private jets days before the election, Trump himself asking Russians to hack the DNC emails, The Trump campaign chair making millions under contract from oligarchs 'to implement strategies to promote Russian interests in America', Michael Flynn being appointed to a high level intelligence position without vetting after being directed to speak with Kisliack and others about sanctions just imposed upon Russia, Flynn's patent by foreign in felony violation of foreign payments laws...The list is endless. Mueller isn't hiring 17 experienced lawyers to get lunch for him. Every day a new admission or discovery is being made. Do you think the Special Counsel doesn't have more information than your paper? Or the two Grand Juries about to be impaneled? I say wait for their work to be done , sure, but anyone who equate this mess with Withewater is either a fool or blinded by some partisan urge to mitigate the damages. You don't seem the fool.
3
What Mr. Brooks is only half-way reasonable. Of course, it's true that no damning evidence has surfaced. But there has never been a deadline for evidence to be presented. Or did I miss that news?
I would counsel Mr. Brooks to carefully observe two things. One is the dog that didn't bark. Or to put it less mysteriously, Trump's lack of criticism of Putin.
This man, if the FBI can be trusted, approved his country's spies hacking of our government computer systems. In the last couple days, the Russia just this week threatened to shoot down U.S-lead coalition jets flying west of the Euphrates and the country's deputy foreign minister accused the administration of "collusion with terrorists."
And the always loquacious and quarrelsome Trump? Quiet as a mouse.
Perhaps the most damning evidence of the president's guilt is his angry and panicky tweets denouncing witch hunts.
Most puzzling, since no one has dragged him into a hearing room or grilled him.
If there's no there, there, why not ignore Mueller and company and just go on about the job he was hired to do?
A man clean as the driven snow would have no comment on the probe, or perhaps applaud the investigation as a healthy development, as it would clear his wrongly tarnished name.
From the get-go Whitewater transparently a shady deal with zero national security implications. And it turned out to be truly a case of no there, there.
It's laughable to compare this scandal with Whitewater.
I would counsel Mr. Brooks to carefully observe two things. One is the dog that didn't bark. Or to put it less mysteriously, Trump's lack of criticism of Putin.
This man, if the FBI can be trusted, approved his country's spies hacking of our government computer systems. In the last couple days, the Russia just this week threatened to shoot down U.S-lead coalition jets flying west of the Euphrates and the country's deputy foreign minister accused the administration of "collusion with terrorists."
And the always loquacious and quarrelsome Trump? Quiet as a mouse.
Perhaps the most damning evidence of the president's guilt is his angry and panicky tweets denouncing witch hunts.
Most puzzling, since no one has dragged him into a hearing room or grilled him.
If there's no there, there, why not ignore Mueller and company and just go on about the job he was hired to do?
A man clean as the driven snow would have no comment on the probe, or perhaps applaud the investigation as a healthy development, as it would clear his wrongly tarnished name.
From the get-go Whitewater transparently a shady deal with zero national security implications. And it turned out to be truly a case of no there, there.
It's laughable to compare this scandal with Whitewater.
2
It's easy to forget that, at the time, few believed there was much to be investigated in the Watergate hearings. However, crimes were committed. High ranking public officials were found guilty and served jail terms. These same crimes had been committed earlier when they broke into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Nixon lost his job because of the cover-up, but once he resigned, people stopped looking for more evidence. He may also have been involved in planning the original crimes.
There is a key difference between Whitewater on the one hand and Watergate and Russia/collusion on the other. The former was a never, ending Javerian investigation into a failed real estate deal which morphed into an unseemly and hypocritical prosecution about private sexual behavior. The latter two, by contrast, deal with attempts to subvert the democratic process itself -- and the current case involves a foreign power doing the subverting.
Mr. Brooks is quite right that the American people didn't particularly care about Whitewater, Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky. As Richard Nixon found out the hard way, they cared quite a bit about Watergate.
Mr. Brooks agrees that there must be an investigation into the Russian effort as a whole -- including "potential Russia-Trump links". I agree that we must not get ahead of ourselves and assume that this link exists. By the same token, let's not get ahead of ourselves and assume that it does not. Surely, there were enough contacts here to warrant a close look.
Mr. Brooks is quite right that the American people didn't particularly care about Whitewater, Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky. As Richard Nixon found out the hard way, they cared quite a bit about Watergate.
Mr. Brooks agrees that there must be an investigation into the Russian effort as a whole -- including "potential Russia-Trump links". I agree that we must not get ahead of ourselves and assume that this link exists. By the same token, let's not get ahead of ourselves and assume that it does not. Surely, there were enough contacts here to warrant a close look.
7
and at what point do you say we have had that closer look and there is nothing to see? Brooks is right, the establishment created a situation where no matter what Trump did, they would be able to claim it was unseemly and then start an investigation into it. Currently, we're investigating whether there was any obstruction of justice not for ordering an investigation to stop, but in asking if there was any reason for it to continue. Never before has a court held that you can obstruct justice by asking about an investigation. Never before has SCOTUS held that you can obstruct justice prior to an indictment being filed. So sure, let's take a look, but when that look is done and there is nothing to find, for the sake of the country, move on.
1
"There were some meetings between Trump officials and some Russians, but so far no more than you would expect from a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin."
In the America that many of us grew up in (including you, Mr. Brooks), "a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin" is a campaign that would have immediately raised some red flags (no pun intended), even before the disturbing number of hidden, and subsequently denied, contacts between the campaign and the Russians had been revealed to the public. That is, unless of course, you are a "party over country" Republican.
In the America that many of us grew up in (including you, Mr. Brooks), "a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin" is a campaign that would have immediately raised some red flags (no pun intended), even before the disturbing number of hidden, and subsequently denied, contacts between the campaign and the Russians had been revealed to the public. That is, unless of course, you are a "party over country" Republican.
12
I'm sorry, is this still Soviet Russia? Or is this a quasi-democratic Russia? Who has worse human rights record? The horrible and always our enemy Russia (except in 2012, when the 80's called and wanted their foreign policy back regarding Russia, or when Obama said "I'll have more flexibility" or really any other time Russia helped democrats) or our very good ally Saudi Arabia? Or how about our NATO ally Turkey? Do you really want to honestly say that in every fashion Russia is worse than both of these?
Sad to see that Mr. Brooks has finally descended, all the way, to the level of the cable news scandal-mongers he so sternly condemns. Ignoring all signs of impropriety, he rises to Trump's defense, by comparing the current investigation on possible collusion and obstruction of justice to the real "witch hunt" against President Clinton.
The real scandal is that a established journalist, like Mr Brooks, has joined FOXNews, Breitbart, and the likes of Alex Jones, in a relentless campaign to discredit those who dare question Trump's actions and words.
The real scandal is that a established journalist, like Mr Brooks, has joined FOXNews, Breitbart, and the likes of Alex Jones, in a relentless campaign to discredit those who dare question Trump's actions and words.
11
as opposed to all of the people who, because it is President Trump, have decided his words and actions must all be lies? As opposed to the people who have openly called for him to be impeached for the offense of not toeing the establishment line?
Funny how you say there is "a relentless campaign to discredit those who dare question Trump" but you see nothing wrong with the relentless campaign to take down a democratically elected president simply because you don't like the man.
Funny how you say there is "a relentless campaign to discredit those who dare question Trump" but you see nothing wrong with the relentless campaign to take down a democratically elected president simply because you don't like the man.
Mr. Brooks - I am offended that you can compare Whitewater and the Russian intrusion into our elective process and say there's nothing substantial against Trump when he actively continues to publicly refuse the fact that we were attacked by Russia. He calls it fake news and you're okay with that? I'm not getting carried away when I ask that we impeach him in all haste. I am simply stating a simple truth. Trump has lost the consensus to lead. You know it and so does Trump. Congress wouldn't be acting like the Chinese Politburo if it wasn't clued into Trump's poisonous taint. Ramming the AHCA through before Summer break is a Hail Mary play done by desperate men. I am not carried away when I ask, when I ask that justice be done? Am I alone to ask that it be done swiftly?
5
Isn't "collusion" just a big old McGuffin/red herring?
While collusion if proved would be terrible, who cares if there was no collusion?
Russians hacked and interfered in our election to make sure their debtor, whom they may have other leverage against besides debt, got elected.
And no one from Trump on down cares one iota about that hacking, that leverage, or the next hacking in 2018.
Isn't this terrible enough to investigate, regardless of active collusion? Once again, the cover-up is worse than the crime, and especially worse if no underlying crime was committed by any American at all! All this obstruction of justice just to prevent the airing of some very dirty laundry!
While collusion if proved would be terrible, who cares if there was no collusion?
Russians hacked and interfered in our election to make sure their debtor, whom they may have other leverage against besides debt, got elected.
And no one from Trump on down cares one iota about that hacking, that leverage, or the next hacking in 2018.
Isn't this terrible enough to investigate, regardless of active collusion? Once again, the cover-up is worse than the crime, and especially worse if no underlying crime was committed by any American at all! All this obstruction of justice just to prevent the airing of some very dirty laundry!
3
Yes, but, you assume they did it to get Trump elected, they might have did it to pay back Hillary.
"...yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington."
Back to the David Brooks we know so well. Deadpan delivery leading to risible conclusion. The voice of unreason singing in the calm tones of the voice of reason. Logical, clear writing that hangs a sudden, screetching U-turn so absurd it takes one's breath away.
I assume you read pieces other than your own, Mr. Brooks. I assume you dip a toe in the water of responsible media organizations, including your employer and the Washington Post. That you are aware that our intelligence community agrees how deeply the Russians were involved in the last presidential election (an act of war?). That Michael Flynn -- appointed NSA chief by Trump -- is likely to have committed multiple felonies. That our Attorney General lied about his Russian meetings and only corrected his lies under public pressure. That Trump fired the man running the investigation into Russia's virtual act of war, because that man refused to pledge obedience and drop the Flynn investigation. That Trump has never said a discouraging word about Putin, owes Putin's bankers huge sums, and STILL won't say if he believes the Russians hacked us. That adviser Kushner was making deals with Russian banks.
From which you conclude that Whitewater - WHITEWATER - was more "substantive" in its pretexts for investigation.
David, David, David!
Back to the David Brooks we know so well. Deadpan delivery leading to risible conclusion. The voice of unreason singing in the calm tones of the voice of reason. Logical, clear writing that hangs a sudden, screetching U-turn so absurd it takes one's breath away.
I assume you read pieces other than your own, Mr. Brooks. I assume you dip a toe in the water of responsible media organizations, including your employer and the Washington Post. That you are aware that our intelligence community agrees how deeply the Russians were involved in the last presidential election (an act of war?). That Michael Flynn -- appointed NSA chief by Trump -- is likely to have committed multiple felonies. That our Attorney General lied about his Russian meetings and only corrected his lies under public pressure. That Trump fired the man running the investigation into Russia's virtual act of war, because that man refused to pledge obedience and drop the Flynn investigation. That Trump has never said a discouraging word about Putin, owes Putin's bankers huge sums, and STILL won't say if he believes the Russians hacked us. That adviser Kushner was making deals with Russian banks.
From which you conclude that Whitewater - WHITEWATER - was more "substantive" in its pretexts for investigation.
David, David, David!
14
Much of what Brooks says must be acknowledged: the politics of scandal does not make government purer; it doesn't require engagement in persuasion and issues; it's a boon for cable news; it further "lawyerizes" American life; etc. etc. However, as he also states, Trump rose because he "peddled" it; he's the embodiment of scandal and now stands to be consumed by it. It is a just and fitting end to an utterly baseless, inherently false political career.
Indeed, Trump's entire pre-political existence was singularly corrupt, a history of buccaneering business dealings, fatuous bragadoccio, swindle, cover-ups, limitless false self-promotion, brinkmanship, daring creditors to sue, and thousands of legal battles over debts unpaid and employees cheated. He learned at his famously unprincipled father's knee, risking jail and incurring fines for racially-based housing discrimination, pathological lying at every turn and at all costs, and "punching back" 10 x harder than one's opponents no matter how justified their accusations.
And Brooks maintains Trump's critics are getting "carried away" with the "Russian witch hunt"? No, they are just warming up and the attack rests on what is already factually and independently known, or based on statements and canards from the president's own, unstoppable mouth.
"Falsas unum, falsas omnes.", warns the old Roman legal maxim. Trump cannot be believed today because his sordid past proves that he does not possess a shred of personal integrity.
Indeed, Trump's entire pre-political existence was singularly corrupt, a history of buccaneering business dealings, fatuous bragadoccio, swindle, cover-ups, limitless false self-promotion, brinkmanship, daring creditors to sue, and thousands of legal battles over debts unpaid and employees cheated. He learned at his famously unprincipled father's knee, risking jail and incurring fines for racially-based housing discrimination, pathological lying at every turn and at all costs, and "punching back" 10 x harder than one's opponents no matter how justified their accusations.
And Brooks maintains Trump's critics are getting "carried away" with the "Russian witch hunt"? No, they are just warming up and the attack rests on what is already factually and independently known, or based on statements and canards from the president's own, unstoppable mouth.
"Falsas unum, falsas omnes.", warns the old Roman legal maxim. Trump cannot be believed today because his sordid past proves that he does not possess a shred of personal integrity.
7
That's not Latin. It should be "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"
If we take a probabilistic approach and ask how likely would it be that the Trump Campaign's embrace of pro-Putin policies and Russian state-involved hacking into the Democratic Campaign and Russian penetration of American social media were parallel, but uncoordinated activities, the answer might be the frequency of the tooth fairy appearing. If nothing happened, why then are Trump and his people so desperate to quash the Special Counsel's investigation into the president's business dealings? If there's nothing to hide, why are they working so hard to create the opposite impression?
If there's anything we can say with certainty about Donald Trump, it would be the man's pervasive dishonesty and disrespect for anyone and anything that opposes his personal self-interest and self-enrichment.
The evidence is there; and take your pick, David Brooks is a naif whistling in the graveyard, or he needs to play the contrarian, if only to burnish his 'conservative' credentials.
The real template for Trump's troubles is Watergate, not the Clinton's money-losing investment in Whitewater. And Brooks can certainly discern the difference between the investigations run by the Watergate Special Prosecutor, and the later one by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh into the Iran-Contra Affair, and Kenneth Starr's pursuit of Bill Clinton. Robert Mueller's inquiry is just beginning, and already the broad outlines of likely historic prosecutions are falling into place.
If there's anything we can say with certainty about Donald Trump, it would be the man's pervasive dishonesty and disrespect for anyone and anything that opposes his personal self-interest and self-enrichment.
The evidence is there; and take your pick, David Brooks is a naif whistling in the graveyard, or he needs to play the contrarian, if only to burnish his 'conservative' credentials.
The real template for Trump's troubles is Watergate, not the Clinton's money-losing investment in Whitewater. And Brooks can certainly discern the difference between the investigations run by the Watergate Special Prosecutor, and the later one by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh into the Iran-Contra Affair, and Kenneth Starr's pursuit of Bill Clinton. Robert Mueller's inquiry is just beginning, and already the broad outlines of likely historic prosecutions are falling into place.
2
I told myself I wouldn't read your stuff again, Dave. But when I heard rumors of what the Times had seen fit to publish today, I couldn't stay away. You didn't "follow all the actual allegations made" about the Whitewater nonsense? Sure you didn't, Dave. And I'm the Archbishop of Milan.
Anyway, Dave, it was your job to follow those allegations. You were the editor. Now you are claiming incompetence? And if you were incompetent then, why should anyone believe you're anything but now?
Do everyone a favor, Dave, and just fade away. You've done more than your share of hurt to this world already.
Anyway, Dave, it was your job to follow those allegations. You were the editor. Now you are claiming incompetence? And if you were incompetent then, why should anyone believe you're anything but now?
Do everyone a favor, Dave, and just fade away. You've done more than your share of hurt to this world already.
3
If Trump is going easy on the Russians because his business empire is entangled with Russian oligarch money (and perhaps money-laundering), would this be a high crime/misdemeanor? If our elected President Trump is going easy on the Russians because he has a soft spot for people who can run a country the way he ran his business, without having to share his power with anyone else, would this also constitute a high crime/misdemeanor?
In both cases, he should not be the president. In either case, he is trashing his oath to uphold the Constitution, and that would constitute a high misdemeanor.
In both cases, he should not be the president. In either case, he is trashing his oath to uphold the Constitution, and that would constitute a high misdemeanor.
4
Brooks, as op-ed editor at the Wall Street Journal during the Whitewater investigations, in effect worked day in and day out in the war room of the conservative media's attack on the Clintons. Yet, he confesses, he "couldn’t follow all the actual allegations made in those essays."
What makes him think he can write with any credibility or authority about the merits of investigating the Trump administration's dealings with Russian government and business figures?
What makes him think he can write with any credibility or authority about the merits of investigating the Trump administration's dealings with Russian government and business figures?
7
Mr. Brooks, I do appreciate your optimism, but why waste it on Trump? The best argument I’ve seen for Trump, in the National Review, has between the lines that he is wholly incapable of being president. Speaking of a Trump presidential agenda is completely laughable, given he has taken all sides at one time or another, depending upon the audience he is patronizing at the time. Maybe collusion is 971 on the list, but I would expect 970 more improprieties with someone as pathologically dishonest as Trump.
4
Methinks that Mr. Trump doth protest too much. Where there is smoke, there is not always fire. However, Mr. Trump's obsession with tweeting defensively suggests he has something to be worried about. Whether he obstructed justice or not, Mr. Trump is too cozy with the Russians based on current events. He also is spending American money like water on his own golf game and other luxuries. This is one time I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think I am.
4
But wasn't he worried before the election? He refused to release his taxes from day one. I would think, this is what worries him --- not collusion with Russians. And I don't know what is needed to prove collusion, but he publicly stated he hoped Russia uncovered all of the missing emails. Honestly, I don't understand how one (Trump) can't go down, without the other (Clinton). She was messing in Russian elections.
Did you caution against excess and the destructiveness of "the politics of scandal" over the eleven Benghazi hearings. Not one of which found that Hillary Clinton was responsible for what happened in that remote outpost in a violent country.
And you were at the WSJ during Whitewater so I'm certain there was no cautioning there either. All scandal all the time is great when Democrats are being investigated.
It's only when it's a real scandal with real Republicans, eg, Richard Nixon (and the 40 who were indicted), Oliver North, Tom DeLay...Donald Trump...that the GOP gets concerned about wasting too much government time and money on congressional investigations. Maybe there was no collusion but if Whitewater produced Monica Lewinsky, surely Putingate can turn up Trump's tax returns.
And you were at the WSJ during Whitewater so I'm certain there was no cautioning there either. All scandal all the time is great when Democrats are being investigated.
It's only when it's a real scandal with real Republicans, eg, Richard Nixon (and the 40 who were indicted), Oliver North, Tom DeLay...Donald Trump...that the GOP gets concerned about wasting too much government time and money on congressional investigations. Maybe there was no collusion but if Whitewater produced Monica Lewinsky, surely Putingate can turn up Trump's tax returns.
6
Mr. Brooks, I greatly respect your penchant for reminding us that, though we seem only to want black or white, mostly there is only gray. I get it, nobody's all bad, there isn't always a scandal. But here's the thing: Actual scandal is everywhere. Slavery itself was (and is still) a scandal ... as is the ongoing subjugation of women, the guilt-free killing of black men by uniformed officers, the massive shaping of laws and political power that happens purely because of money, the hatred of muslim people whose true faith embraces peace, the loss of education, respect for science, and wisdom that has become the legacy left to our American children ... and on and on. It's not the "scandal" of Trump that we, the regular people in America, care about, Mr. Brooks. It's the way we continue to be blatantly used by forces fed to bursting on hubris, money and power. (Just so you know.)
5
Sorry David, you've been drinking the Kool Aid again. This isn't a botched real estate deal in Arkansas. This is an enemy attempting to influence our presidential election. This is a rapacious real estate operator who has bullied and bribed for 50 years acting as a coconspirator in this enemy effort, along with Roger, Mike,and Jeff and an ever growing cast. This is money laundering on a grand scale, with possibly the dirtiest of money. There has not been a "9 month" investigation, but up until Mueller several hamstrung ones, remember Devin Nunes? Let's let a grand jury with experienced, tough prosecutors get the evidence and see what we have. I investigated white collar crime for 35 years at the federal level and this would be the case of a lifetime. And the harm of electing a corrupt, unstable Russian puppet cannot be understated. To go along with the absolutely corrupt leadership in Congress. Heath care anyone? How about tax "reform"? I think you might better focus your efforts on the bought and paid for current Republican governance of the US. The Whitewater analogy is singularly inappropriate at this time. There is something big to be fleshed out and brought down here, your sniffilngs to the contrary.
6
To Timothy Cotter, Buffalo, NY Wow! Indeed! Your comment needs to be emphasized. I hope more people see it. Your statement to Mr. Brooks, "I think you might better focus your efforts on the bought and paid for current Republican governance of the US." Brings up the question again of why is this cabal of destroyers not being examined relentlessly by the press?
This is no ones fault but Donald Trump's. Al he had to do was say, "Sure, come on, I will make everything available, I have nothing to hide..." but he didn''t.
So you have to ask, does he have something to hide? Or is he just so needy that he will do/say/allow anything to get his name in print? I don't which conclusion is the more repulsive.
So you have to ask, does he have something to hide? Or is he just so needy that he will do/say/allow anything to get his name in print? I don't which conclusion is the more repulsive.
3
From the UK perspective, much of the American prosecution system seems precisely to follow Trump's summary. Questioning processes require full and honest disclosure, thus allowing a prosecution for a 'dishonesty' that may simply be one person's word against another's. Then suspects are threatened with enormous jail sentences, which threat obtains a guilty plea for a substantial reduction. This second tactic is taken very ill in the UK when it is applied to extradition cases against autistic teenage hackers, etc.
It's very effective, but is it fair? For my part I see no reason for Trump, nor his campaign, to have colluded with Putin. It was in Putin's interests not to have Clinton in power and he knew he would find, in Trump, a man of great moral flexibility where a deal might be struck which would benefit his business interests (an MO very much in keeping with Putin's own worldview).
All this talk of impeachment is a sideshow, and if followed through might be very damaging. Trump must be seen to fail on his own terms by his own people as much as possible, not to become a martyr. We know the wall will never remotely be completed. We can see the swamp being topped up by the effluent from Trump's business interests. Some of his supporters will never leave him - but all politicians become stale eventually. Trump is decaying at record speed.
If the Democrats really wanted to sink Trump, they should merely arrange for him to have more small group meetings with his supporters.
It's very effective, but is it fair? For my part I see no reason for Trump, nor his campaign, to have colluded with Putin. It was in Putin's interests not to have Clinton in power and he knew he would find, in Trump, a man of great moral flexibility where a deal might be struck which would benefit his business interests (an MO very much in keeping with Putin's own worldview).
All this talk of impeachment is a sideshow, and if followed through might be very damaging. Trump must be seen to fail on his own terms by his own people as much as possible, not to become a martyr. We know the wall will never remotely be completed. We can see the swamp being topped up by the effluent from Trump's business interests. Some of his supporters will never leave him - but all politicians become stale eventually. Trump is decaying at record speed.
If the Democrats really wanted to sink Trump, they should merely arrange for him to have more small group meetings with his supporters.
5
Obstruction of justice is still a crime. Firing Comey after asking him to back off from Flynn is very likely obstruction of justice. Trump should not be impeached on phony grounds. Likewise, Trump should not be let off for genuine crimes.
Like the giant black hole at the center of the galaxy, which is impossible to perceive, except by the stars whizzing around it at phenomenal speeds, there is an invisible force that indicates that there is a there, there, when it comes to Donald Trump's collusion with the Russian Government.
In the first place, it is well know that the Russian FSB (KGB) and Putin are exceptionally clever at covering their tracks so they can claim plausible deniability.
But look closer at Trump's pattern of behavior that surely indicates that he is in the grip of the former KGB agent Putin.
Trump has disavowed NATO and indicated he wants to put the US out of this most important military alliance since WWII. Trump has not once criticized his Russian master. He has also ignored the conclusions of America's own intelligence services, and chooses to peddle Putin's version of the truth.
Trump has also indicated that he wants to reverse sanctions levied on Russia for its invasion into the Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimea.
Sorry David, as much as I enjoy your commentary in the NYTimes and PBS I think you have to be pretty myopic not to believe that Trump is not the Manchurian candidate.
In the first place, it is well know that the Russian FSB (KGB) and Putin are exceptionally clever at covering their tracks so they can claim plausible deniability.
But look closer at Trump's pattern of behavior that surely indicates that he is in the grip of the former KGB agent Putin.
Trump has disavowed NATO and indicated he wants to put the US out of this most important military alliance since WWII. Trump has not once criticized his Russian master. He has also ignored the conclusions of America's own intelligence services, and chooses to peddle Putin's version of the truth.
Trump has also indicated that he wants to reverse sanctions levied on Russia for its invasion into the Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimea.
Sorry David, as much as I enjoy your commentary in the NYTimes and PBS I think you have to be pretty myopic not to believe that Trump is not the Manchurian candidate.
6
Its time to change the subject and get to work on legislation solving the problems of the American People. The rest of US will let you "talk amongst yourselves".
1
There is nothing stopping the Republicans from working on things for the American people. The problem is that their policies are for the top 1/100 of the top 1%. The health care of 24 million is evidently a lower priority than giving the Walton family a 54 billion dollar tax break on inheritances. Priorities are what some of the really wealthy buy from people who are willing to sell their souls for some relatively small scraps off the table. The Koch's and Mercer's are at the top of that list. The problem is their is little counterbalance by the Gates and Buffets to counter the negative externalities created by the right wing fascists in control of the Republican party. I wonder if Gates really thinks the future of global health will really matter if the U.S. becomes a corporate fascist state? How will the world survive if China and other corrupt states become hegemon states in twenty years because the U.S. has effectively collapsed from debt and lack of investment? Does anyone think it can't happen here? If they don't, they have not studied history and why nations fail. We are in debt, manageable now, but not because of investment but because of corruption in policy choices that benefit the wealthy. Our services sector doesn't pay enough to fund secondary education for 2/3 of the nation. The uneducated compete against each other globally not regionally. When AI and automation both kick into high gear soon - then people will know the real Hell. Republicans could care less.
I'd point out to Mr. Brooks that while Whitewater may not have lead to the downfall of the Clintons, it is almost a certainty that HRC's cattle futures trades were not on the up and up.
As the study in the article below indicates, the odds of her making 100x return in six months trading cattle futures is roughly 3 trillion to 1.
"A note on odds in the cattle futures market". Journal of Economics and Finance. 18 (3): 357.
So, while it is possible (very remotely, almost to the point of zero likelihood) that she made the money -- a much simpler explanation is it was a way of passing bribe money to the Clintons. Or thank you money for services rendered.
As the study in the article below indicates, the odds of her making 100x return in six months trading cattle futures is roughly 3 trillion to 1.
"A note on odds in the cattle futures market". Journal of Economics and Finance. 18 (3): 357.
So, while it is possible (very remotely, almost to the point of zero likelihood) that she made the money -- a much simpler explanation is it was a way of passing bribe money to the Clintons. Or thank you money for services rendered.
Ralphie, please note: Clinton lost the election. She has nothing to do with the government now. There is no reason to continue to belabor her, except as a distraction... would that I could say the same about Trump!
Jarrett
the column makes specific reference to the WW investigation -- and how it didn't lead to indictments against the Clintons. BUT -- they got lucky. No doubt there was nefarious stuff going on in Arkansas. And HRC was in it up to her neck.
the column makes specific reference to the WW investigation -- and how it didn't lead to indictments against the Clintons. BUT -- they got lucky. No doubt there was nefarious stuff going on in Arkansas. And HRC was in it up to her neck.
Ok. Maybe she got lucky. After all, people continue to win at the lottery and powerball even though the odds of winning are something like 1 to 175 million plus. And people win on a regular basis. But, if she didn't get lucky and your speculation is correct, who would have paid her the bribe money and for what? But, you know, she is also smart. And maybe she just used good judgment. The first time I went to a horse race I picked a horse that had really bad odds. But it was raining. A fellow showed me how to read the odds sheet and I noticed the horse won when on a wet track. No one else seemed to notice that. The horse won and multiplied the $2 bet many times. Beginners luck or smart reckoning? Whatever, the whole Hillary Clinton cattle futures scenario is a "tempest in a teapot." How can you get all worked up over that and not have a tiny bit of concern regarding ALL of Mr. Trump's financial and construction dealings?
David Brooks dropped the following in his opinion piece: "There were some meetings between Trump officials and some Russians, but so far no more than you'd expect from a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin. And so far nothing we know of these meetings proves or even indicates collusion."
So, are we to accept that communications between a candidate's officials and Russia, an adversary, are normal in a Presidential campaign? Are we now to equate this kind of activity to be as benign as contact with, say, Luxembourg? Is it now normal for the President of the United States to exclude the American press from Oval Office meetings with Russian officials and to include the Russian, state run RT? David, please!
I expect the free press in this country to continue to report on the investigation. I expect Mr. Mueller to do his best to get to the bottom of this stinking mess. And I hope Mr. Brooks will reconsider his ill-conceived piece and acknowledge that this country is in great peril, being led by a President who does not believe that Russia interfered in the 2016 election or that their interference should be investigated.
So, are we to accept that communications between a candidate's officials and Russia, an adversary, are normal in a Presidential campaign? Are we now to equate this kind of activity to be as benign as contact with, say, Luxembourg? Is it now normal for the President of the United States to exclude the American press from Oval Office meetings with Russian officials and to include the Russian, state run RT? David, please!
I expect the free press in this country to continue to report on the investigation. I expect Mr. Mueller to do his best to get to the bottom of this stinking mess. And I hope Mr. Brooks will reconsider his ill-conceived piece and acknowledge that this country is in great peril, being led by a President who does not believe that Russia interfered in the 2016 election or that their interference should be investigated.
6
"But even if you took a paragon of modern presidents — a contemporary Abraham Lincoln — and you directed a democratically unsupervised, infinitely financed team of prosecutors at him and gave them power to subpoena his staff and look under any related or unrelated rock in an attempt to bring him down, there’s a pretty good chance you could spur even this modern paragon to want to fight back."
David Brooks, every time you defend Trump you fall a notch further in my estimation. There was a simple fix for this, if Trump had been a paragon of modern presidents. Mr. President, open your books, show your tax returns, make all information available, direct your staff and former campaign staff to disclose everything, and demonstrate you have done nothing illegal or unethical. Should be simple, no?
David Brooks, every time you defend Trump you fall a notch further in my estimation. There was a simple fix for this, if Trump had been a paragon of modern presidents. Mr. President, open your books, show your tax returns, make all information available, direct your staff and former campaign staff to disclose everything, and demonstrate you have done nothing illegal or unethical. Should be simple, no?
5
I, for one, would be ecstatic if it could be demonstrated that Trump was an honest, ethical, righteous, effective President.
In this dangerous and stunningly complex world, this country desperately needs a great President. Nothing in Trump's life that I know suggests he is that person.
In this dangerous and stunningly complex world, this country desperately needs a great President. Nothing in Trump's life that I know suggests he is that person.
David, I am disconcerted by the tone of your article. It is not for me if there is evidence incriminating for God! . It is about 320 million Americans drifting with the conduction of which is perhaps the least healthy person, less integrated, less qualified that exists in the galaxy. I feel a huge pain after reading your article. You know, like me, the terrible local and international impact of "your management". So are the battles for good? Launching proclamations based on only one way: The reasons of the Commission of intelligence. That is only "to grab the rabano by the leaves". The intellectuals of the 5th av. They will agree with your excellent logical reasoning and they will not interest you, like you, I forget the context and, quietly have a coffee thinking about anything other than accept that it is decadent and future mL that bright people like you, throw the sponge And hang the gloves on the brad of the goodbye.
"There’s just something worrisome every time we find ourselves replacing politics of democracy with the politics of scandal. In democracy, the issues count, and you try to win by persuasion. You recognize that your opponents are legitimate, that they will always be there and that some form of compromise is inevitable."
Well then you must find the Republican party quite worrisome. Newt Gingrich started this game. And the baton has been passed around your party ever since - Birther movement, Benghazi, "Lock Her Up!", Eric "Democrats are not human" Trump...no lack of de-legitimizing!
Oh, and the issues count, you say? Compromise is inevitable? Tell that to Mitch McConnell, whose healthcare bill is labeled 'REO' - Republican Eyes Only. Republicans refuse to compromise to improve Obamacare. Refuse to compromise to NOT shutter the government...
The issues you write about are real, and they are not the fault of Democrats.
Well then you must find the Republican party quite worrisome. Newt Gingrich started this game. And the baton has been passed around your party ever since - Birther movement, Benghazi, "Lock Her Up!", Eric "Democrats are not human" Trump...no lack of de-legitimizing!
Oh, and the issues count, you say? Compromise is inevitable? Tell that to Mitch McConnell, whose healthcare bill is labeled 'REO' - Republican Eyes Only. Republicans refuse to compromise to improve Obamacare. Refuse to compromise to NOT shutter the government...
The issues you write about are real, and they are not the fault of Democrats.
4
To John in Virginia--Thanks. We can add to this list--What about that Supreme Court Justice appointee hearing that Mr. McConnell denied to President Obama's moderate candidate???? Doesn't sound like democracy to me.
David, is this your worst column yet? Let's investigate! Whitewater was about a small time land deal where no improprieties actually occurred, which morphed into a scandal about a consensual, if inappropriate, affair. And yet Clinton was impeached over it for lying about it. This is about an adversarial foreign government meddling in our electoral process, and a whole bunch of campaign associates and high ranking officials perjuring themselves over contacts with that government, hidden payments from that and other governments and multiple failures to disclose information on security clearance forms as well as violating the FARA act. Not to mention attempts to obstruct justice by firing an FBI directory explicitly because of his investigation into this.
Which do you think is more serious? And I haven't even gotten into possible improper financial transactions with. among other actors, sanctioned foreign banks and potential money laundering. It's a big deal, even if there is no provable "collision." Stop trying to excuse the inxcusable and wake up.
Which do you think is more serious? And I haven't even gotten into possible improper financial transactions with. among other actors, sanctioned foreign banks and potential money laundering. It's a big deal, even if there is no provable "collision." Stop trying to excuse the inxcusable and wake up.
4
If you are interested in Russian Collusion take a look at Ted Kennedy's electoral collusion with the Soviet Union in 1984:
"Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
"Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
It seems like it is easier to make a conclusion about the outcome of an investigation after it has been completed rather than before it has begun, so perhaps it would be better to hold off on the Whitewater comparisons until after this particular investigation has, you know, happened.
2
Kudos to Brooks for a rare spineful piece. (Alan Dershowitz is even better on this assault on Trump's civil liberties and its concomitant criminalization of politics).
The dour Inspectors Schiff and Warner have themselves colluded with a media that has no ethical or intellectual standards to push this Russian rubbish for half a year now. The country has not seen anything like this since Senator Joseph McCarthy. (Schiff looks like he could have done double-duty at Salem several centuries ago. We have a new "swimming test": Prove you didn't collude with Russia!!!)
The media's six-month jihad makes one ask: When are unnamed sources no longer an ethical tactic -- when such a high % of your leaks turn out to be outright fabrications? Are you culpable for the lying or are your sources?
Another question inheres: Why is a degree required for journalism? It's just feelings. When is the last time the NYT editorial board surprised us for taking a "stand against type" on principle? (The shooting last week, when they cited Sarah Palin?)
For a brilliant rebuke of the Russian nonsense, read these other ardent right-wingers: Noam Chomsky, Camille Paglia, Jonathan Turley, Glenn Greenwald.
If Obama had 100 times the solicitude toward Russia (he did), the media would not make 1% so much noise. It's an absolute collapse.
The dour Inspectors Schiff and Warner have themselves colluded with a media that has no ethical or intellectual standards to push this Russian rubbish for half a year now. The country has not seen anything like this since Senator Joseph McCarthy. (Schiff looks like he could have done double-duty at Salem several centuries ago. We have a new "swimming test": Prove you didn't collude with Russia!!!)
The media's six-month jihad makes one ask: When are unnamed sources no longer an ethical tactic -- when such a high % of your leaks turn out to be outright fabrications? Are you culpable for the lying or are your sources?
Another question inheres: Why is a degree required for journalism? It's just feelings. When is the last time the NYT editorial board surprised us for taking a "stand against type" on principle? (The shooting last week, when they cited Sarah Palin?)
For a brilliant rebuke of the Russian nonsense, read these other ardent right-wingers: Noam Chomsky, Camille Paglia, Jonathan Turley, Glenn Greenwald.
If Obama had 100 times the solicitude toward Russia (he did), the media would not make 1% so much noise. It's an absolute collapse.
2
Finally, sanity from the NYT editorial page. Thank you David Brooks.
1
What would it take, Sir? A video tape of HIM grabbing a Russian , by the
WALLET????? And, they LET him do it.
WALLET????? And, they LET him do it.
1
How absolutely decent of David to allow for the Trump-Russia story line to remind us that in it's evolution there has been NO evidence....so far....but "if" there ever is...."IF"...it would be treason.
Gee...thanks David.
And all those folks that planted the minefield around the President....they aren't to blame....Oh No...it's the Presidents fault for stomping on them.....Thank Goodness that's cleared up, thanks David.
Gee...thanks David.
And all those folks that planted the minefield around the President....they aren't to blame....Oh No...it's the Presidents fault for stomping on them.....Thank Goodness that's cleared up, thanks David.
Mr. Brooks, I thought that the special counsel was brought in to investigate the Russian interference in our election, not Donald Trump. That the inquiry now looks into members of the Trump campaign and possibly Trump himself is simply part of that investigation. No investigator automatically excludes anyone from suspicion. If Trump keeps communicating and acting in ways that suggest he is either feeling guilty or threatened then it is hardly surprising that attention is drawn to him. Trump, if you recall, fired the FBI director to prevent him from carrying out the investigation, ergo the special counsel. Since I assume that you are interested in what the Russians did, and who colluded with them, then I am not sure of the point of your column.
1
Looking at this from afar, I agree that there is very little actual evidence that the campaign collided with Russia (as opposed to whether Russia intervened, which is subtly but substantially different).
However, whether he walked into traps set by his opponents, I disagree that the investigations into obstruction of justice have no merit. Based on current evidence, they clearly have more merit than the allegations of collusion.
However, whether he walked into traps set by his opponents, I disagree that the investigations into obstruction of justice have no merit. Based on current evidence, they clearly have more merit than the allegations of collusion.
"In a democracy, the issues count, and you try to win by persuasion."
But that's exactly what the Republicans HAVEN'T done over the past several years. They have put most of their energies into winning by gerrymandering and pandering to moneyed interests. And they've been quite successful at it.
I would love to see persuasion come back as the predominant approach by both political parties. But I'm not holding my breath.
But that's exactly what the Republicans HAVEN'T done over the past several years. They have put most of their energies into winning by gerrymandering and pandering to moneyed interests. And they've been quite successful at it.
I would love to see persuasion come back as the predominant approach by both political parties. But I'm not holding my breath.
1
Respectfully David, I think the irrespective of whether the collusion speculation/allegation has merit, the lack of initiative taken by this Administration to address the very legitimate meddling into our election by Russia should in itself put this well above 971 on your list. There seems to be little doubt that at this point that at foreign adversary made a deliberate effort to attack our democracy - and continue to do so in the free elections of our allies - and the Comey hearing made it clear that neither Sessions nor Trump have asked one question about the nature and extensiveness of the Russian cyberattacks. It's as if the prevention or retaliation of these efforts to undermine our Democracy cannot be addressed if it gives any oxygen to the question of the legitimacy of our election result. If anyone in the Trump administration colluded with these efforts, it's the most egregious act of Treason we would have seen in modern history. But even if that is unproven, what does seem to be clear is that this administration already seems to be shown as compromised by its need to be "legitimate" at the expense of the integrity and security of our democracy. So maybe number 101 on your list?
The politics of scandal? Let's not get carried away? Mr. Brooks, the patience and good humor of the entire American public in this catastrophe has been extraordinary. Not in your lifetime nor in mine has there been such a combination of suspected subversion of democracy, grotesque violations of the ethical expectations regarding emoluments, slandering of political opponents, repeated subornations of congressional testimony, and stupifying incompetence. And scandals galore --they are not generated by "the politics of scandal." They are scandals. The time for patience and understatement is way, way past.
4
I agree there very likely was no collusion, just stupidity by those around Trump who were feeling empowered by Trump's rise and his no-rules example. That said, I don't think the investigation was fabricated by Trump's opponents. It was woven by Trump by his almost daily statements and actions that, when viewed through the filter that is fairly applied to cultural norms, made it appear that he was hiding something. But, as we know, Trump doesn't follow cultural norms, so we are using the wrong filter. And, as Mr. Brooks noted, Trump created the rules that are now being used against him. That's called fair play.
As for this "investigation about itself" distracting Trump and his administration from governing, that's a good thing. The less governing Trump does over the next 43 months the better. Let the few competent adults in the administration run the show while Trump and his WH gang are focused elsewhere. Frankly, if it weren't Russia, it would be something else. People who find themselves in a job they are not qualified to do find a way to spend their work hours on distractions that are in their comfort zone. Trump is all about distraction so that was going to be the course of his presidency no matter what.
As for this "investigation about itself" distracting Trump and his administration from governing, that's a good thing. The less governing Trump does over the next 43 months the better. Let the few competent adults in the administration run the show while Trump and his WH gang are focused elsewhere. Frankly, if it weren't Russia, it would be something else. People who find themselves in a job they are not qualified to do find a way to spend their work hours on distractions that are in their comfort zone. Trump is all about distraction so that was going to be the course of his presidency no matter what.
1
Dear Mr. Brooks,
I totally agree with you that we, Americans, should focus and support our democracy instead of politics of scandal. Indeed, we should not give politics of scandal a free rise to become a new norm. However, I am not really sure how we can eliminate politics of scandal since a political party has been very successfully using dirty scandals to take over all power. How does the other party win political game the right way when they always get stabbed from behind? I hope you will write another article to dig deeper into the question how and what we should do to purify our dirty politics we have right now.
I totally agree with you that we, Americans, should focus and support our democracy instead of politics of scandal. Indeed, we should not give politics of scandal a free rise to become a new norm. However, I am not really sure how we can eliminate politics of scandal since a political party has been very successfully using dirty scandals to take over all power. How does the other party win political game the right way when they always get stabbed from behind? I hope you will write another article to dig deeper into the question how and what we should do to purify our dirty politics we have right now.
To equate an Arkansas real estate scandal to an investigation into collusion with a foreign power to disrupt our democracy is ludicrous except for one thing. The Republicans set about to undermine a democratic outcome in both cases.
A better comparison is Iran-Contra where it is quite possible a Republican presidential candidate sought to gain a victory by colluding with a hostile foreign power.
A better comparison is Iran-Contra where it is quite possible a Republican presidential candidate sought to gain a victory by colluding with a hostile foreign power.
5
Trump has contributed greatly to his problems by his lack of transparency in his financial dealings, his nepotism ,cronyism and inability to communicate effectively to counter the issues raised by the media. Appearances matter and public relations matter. His administration raises eyebrows every day and he suffers as a result. He has coarsed the political culture .
1
"There’s just something worrisome every time we find ourselves replacing politics of democracy with the politics of scandal. "
Oh, you mean, like the Republicans have been doing for the past 30 years?
Oh, you mean, like the Republicans have been doing for the past 30 years?
3
Ironically, what makes the contents of this article credible--at least in the minds of his most unsuspecting and/or gullible readers--lies not in the article itself, but, by contrast, in some of Mr. Brooks most memorable, endearing writings, such as the one about about the importance of the arts in society or in the passages where he tells us about the ballet school in his neighborhood. Overall, such clever polarity and seemingly political balance, and contrived impartiality is what lends Mr. Brooks credibility when his true colors come through. However, judging by today's comments, one can see that here he is not fooling many. Contrary to what Bill Maher says, Americans are not stupid.
1
From my memory Whitewater turned out to be nothing more than a bad real estate deal that lost the Clintons a minor amount of money. Benghazi was even more bizarre turning up absolutely nothing in Libya and finally rambling into the absurd with a tempest in a teapot over a .001 oversight in handling emails. The Republicans by contrast have consistently been the party of treason. Iran-contra was all about selling missiles which could have endangered our friends and our own forces to our avowed enemy in order to go behind Congress' back to fund death squads killing priests in Central America. I don't know what the Trump/Russia investigation will turn up but the crime, if it is there, will be a real crime not the peccadillos on which Congressional Republicans have wasted so much of our money and time over the past 25 years.
2
Well said!
Just when it seems like Brooks (and other right-leaning pundits) seems like he's fed up not just with Trump but with the spineless GOP politicians who refuse to publically condemn him, perhaps about to switch parties even, we get a piece like this.
Name another administration that had secret (if they weren't secret why did so many administration folks conveniently "forget" to mention them on their security clearance forms?) with a country that's pretty much been our biggest adversary since WW2 ended? Including some with murky financial entanglements? When did lobbyists for an adversarial foreign country previously end up in a POTUS's inner circle?
The closest thing that comes to mind is Nixon persuading the Vietnamese not to conclude a peace treaty with LBJ because he'd give them better terms. Tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives after that, and exponentially more Vietnamese, many if not most whom were mere civilians. And St. Ronnie convincing the Iranians not to release the hostages under Carter's watch lest he get a pre-election boost. Hundreds of Americans detained for additional months so Reagan could claim the credit.
The GOP, consistently party over country. Treasonous, the whole lot of them. That includes not only the actual politicians but the commentators like Brooks who bend over backwards with pretzel logic that would be the envy of a yoga guru who supplements their income by working in the circus as a contortionist.
For shame, David Brooks.
Name another administration that had secret (if they weren't secret why did so many administration folks conveniently "forget" to mention them on their security clearance forms?) with a country that's pretty much been our biggest adversary since WW2 ended? Including some with murky financial entanglements? When did lobbyists for an adversarial foreign country previously end up in a POTUS's inner circle?
The closest thing that comes to mind is Nixon persuading the Vietnamese not to conclude a peace treaty with LBJ because he'd give them better terms. Tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives after that, and exponentially more Vietnamese, many if not most whom were mere civilians. And St. Ronnie convincing the Iranians not to release the hostages under Carter's watch lest he get a pre-election boost. Hundreds of Americans detained for additional months so Reagan could claim the credit.
The GOP, consistently party over country. Treasonous, the whole lot of them. That includes not only the actual politicians but the commentators like Brooks who bend over backwards with pretzel logic that would be the envy of a yoga guru who supplements their income by working in the circus as a contortionist.
For shame, David Brooks.
3
Before the internet and social media, the public just didn't get as much news. Are you reading, listening, or watching ? You say "most voters really don't care?" In what world!
2
From day one, I have always stated "follow the money..." and that is precisely what seems to be one of the cornerstones of the investigation by Mr. Mueller. As an American , I too want answers to all the questions and innuendo of obstruction, etc. Chump has proven to a pathological liar!. He cares not for this country and its citizens but the almighty dollar and constant adoration from whomever whenever. Narcissism makes one do strange and in many instances, awful things. I have found David Brooks to be fairer than even I give him credit for but in this instance, I too am wondering about the column. Thank goodness for the individuals whom are the "true patriots" providing information to the "real press"! Without such information being shared, we would never know what is going on and then reported. The need to continue to press for his tax returns, business dealing etc. will expose just what a carpetbagger he is and how corrupt he is trying to make the presidency.
Mr Brook, the WH has shown absolutely no concern about Russian meddling in the elections - in fact, the opposite. Leaving everything else aside, that is traitorous behavior in my books.
4
No matter how far the GOP moves away from David Brooks' moderate conservative values, like Luath, Bodger and Tao, Mr. Brooks always finds his way home.
2
There are a couple of insurance concepts that help to show how misguided Mr. Brooks and Troptimists are. A low likelihood of an event occurring can be accompanied by very high damage (severity) if it does. A grade 5 hurricane is an example. The accumulation of reasons to worry about Deadbeat Don is stark. He already sold out his banks, investors, contractors, tenants and wives - and now his Justice Department. Treason may still be a low likelihood. But if it has taken place, this creep is owned by Putin. Every day. It's unthinkable, so we shouldn't think about it, right? And wow, what we'd be hearing if he had a "D" after his name.
2
Well he sure is acting like a cornered beast.
Brooks fumbled and failed through Whitewater (he admits he didn't know what was going on as an editor of the WSJ) and he now wishes to bestow his limitless knowledge of scandal on the Trump investigation, that he also really knows nothing about. Sounds like a con job to me.
3
Brooks seems to be getting some heat from the right wing. SO he is trying to get on their good side by writing a column like this. There are excellent posts here why this investigation is nothing like Whitewater.
3
David: it is such a relief that you demonstrate here that it is possible to recover, at least partially, from Trump Derangement Syndrome. I watched the Sunday morning news show during which you voiced similar opinions thinking I was in the midst of an hallucination. I have been very concerned about your state of mind over the past months. I admire your courage for daring to publish this column. I thought the old David Brooks was ne'er to be heard from again. Thank you.
It's amazing that Brooks can write this with a straight face in the same column where he admits that the Whitewater investigation was nonsense. Too bad he couldn't have figured out that "the politics of scandal" was a bad idea when he was helping to create it in the 1990s.
2
If there's nothing to this, why would Trump ask Director Comey to stand down?
3
I think Drew Magary summed up this article pretty well in GQ today. http://www.gq.com/story/david-brooks-trump-whitewater
2
Brooks, you disappoint me. I thought you were more moderate than that. Are we reading the same newspapers? There is more than enough smoke to suggest that the Trump administration may be compromised. I have never seen a president more richly deserving of investigation. Trump seems to think he can make his own rules. He is breathtakingly arrogant. And apologists like you give him cover.
1
Trump - Russia - Investigation should be first and foremost a Russia meddling in our election! FBI, NSA, and T knows it. We cannot let this go on without finding out what they did and more importantly what they are doing now. The fact that the T admin and GOP has no interest in finding out what has been done so that we can prevent them completely taking over our voting system in the future! David, this is not a paper society anymore. Money flows from one place on the globe to the other within seconds. Hacks happen everyday! Ask people with credit cards if they aren't scammed at least once a month. And you think that won't happen to our elections! Shame on you! Shame on the GOP, and Shame on the T admin!
1
Unusual amount of lucidity for a NYT oped. The final paragraph says it all. After almost a year of "investigations," with all the leaking and spying going on from our intelligence community, does anyone actually believe that if there were a smokeing gun, it wouldn't have leaked to this rag and others months ago?
How can someone obstruct justice on a phony, politically spun investigation that all began from a Clinton consultant hired to undermine Trump in the first place?
How can someone obstruct justice on a phony, politically spun investigation that all began from a Clinton consultant hired to undermine Trump in the first place?
The "Trump campaign colluded with Russia" narrative has been promoted by the MSM, Democrats, Hollywood, and the alt-left for almost a year fed by screeds of innuendo, speculation, and outright lies from Obama holdovers in the government and the anti-Trump bureaucracy. This narrative is fact free. The "Trump obstructed justice" narrative is similarly baseless and filled with tales of non-criminal acts involving normal attempts to influence political events in Washington. No bribes, no instructing subordinates to perjure themselves, no destruction of files.
The narrative that seems best supported by known facts is that the MSM, Democrats, Obama holdovers, and alt-left NGO's like Media Matters are mounting an attempted coup d'etat against a legitimately elected American President and his new administration; that they intend to drive him from office based on rumor, innuendo, speculation and fake news. The demagoguery now being displayed by the anti-Trump forces are consistent with leaders of the mob that swept the streets of Athens...ending with the death of Socrates.
The narrative that seems best supported by known facts is that the MSM, Democrats, Obama holdovers, and alt-left NGO's like Media Matters are mounting an attempted coup d'etat against a legitimately elected American President and his new administration; that they intend to drive him from office based on rumor, innuendo, speculation and fake news. The demagoguery now being displayed by the anti-Trump forces are consistent with leaders of the mob that swept the streets of Athens...ending with the death of Socrates.
Yes - Socrates. That's who he reminds me of.
If there's nothing much to be uncovered -- no real collusion -- then why is Trump apparently doing everything he can to obstruct the investigation? And why isn't he, as President of the U.S., more interested in learning and making public what the Russians actually did? Why?
3
Interesting comparison here - between a questionable real estate loan and (alleged but pretty much established) Russian hacking of US elections. Also, a pro-Russian national security advisor paid as a foreign lobbyist.
If the trumpistas did nothing wrong, why the frantic lawyering up? Why are their lawyers hiring lawyers? Why are they pleading the 5th? Why do they refuse subpoena? Why fire the FBI director after he refuses to stop the Russian inquiry? Whence the paranoid reactions, which resemble those of a hooked sailfish?
Inquiring minds want to know.
If the trumpistas did nothing wrong, why the frantic lawyering up? Why are their lawyers hiring lawyers? Why are they pleading the 5th? Why do they refuse subpoena? Why fire the FBI director after he refuses to stop the Russian inquiry? Whence the paranoid reactions, which resemble those of a hooked sailfish?
Inquiring minds want to know.
1
Funny how Mr. Brooks is now prepared to reconsider his actions years ago as overzealousness, when it's a Republican President now under scrutiny.
1
These comments are just about what I expected. Hamilton .ight have been on to something when he wrote in Federalist No. 65 that impeachments would "seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
1
Has it occurred to anyone else that maybe the "Russia scandal" started as a legitimate concern about a foreign government's interference in our election process, but has become a distraction that the GOP is backhandedly promoting so they can distract the media and populace from asking what, exactly, are they up to behind those closed doors?
That every time Trump tweets his innocence, every time Rubio says "we maybe should look into this regardless of what T says," every time McConnell, et al, insist "there's nothing to see here," they are all working in concert to make sure we don't look away, lest our gaze follow them as they walk into a side room and close the door in our faces?
That every time Trump tweets his innocence, every time Rubio says "we maybe should look into this regardless of what T says," every time McConnell, et al, insist "there's nothing to see here," they are all working in concert to make sure we don't look away, lest our gaze follow them as they walk into a side room and close the door in our faces?
1
Mr. Brooks are you seriously suggesting we give trump the benefit of the doubt regarding Russia? No sir. Not in a million years.
2
"In democracy, the issues count, and you try to win by persuasion. You recognize that your opponents are legitimate, that they will always be there and that some form of compromise is inevitable."
Noble sentiments indeed. How I wish your Republican friends would abide by them.
Noble sentiments indeed. How I wish your Republican friends would abide by them.
2
Trump was no more publicly pro-Putin as a campaigner than Obama was as president (tell Vlad I can be more flexible..., Russian reset,etc.). And he certainly doesn't behave as if he's pro-Putin now.
Even if Trump had financial dealings with Russia prior to running for president, doing business with Russian isn't a crime.
The evidence that Russia was behind the hacking of DNC/Podesta is circumstantial. Contrary to received wisdom, 17 agencies didn't investigate the hacking, 17 signed off but only 3 investigated (FBI,CIA,NSA). Of those 2 agencies thought it highly likely, and one moderately, that it was Russia -- far from a certainty and nothing you could convict anyone with. And the DNC was hacked before Trump announced.
So it is problematic to prove (1) Russian's hacked (2) Putin ordered it (3) The purpose of the hack was to install Trump (4) the Trump team could offer any valuable help in hacking/leaks (5) that there was a quid pro quo.
As Mr. Brooks points out, if there was any evidence of collusion it would have leaked. And firing Comey may have been a political mistake, but perfectly in Trump's power and something most of the left wanted last year. And it certainly doesn't amount to obstruction.
While it is important to investigate Russian hacking, the real issue is cyber security. Many actors out there can hack and wish to harm us. That is the real threat.
Even if Trump had financial dealings with Russia prior to running for president, doing business with Russian isn't a crime.
The evidence that Russia was behind the hacking of DNC/Podesta is circumstantial. Contrary to received wisdom, 17 agencies didn't investigate the hacking, 17 signed off but only 3 investigated (FBI,CIA,NSA). Of those 2 agencies thought it highly likely, and one moderately, that it was Russia -- far from a certainty and nothing you could convict anyone with. And the DNC was hacked before Trump announced.
So it is problematic to prove (1) Russian's hacked (2) Putin ordered it (3) The purpose of the hack was to install Trump (4) the Trump team could offer any valuable help in hacking/leaks (5) that there was a quid pro quo.
As Mr. Brooks points out, if there was any evidence of collusion it would have leaked. And firing Comey may have been a political mistake, but perfectly in Trump's power and something most of the left wanted last year. And it certainly doesn't amount to obstruction.
While it is important to investigate Russian hacking, the real issue is cyber security. Many actors out there can hack and wish to harm us. That is the real threat.
1
"As Mr. Brooks points out, if there was any evidence of collusion it would have leaked."....When the National Security Advisor has had business dealings with Russia and fails under legal obligation to acknowledge them, when the same National Security Advisor calls the Russian Ambassador and tells him not to worry about sanctions when the new administration takes over, how close to evidence of collusion do you need to come before you get seriously worried?
I am so thankful for David Brooks. We need a piece like this from him every now and them to remind ourselves how divorced from reality old line conservatives remain.
2
How nice of you now to confess not understanding the allegations that were being made on your own Editorial page, or that the allegations were overblown.
Better journalism now is needed in the most desperate way.
Better journalism now is needed in the most desperate way.
8
Mr Brooks it is you who are reaching. Just maybe this Special Counsel was better than your Special Counsel at protecting the leaks emanating from his work on the investigation. CIA chief Brennan clearly testified that he was quite disturbed at the intel he was privy to on the matter and why it was given to the FBI.
I intend to wait till Mueller completes his work...as should you and Trump. Your last para should not have been written.
I intend to wait till Mueller completes his work...as should you and Trump. Your last para should not have been written.
6
Did Mr. Brooks write a similar column about the millions of dollars wasted on the Benghazi hearings or Hillary's email server? No? Then he should stifle himself.
11
There is a lot of smoke here. For me, the most damning is the fact - yes, fact - that Jared Kushner wanted a secret communication channel with the Russians which was - please note - in Russian territory, i.e. the Russian embassy. Does that not deserve a thorough investigation? Could that not rise to the level of treason?
5
It's amazing how stuck-in-the-mud of so-called "conservatism" [sic....read as regressive. spoiled -- and, if not stupid, so unmindful, so unconnected to any willingness to accept or abide fair and intelligent thought] is Mr. Brooks.
(Scares me that his reactionary-self is camouflaged in his 'pleasant personality' guise. Methinks he does thus present just because he's afraid to 'come out' as unlikable....to face the distaste of the many he richly deserves -- a fear I'd bet all is born of a most-unpopular-guy childhood.)
Mean-spirited? Sorry...it's wrong....but I can't help myself.
(Scares me that his reactionary-self is camouflaged in his 'pleasant personality' guise. Methinks he does thus present just because he's afraid to 'come out' as unlikable....to face the distaste of the many he richly deserves -- a fear I'd bet all is born of a most-unpopular-guy childhood.)
Mean-spirited? Sorry...it's wrong....but I can't help myself.
Thoughtful and reasoned as always, Mr. Brooks, but you kind of blow up your whole argument with the phrase "...so far no more than you'd expect from a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin."
The indomitable Charles Pierce comments on this sorry example of historical revisionism: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55744/david-brooks-w...
2
Trump Russian Collusion story vs. The Clinton Foundation? The primary is a puddle... the secondary is an abyss.
2
and your evidence is.....?
1
Evidence of collusion or evidence that one is more important than the other?
"the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington."
Really? Does David Brooks actually believe that the possible intervention in our national election process by Russia is less significant than the long list of arrogant, selfish, and unnecessary mistakes made by the two Clintons?
David Brooks has added his name to the long list of cynical, dishonest Trump apologists, and should be ashamed to write such dishonest tripe.
Really? Does David Brooks actually believe that the possible intervention in our national election process by Russia is less significant than the long list of arrogant, selfish, and unnecessary mistakes made by the two Clintons?
David Brooks has added his name to the long list of cynical, dishonest Trump apologists, and should be ashamed to write such dishonest tripe.
4
"possible intervention in our national election process by Russia"....I don't remember any of our National Security agencies using the word possible.
Isn't it time for your Vacation? A nice, long rest.
2
Where was this article during the endless Benghazi hearings, or during the election-changing coverage of the email "scandal"?
You may be bad, but you ain't bad
I'll show you what bad is
Bad is when you capable of beating the bag
I've been working at it ever since
I came to this planet
I ain't quite there yet
I'll show you what bad is
Bad is when you capable of beating the bag
I've been working at it ever since
I came to this planet
I ain't quite there yet
This whole mess has been like a extraterrestial black hole sucking the sanity out of our national conversation. I'm all for everyone cooling their jets and focusing on what's important—that Russia has stuck its nose in our election process and should be investigated. But what's even more troubling is that those who should be enabling this investigation are not, and that begs the question... why?
3
David, you're comparing a possible real estate scandal with a possible intervention by a foreign government, Russia, in our elections. How can you do this with a straight face.....this is why you are not worthy of reading.
4
Every time I read one of David's things, I wonder what in the name of sanity is he talking about.
There are dozens of assumptions, opinions, of the wall remarks. The following is just one of the more,I am being nice, unenlightened. "The politics of scandal drives a wedge through society. Political elites get swept up in the scandals. Most voters don’t really care."
Scandal: an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.
There is no "political" scandal. There are just actions and events that are morally and legally wrong being perpetrated by Trump and his gang. Grabbing women's crotches comes to mind, lying, stealing, violating numerous sections of the Constitution and just being a self- aggrandizing stupid bully in general, causes general public outrage in those members of the public who are at least semi conscious.
So what on earth is David going on about? Old proverb If it looks like duck, walks like a duck, it is certainly not a swan. Give it up David. He is an idiot full of sound and fury that signifies he is an idiot.
There are dozens of assumptions, opinions, of the wall remarks. The following is just one of the more,I am being nice, unenlightened. "The politics of scandal drives a wedge through society. Political elites get swept up in the scandals. Most voters don’t really care."
Scandal: an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.
There is no "political" scandal. There are just actions and events that are morally and legally wrong being perpetrated by Trump and his gang. Grabbing women's crotches comes to mind, lying, stealing, violating numerous sections of the Constitution and just being a self- aggrandizing stupid bully in general, causes general public outrage in those members of the public who are at least semi conscious.
So what on earth is David going on about? Old proverb If it looks like duck, walks like a duck, it is certainly not a swan. Give it up David. He is an idiot full of sound and fury that signifies he is an idiot.
2
just incredible isn't it? David Brooks....
1
Watergate was a crime that was then investigated
Whitewater was an alleged crime that was investigated
Iran/Contra was a crime that was investigated
Benghazi was an alleged crime that was investigated
Ttrump colluding with the Russians is circumstantial "evidence" in search of an alleged crime. In fact, there has been no evidence of this (thus far) nonexistent crime.
As for the "The FBI's not going to release the damning information" canard, look at how much was leaked about this whole ordeal. All meant to insinuate, nothing concrete in any way (unless you count the myriad politicians who say there is no evidence). Seriously, you think a serial leaker who wants Trump impeached wouldn't leak the "smoking gun"?
It's like, "I know this guy murdered someone. He doesn't have an alibi for Friday last month, his friends keep changing their stories because they "can't remember everything that happened a month ago," the murderer doesn't deny he killed someone, and neither do his friends. The only things I need now to tie this whole thing together is a body (one that was murdered), a weapon, and a motive. I mean, look at all this smoke! I'll find that fire soon enough."
Whitewater was an alleged crime that was investigated
Iran/Contra was a crime that was investigated
Benghazi was an alleged crime that was investigated
Ttrump colluding with the Russians is circumstantial "evidence" in search of an alleged crime. In fact, there has been no evidence of this (thus far) nonexistent crime.
As for the "The FBI's not going to release the damning information" canard, look at how much was leaked about this whole ordeal. All meant to insinuate, nothing concrete in any way (unless you count the myriad politicians who say there is no evidence). Seriously, you think a serial leaker who wants Trump impeached wouldn't leak the "smoking gun"?
It's like, "I know this guy murdered someone. He doesn't have an alibi for Friday last month, his friends keep changing their stories because they "can't remember everything that happened a month ago," the murderer doesn't deny he killed someone, and neither do his friends. The only things I need now to tie this whole thing together is a body (one that was murdered), a weapon, and a motive. I mean, look at all this smoke! I'll find that fire soon enough."
3
Mr Brooks, you need to read the comments on your article, and take them to heart, if you can.
3
Gee, does maybe someone at the NYT's finally get it?
Perhaps now the rabid Democrat\Liberal readers might actually listen to the people posting comments about this Russian Trump collusion story as Fake News? We've known all along, we all watched what happened through the election! and we're not all Republicans!
I'm a Canadian, I voted Liberal for Trudeau, and even I can see that this story has no legs, no truth and no evidence! Your Democratic party needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch! Clean house and get rid of anything Clinton and Super-delegate related. Big business, NGO's and Activism has taken over this party and corrupted it.
The RNC only had to put up a Potato as a candidate to be Clinton. She is that much distrusted by your citizens! Listen to your fellow Americans and stop the Fake News story on Russia. It is ripping your people apart.
God Bless the USA...cause your MSM sure won't......
Perhaps now the rabid Democrat\Liberal readers might actually listen to the people posting comments about this Russian Trump collusion story as Fake News? We've known all along, we all watched what happened through the election! and we're not all Republicans!
I'm a Canadian, I voted Liberal for Trudeau, and even I can see that this story has no legs, no truth and no evidence! Your Democratic party needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch! Clean house and get rid of anything Clinton and Super-delegate related. Big business, NGO's and Activism has taken over this party and corrupted it.
The RNC only had to put up a Potato as a candidate to be Clinton. She is that much distrusted by your citizens! Listen to your fellow Americans and stop the Fake News story on Russia. It is ripping your people apart.
God Bless the USA...cause your MSM sure won't......
Well, I guess you would know. Apparently you were one of the creators of the politics of scandal, instrumental as you were in the Whitewater mania.
2
From the Washington Post June 6 . . . "The GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, attacked a company called VR Systems that, according to its website, provides software to manage voter rolls in eight states. The August 2016 attack was successful, and the attackers used the information they stole from the company’s network to launch targeted attacks against 122 local election officials on Oct. 27, 12 days before the election." Add to this: complete obstruction on behalf of the white house. I'm sorry. I fail to see how this investigation is anything but the biggest scandal of our time.
4
The majority of states have been hacked by Russia. The President himself said he firing Comey relieved the pressure of the Russia investigation. Multiple members of the Trump administration have failed to both report their meetings with Russia, and also failed to report lobbying for foreign states in direct violation of US law.
Whitewater did fail because nothing was there.
Regardless of whether it takes down the President, we need to keep our elections free from foreign interference, and our election computers free from foreign hacking. You can try to make this "nothing". But it is vital to our democracy.
But then when do Republicans actually care about integrity of anything. David Brooks included.
Whitewater did fail because nothing was there.
Regardless of whether it takes down the President, we need to keep our elections free from foreign interference, and our election computers free from foreign hacking. You can try to make this "nothing". But it is vital to our democracy.
But then when do Republicans actually care about integrity of anything. David Brooks included.
6
Scandal is a regular commodity in D.C. and there are always plenty of buyers. And genuine truthiness is hard to come by.
I listened to David opine about scandal investigations and think he is trying to hard to put a lid on this investigation. According to the current talking points of David and other critics, past investigations show that the main fruit of such investigations is a scandal far from the entry point of the investigation. This is revisionist history.
Let's talk about the facts and not the spin. Watergate was about a break-in and the final scandal was about who paid for it, who requested it and who tried to cover it up. So the result was on target.
Iran-Contra was about secret sales of weapons to Iran which was prohibited by Congress and money from those sales going to the contras, also prohibited by Congress. The fruit of the investigation was the identification of who approved it and who covered it up. The result was again on target.
The Whitewater investigation was about money lent to the Clintons to finance a development. That investigation got nowhere . Then Starr went after Clinton's affairs and struck pay dirt with Monica Lewinsky. Here the investigation missed the original target and hit something else.
We still don't know the details of the interference and whether it involved members of the Trump campaign staff. David should just hold his water and let the investigation finish. Mueller is not Starr. The investigation will end properly.
Let's talk about the facts and not the spin. Watergate was about a break-in and the final scandal was about who paid for it, who requested it and who tried to cover it up. So the result was on target.
Iran-Contra was about secret sales of weapons to Iran which was prohibited by Congress and money from those sales going to the contras, also prohibited by Congress. The fruit of the investigation was the identification of who approved it and who covered it up. The result was again on target.
The Whitewater investigation was about money lent to the Clintons to finance a development. That investigation got nowhere . Then Starr went after Clinton's affairs and struck pay dirt with Monica Lewinsky. Here the investigation missed the original target and hit something else.
We still don't know the details of the interference and whether it involved members of the Trump campaign staff. David should just hold his water and let the investigation finish. Mueller is not Starr. The investigation will end properly.
5
Rob Smithen writes what many of us feel:
"Totally agree with Brooks. The problems of Trump are character and policy yet all I hear/read about-even in the NYT-is Russia. Trump will look like the hero he isn't if the Russia probe points at nothing Trump did."
As Brooks points out (and I have no doubt Smithen agrees with), it's still possible that some evidence will turn up. Some commenters point out, correctly, that the investigations are far from over. Nonetheless, it's been quite a while now.
Plan A seems to be to skewer Trump on the "collusion" issue. It might appear there is no Plan B, but I'm already seeing several: urging that we focus on "Russian interference with the election," collusion or not (important, but never in dispute); urging that we focus on Trump's pressure on Comey to drop the Flynn investigation (which happened, and was inappropriate, but was not a "crime" since Trump had authority to order Comey to drop it, and Come obviously ignored that pressure anyway and claimed in (earlier) sworn testimony that he never felt pressured to drop any investigation); and, in a few case, urging a shift of focus to "emoluments" (good luck with that!).
Whichever Plan B may appeal to you, keep in mind that the very existence of a Plan B usually suggests that Plan A isn't working very well.
"Totally agree with Brooks. The problems of Trump are character and policy yet all I hear/read about-even in the NYT-is Russia. Trump will look like the hero he isn't if the Russia probe points at nothing Trump did."
As Brooks points out (and I have no doubt Smithen agrees with), it's still possible that some evidence will turn up. Some commenters point out, correctly, that the investigations are far from over. Nonetheless, it's been quite a while now.
Plan A seems to be to skewer Trump on the "collusion" issue. It might appear there is no Plan B, but I'm already seeing several: urging that we focus on "Russian interference with the election," collusion or not (important, but never in dispute); urging that we focus on Trump's pressure on Comey to drop the Flynn investigation (which happened, and was inappropriate, but was not a "crime" since Trump had authority to order Comey to drop it, and Come obviously ignored that pressure anyway and claimed in (earlier) sworn testimony that he never felt pressured to drop any investigation); and, in a few case, urging a shift of focus to "emoluments" (good luck with that!).
Whichever Plan B may appeal to you, keep in mind that the very existence of a Plan B usually suggests that Plan A isn't working very well.
Agreed, we should not assume any sort of guilt, no matter how much we detest Trump. But:
1) We don't know what the source of the billowing smoke clouds could be. Mueller's and the FBI's job is to find out whether it's a serious fire or just someone ineptly grilling hot dogs in the back yard. To downgrade the matter to #971 on our list of Important Issues in the face of such a variety of warning signs would be to willfully ignore a significant potential danger.
2) It's hardly practicing the politics of scandal to react when so many deeply disturbing questions about the capabilities, ethics, and conduct of the administration have come so clearly to the fore and when the immediate matter potentially drives to the heart of our "free and open" electoral system.
3) Methinks the king doth protest too much. If Trump thinks the story is "phony," as he also thinks about any number of other issues that put him in a bad light, why doesn't he explain himself and let us have a look, starting with his tax returns and some full disclosure from his henchmen (are you listening, Sessions?)?
Trump himself does not seem to understand the gravity of the mess he is in, especially with regard to the obstruction of justice issue, a barely glowing ember on which he threw gallons of gasoline. If that vague, flailing, illogical quote from Trump at the column's close does prove to be an accurate commentary, it'll also show that we've lost all commitment to truth and reason and the rule of law.
1) We don't know what the source of the billowing smoke clouds could be. Mueller's and the FBI's job is to find out whether it's a serious fire or just someone ineptly grilling hot dogs in the back yard. To downgrade the matter to #971 on our list of Important Issues in the face of such a variety of warning signs would be to willfully ignore a significant potential danger.
2) It's hardly practicing the politics of scandal to react when so many deeply disturbing questions about the capabilities, ethics, and conduct of the administration have come so clearly to the fore and when the immediate matter potentially drives to the heart of our "free and open" electoral system.
3) Methinks the king doth protest too much. If Trump thinks the story is "phony," as he also thinks about any number of other issues that put him in a bad light, why doesn't he explain himself and let us have a look, starting with his tax returns and some full disclosure from his henchmen (are you listening, Sessions?)?
Trump himself does not seem to understand the gravity of the mess he is in, especially with regard to the obstruction of justice issue, a barely glowing ember on which he threw gallons of gasoline. If that vague, flailing, illogical quote from Trump at the column's close does prove to be an accurate commentary, it'll also show that we've lost all commitment to truth and reason and the rule of law.
3
Considering what republicans have created, essentially a factory for false or misleading investigations from the congress, considering republicans even used the Department of Justice to attempt to effect elections under Bush the younger, and absolutely, considering the method of closing the torture chamber for Cinton and getting impeachment was a manufactured lie about an affair... well, this whole article is laughable and no, Mr. Brooks, whitewater did not have more substance than Trump's investigation, not even close. For crimes sake, we already have a list of folks who've lied to congress, including the AG, and one who is under sure indictment, unless he turns on the boss (Flynn). Throw in Manafort and Page and you'd have to be willfully ignorant or woefully short marbles to not smell Denmark at this point.
"There’s just something worrisome every time we find ourselves replacing politics of democracy with the politics of scandal. In democracy, the issues count, and you try to win by persuasion."
David, why didn't you write this column a year ago? After all, Trump's outrageous undemocratic, slanderous, scandalous comments didn't begin after the election.
David, why didn't you write this column a year ago? After all, Trump's outrageous undemocratic, slanderous, scandalous comments didn't begin after the election.
I don't get the "no evidence of collusion" argument everyone repeatedly makes. Trump's campaign manager resigns precipitously after he wins the nomination in the context of his receiving illegal money from the ex-Ukrainian president, who is being given asylum by Putin. His foreign policy advisor Michael Flynn meets repeatedly with Russians and fails to disclose it on his security application -- then we learn he is making deals with the Russians about lifting sanctions placed on them for hacking our election, and lying about it. Trump himself says, "Russia, if you're listening" go ahead and hack my opponent. And he repeatedly praises Putin, and likens his crimes to America's past mistakes. AND right after the election the Russian ambassador says Russia WAS in contact with Trump campaign people during the campaign (which Putin and Trump then deny), while Trump poo-poo's the Russian hacking and minimizes its attack on America. This assumes we discount everything in the Steele dossier, and only includes publicly disclosed material -- not the information to which the Congress and FBI are privy to.
True, this not fire, but it is smoke. It is not proof, but it IS evidence. It is highly unusual for a presidential candidate's campaign to have done any of these things with an international adversary. To say repeatedly there is "no evidence" perpetuates a dangerous falsehood. There may be no proof, but there IS evidence, sufficient to provide probable cause to investigate.
True, this not fire, but it is smoke. It is not proof, but it IS evidence. It is highly unusual for a presidential candidate's campaign to have done any of these things with an international adversary. To say repeatedly there is "no evidence" perpetuates a dangerous falsehood. There may be no proof, but there IS evidence, sufficient to provide probable cause to investigate.
It's quite unlikely that Mr. Flynn is going to be willing to go to jail if he has, as his lawyer says, 'a story to tell' that can buy him immunity, and the only story that is likely worth that price to prosecutors is one that implicates Trump or at least someone in the inner circle (Jared?). Flynn's lawyers are supposedly negotiating with investigators now, so we may find out whyTrump was so desperate to get him out of the FBI's crosshairs. OTOH, IF HE DOESN't get immunity, I agree it will signal that there is orobably not going to be a provable direct link to the campaign.
Surprisingly naïve. Factually inaccurate. Intellectually dishonest.
But, no, let's not get carried away -- especially with the false equivalencies
But, no, let's not get carried away -- especially with the false equivalencies
5
It's now hard to avoid the politics of scandal when the politicians are so scandalous.
1
Like you I don't presume collusion, in the criminal sense.
But why did a Russian shallow covered spy convicted in New York want to recruit Carter Page? Was Page smart enough to discern recruitment? If so, did he go to the FBI? Page whines about wiretaps, which given the public record of the New York trial, would seem to be entirely justified under FISA. regardless of whether Page had a clue Russia was trying to hook him?
Anyway, with respect to Flynn, Manaforte and the rest, two rules apply:
Who benefited from their irregularities? and Follow the Money. Until they are understood, we won't know whether there was collusion.
The big sin in your report, however, is saying Whitewate, to this point, is bigger than Russia's manipulation. Whitewater was a run of the mill southern graft scandal in which the Clintons were not charged, after all the effort.
Russian interfered in our election. Did they get help from the Trump campaign, whose contacts, initially unreported, with Russia leave open the possibility that Russia sought to recruit one or more of them, not as spies, but as agents of influence. That's a far more worthy topic for investigation than Whitewater's Arkansaw muck.
Re Trump. As you indicated, he brought this on himself. Serves him right. Doesn't serve America, of course. But looking the other way, to reduce the beastliness of politics, is a recipe for national suicide.
Please reconsider your essay.
But why did a Russian shallow covered spy convicted in New York want to recruit Carter Page? Was Page smart enough to discern recruitment? If so, did he go to the FBI? Page whines about wiretaps, which given the public record of the New York trial, would seem to be entirely justified under FISA. regardless of whether Page had a clue Russia was trying to hook him?
Anyway, with respect to Flynn, Manaforte and the rest, two rules apply:
Who benefited from their irregularities? and Follow the Money. Until they are understood, we won't know whether there was collusion.
The big sin in your report, however, is saying Whitewate, to this point, is bigger than Russia's manipulation. Whitewater was a run of the mill southern graft scandal in which the Clintons were not charged, after all the effort.
Russian interfered in our election. Did they get help from the Trump campaign, whose contacts, initially unreported, with Russia leave open the possibility that Russia sought to recruit one or more of them, not as spies, but as agents of influence. That's a far more worthy topic for investigation than Whitewater's Arkansaw muck.
Re Trump. As you indicated, he brought this on himself. Serves him right. Doesn't serve America, of course. But looking the other way, to reduce the beastliness of politics, is a recipe for national suicide.
Please reconsider your essay.
3
After reading this article, for the first time in a long time, I felt that David Brook presented a fair one here. Yes, it is time for fair minded pundits, journalist and citizens to speak up against the attempt to nullify the last election through legal entrapment. Any fair minded Americans, supporters and opponents of Trump, must understand what the following words speak: “They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story.” Since Trump cannot fire the special counsel with legal impunity, it is the duty of pundits like Mr. Brooks to demand the dismissal of the special counsel for the sake of American democracy and fairness.
2
This is haystack matterial. David Brooks has the impossible task of trying to reconcile his relationship with Trump and the GOP. Hard work for an earnest, free thinker.
Let's see: Flynn gets fired by Trump for covering up his meetings with Russians. Trump then tells Comey he hopes Comey can let the Flynn investigation go. Brooks then buys into the Trump narrative that the ensuing collusion investigation is fake news. David's inability to link these facts makes his analysis weak.
2
Unfortunately, for the President, behavior matters. His reckless words are of his own making. No one put words in his mouth. He extroverts what comes into his mind. What is in his mind is disturbing.
How convenient it is for Mr. Brooks to not even mention the word "Benghazi" that Republicans pilloried Mrs. Clinton for ages. Politics of scandal, indeed.
3
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282
Is that the kind of evidence of collusion you were looking for Mr. Brooks?
Is that the kind of evidence of collusion you were looking for Mr. Brooks?
The kool aid has been drunk Mr. Brooks and it has to work its way through the progressive system. The "resistance" is in full bloom.
The only people capable of making Mr. Trump look dignified are his enemies.
The only people capable of making Mr. Trump look dignified are his enemies.
2
Keeping true to the spirit of all that is great, wonderful and awesomely magical in Trumpistan, David Brooks has gaslighted himself. Well done.
1
Thank you and welcome back, David Brooks. Over a year ago, I recognized that a Donald Trump Presidency was going to be an excruciating problem but I voted for him to the shake up the establishment. It was my hope then, as is still is today, that great Americans would emerge to support the Presidency and "make lemonade out of lemons". A few weeks ago, I wrote a comment about you when it appeared that your frustration with the incessantly aggravating Mr. Trump was causing you to join the "madding crowd" and make remarks personally insulting this veritable cornucopia of annoying, provocative and outrageous traits. The partisan, hysterical maelstrom roiling around Donald Trump was so intense that people were blind to the damage they were inflicting on the very foundations of our beloved Country. Alan Dershowitz was one of the first people to recognize this and he went all in to unabashedly cogently protect the rule of law, despite his political perspectives. You are beginning to educate and enlighten your readers and deflect them from the corrosive politics of hate while reclaiming the dignity and decorum of your profession and restoring and reinforcing the First Amendment. You are one of the great Americans I hoped would emerge and with this article you have. Most biased, uninformed comments are combative and argumentative about the Russian scandal but the real story is that you and, hopefully, others whom I respect are finally fighting ignorance with truth.
1
Thank goodness for this piece.
Let's hope CNN (and the NYT) reads this.
Let's hope CNN (and the NYT) reads this.
1
David...I'm recently started giving you the benefit of the doubt for joining the truth and transparency wing of the Republican party (a very small group). This article shows some significant backsliding...please don't join the swamp..
2
Well, David, as we all know, President Nixon never ordered the Watergate break in, but he certainly obstructed justice trying to cover it up. There very well may be no "collusion" with Russia, but I think Trump incriminated himself in the interview with Lester Holt. The whole country heard him say he wanted to fire Comey because of the Russia investigation.
Trump's bromance with Putin and his love of all things autocratic certainly do seem odd. And that statement he made last summer encouraging Russia to find the rest of Hillary's emails was stunning. "Russia, if you're listening...." - I think they are always listening, and waiting to take advantage of "useful idiots".
Trump's bromance with Putin and his love of all things autocratic certainly do seem odd. And that statement he made last summer encouraging Russia to find the rest of Hillary's emails was stunning. "Russia, if you're listening...." - I think they are always listening, and waiting to take advantage of "useful idiots".
2
False equivalence: Whitewater was about wealth; Trump-Russia is about treason.
So you declare no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia to hack the 2016 election well before the investigation concludes? Is that your attitude with all criminal investigations, or just ones that may implicate the GOP?
3
Mr. Brooks your analysis is unconvincing.
How can you minimize the facts coming out from Russiangate ?
The president of the United States is a blatant liar, a manipulator, an ignorant corrupt and malignant individual.
I hope he will be impeached soon , although zealot Pence is another ominous figure unable to fulfill the needs of the presidency.
How can you minimize the facts coming out from Russiangate ?
The president of the United States is a blatant liar, a manipulator, an ignorant corrupt and malignant individual.
I hope he will be impeached soon , although zealot Pence is another ominous figure unable to fulfill the needs of the presidency.
3
Trump is a serial liar. We don't need any new evidence on that fact.
1
Finally! An admission, albeit somewhat late, from David Brooks, former op-ed editor of the WSJ, that he couldn't follow his newspaper's own investigative pieces. Whitewater was "overblown" was it? What about the existence of WMDs? Mr. Brooks, himself, seems to get a lot wrong. Important things. Now, as resident moralizer and contrarian, he tells us we should be wary of listening to members of the pundit class, which, by the way, includes himself. Raises an interesting paradox, no?
"...the perfectly legal ways he kowtows to thugs and undermines the norms of democratic behavior." Ah - but isn't Putin one of those thugs? :) And around and around we go...
Maybe the Trump campaign-Russia connection won't show anything. The investigation has now turned to Trump's boneheaded behavior in trying to thwart that investigation by the FBI by firing James Comey. But you want true Russian and other foreign country collusion with an American politician, we should be shinning a light on the Clinton Foundation- see NYT 4/23/2015. That's your Russian collusion. BTW, Clinton's own internal polling firm reported to the campaign that it was this one single issue that Americans referred to when asked why they didn't trust Hillary Clinton.
"I have lots of people [investigators] in Hawaii and it's amazing what they're finding out." Well, the American wasn't born in Kenya after all. Mr. Brooks, you have to be careful when you discuss investigations and Trump in the same article, just as you have to be ashamed to mention Lincoln and Trump in that same diatribe. You haven't seen much evidence about collusion because it hasn't been made PUBLIC. Rest assured, since 2014 Putin wants the sanctions lifted so that ExxonMobil can begin drilling in the 63 million acres they leased in the Russian Arctic. There's somewhere around $500 billion in oil waiting for the intrusion of the pipes and pumps. Collusion? Putin even directed his puppet to appoint his friendship-award-winner-CEO as Secretary of State [unless, comrade, you want me to release certain hotel video tapes]. Keep dirty fossil fuel like oil viable and insanely profitable? "Comrade, withdraw from the Paris Accord" [tip of the cap to Saudi Arabia too, a dictatorial monarchy that makes Cuba look like a boy scout camp]. Wake up.
2
"In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown. And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington."
You are evidently not reading your own paper, or the WaPo. And many of us, Mr. Brooks, did not require a retrospective view to see that you, and the WSJ, lost your collective minds over nothing.
This is not nothing. Don't tell lies, Mr. Brooks, in a sad effort to rationalize your own past misdeeds. You were wrong then, you're wrong now. So start by doing some reading, catch up with the story, set aside your WaPo jealousy, and stop being yet another feckless Republican hypocrite.
You are evidently not reading your own paper, or the WaPo. And many of us, Mr. Brooks, did not require a retrospective view to see that you, and the WSJ, lost your collective minds over nothing.
This is not nothing. Don't tell lies, Mr. Brooks, in a sad effort to rationalize your own past misdeeds. You were wrong then, you're wrong now. So start by doing some reading, catch up with the story, set aside your WaPo jealousy, and stop being yet another feckless Republican hypocrite.
1
This is the most ludicrous op-ed piece that Brooks has ever written, it is so full of holes, it is amazing. Let's start with the false equivalence of him comparing the Clinton Whitewater investigations with the (possible) Trump-Russia collusion. One was a private real estate transaction, the other is treason. Another red herring he throws out is that no evidence has been produced yet. Well, it is still early on in the process, the Watergate investigation took 18 months to complete, this Russia probe could take 2 years, so it's way too premature to say Trump has done nothing wrong. Brooks has no problem with Trump campaign staffers talking to the Russians, but recent reporting now indicates that they may have wanted to lift sanctions, and changed the GOP platform at the RNC convention to be softer on the Russia annexation of Crimea. Just imagine if Hillary Clinton had done this? Neither Hillary, nor any other Democrat, could have gotten away with doing a small fraction of what Trump is doing right now, including massive financial conflicts of interest with his private business, violating the Emoluments clause of the Constitution for receiving money / profits from foreign countries, refusing to release his tax returns, firing the FBI director conducting an investigation against the President etc. You know that Brooks and all the other Republicans would be impeaching Hillary, or any Democrat, immediately for doing any these things. Trump is getting away with murder.
5
I stopped reading when I reached "the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal."
3
The staggering hypocrisy of this article doesn't pass this simple test: imagine the hysteria from the Right if Hillary were the perpetrator.
1
When you have a completely unqualified person trying to be president, it makes the public grasp at anything that might get this person out of office.
1
30 years of investigations into the Clintons and nary a peep. Four months of investigations into Trump, "Now that's a bridge too far!"
Same old, same old, David Brooks: "Please, let's be reasonable," he says while giving an out-of-control republican leader every possible benefit of the doubt, and casting the opponents themselves as "out-of-control" zealots. Then he segues into his standard "this is hurting the country" schtick.
Charles Manson and ISIS members would receive the same treatment from David Brooks if they called themselves republicans.
Charles Manson and ISIS members would receive the same treatment from David Brooks if they called themselves republicans.
Gee thanks, David. You have lately backed off on making excuses for Trump. I thought maybe you were feeling a little under the weather considering the country has been stewing in this poisonous mess for a year now.
Glad you're feeling better--back in fighting mode.
By the way: follow the money.
Glad you're feeling better--back in fighting mode.
By the way: follow the money.
to give a liar like Donald trump the last word is what a conservative would do. whitewater had years to look but trump and the Russians is a few months old, give it time. the fbi says the Russians tried to interfere in 38 states. I don't believe they did it with any reason other than to help themselves and comrade trump. he sure acts like a stooge for the Russians.
There are two possibilities:
1. Trump and his campaign did, in fact, collude with the Russians and were in on it when the Russians were hacking the election on his behalf. That's why he fired Comey--because the FBI was getting close and he wanted to stop it. Meantime, he keeps doing what Putin wants.
2. There was no collusion. All the meetings between the Trump campaign and Russians were all perfectly innocent. He's pursuing Kremlin-Friendly polices to pander to the Infowars/Bretibart/RT audicence represented by Steve Bannon. And he fired the FBI director because...who knows.
The thing is, if Trump colluded with the Russians, then at least his actions make sense! He's acting like Putin's stooge because he is. The alternative is he's not Putin's stooge, but he keeps acting like it for no rational reason. Even if he is playing to a domestic audience that lionizes Putin, why fire Comey? It's only the second time an FBI director has ever been fired.
Either way, the traditionally anti-Russian/anti-Communist Republican party is all too willing to sweep the Russia thing under the rug. If they were 100% confident there was no collusion you wait for the investigation to clear him.
How is any of that good for the country?
1. Trump and his campaign did, in fact, collude with the Russians and were in on it when the Russians were hacking the election on his behalf. That's why he fired Comey--because the FBI was getting close and he wanted to stop it. Meantime, he keeps doing what Putin wants.
2. There was no collusion. All the meetings between the Trump campaign and Russians were all perfectly innocent. He's pursuing Kremlin-Friendly polices to pander to the Infowars/Bretibart/RT audicence represented by Steve Bannon. And he fired the FBI director because...who knows.
The thing is, if Trump colluded with the Russians, then at least his actions make sense! He's acting like Putin's stooge because he is. The alternative is he's not Putin's stooge, but he keeps acting like it for no rational reason. Even if he is playing to a domestic audience that lionizes Putin, why fire Comey? It's only the second time an FBI director has ever been fired.
Either way, the traditionally anti-Russian/anti-Communist Republican party is all too willing to sweep the Russia thing under the rug. If they were 100% confident there was no collusion you wait for the investigation to clear him.
How is any of that good for the country?
Mr. Brooks, will you still feel the same if Mr. Trump fires Mr. Mueller?
David, it appears that after your brief stint in teaching, you are just reaching out to your old Republican supporters to re-build your old fans base. "So sad."
Here are a couple of things we already know:
1) The man Donald Trump appointed to be the Director of the NSA was a PAID AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and as well as having received speaking fees from Vladimir Putin's propaganda service, RT.
2) The DNC's computers were hacked, which is a felony, (a modern day burglary) and the materials that were taken were used to support Donald Trump's campaign. Our Intelligence Community has determined this was done by Russia for the express purpose of disrupting our election, and has characterized this as an act of war.
3) Jared Kushner attempted to establish surreptitious communications out of sight of the Congress or our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, for what purpose we can't know. But the intended to use Russian secure communications equipment to keep our IC in the dark about this channel.
At about the same time as the Wikileaks DNC dump, the Trump Campaign asked for a single change to the Republican platform - removal of language supporting arming anti-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine.
If it walks like treason, and sounds like treason, it's treason.
1) The man Donald Trump appointed to be the Director of the NSA was a PAID AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and as well as having received speaking fees from Vladimir Putin's propaganda service, RT.
2) The DNC's computers were hacked, which is a felony, (a modern day burglary) and the materials that were taken were used to support Donald Trump's campaign. Our Intelligence Community has determined this was done by Russia for the express purpose of disrupting our election, and has characterized this as an act of war.
3) Jared Kushner attempted to establish surreptitious communications out of sight of the Congress or our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, for what purpose we can't know. But the intended to use Russian secure communications equipment to keep our IC in the dark about this channel.
At about the same time as the Wikileaks DNC dump, the Trump Campaign asked for a single change to the Republican platform - removal of language supporting arming anti-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine.
If it walks like treason, and sounds like treason, it's treason.
David Brooks writes: "I was the op-ed editor at The Wall Street Journal at the peak of the Whitewater scandal. We ran a series of investigative pieces “raising serious questions” (as we say in the scandal business) about the nefarious things the Clintons were thought to have done back in Arkansas.
Now I confess I couldn’t follow all the actual allegations made in those essays ... But I do remember the intense atmosphere that the scandal created. A series of bombshell revelations came out in the media, which seemed monumental at the time. A special prosecutor was appointed and indictments were expected. Speculation became the national sport. In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown."
You should be ashamed. And I'm still waiting for your apology. People like you -- the OpEd editor, who didn't bother to understand the allegations you made -- made a blood sport of taking down a President.
The novelty of the investigations at the time created a false air of legitimacy to the accusations. Even my Ivy league law-school classmates believed "Republicans wouldn't be pursuing this if there was nothing to it." (We've learned a lot about the depths the right wing will go to in support of their vast conspiracy to steal power.)
Thank god, the Clintons at the time were stronger than your and other "reporters" shoddy and malicious speculations. Too bad Hillary Clinton wasn't able to overcome them this time around.
Now I confess I couldn’t follow all the actual allegations made in those essays ... But I do remember the intense atmosphere that the scandal created. A series of bombshell revelations came out in the media, which seemed monumental at the time. A special prosecutor was appointed and indictments were expected. Speculation became the national sport. In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown."
You should be ashamed. And I'm still waiting for your apology. People like you -- the OpEd editor, who didn't bother to understand the allegations you made -- made a blood sport of taking down a President.
The novelty of the investigations at the time created a false air of legitimacy to the accusations. Even my Ivy league law-school classmates believed "Republicans wouldn't be pursuing this if there was nothing to it." (We've learned a lot about the depths the right wing will go to in support of their vast conspiracy to steal power.)
Thank god, the Clintons at the time were stronger than your and other "reporters" shoddy and malicious speculations. Too bad Hillary Clinton wasn't able to overcome them this time around.
1
Geez, its a miracle Obama had no scandals at all, despite Trump's pestering birther movement. David puts it mildly but Trump was very obsessed about Obama, let's refresh
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html
1
David, do you have any doubt that if half as many as trump's life-long rocks had been furned over as have Hillary's in her journey from Whitewater to Benghazi trump would have been in the Federal Hokey Pokey a long, long time ago?
Lets not forget to thank good old Newt Gingrich. He birthed this insanity, and hes been right there behind every scandal since. Either accusing someone, or like now being the weasel sycophant.
My money is still on the mute Mr. Ivanka being the loose bearing. Good old Kush has the closet we need to open. Daddy is protecting someone/s very close to him, otherwise anyone else would have seen the underside of a bus by now.
My money is still on the mute Mr. Ivanka being the loose bearing. Good old Kush has the closet we need to open. Daddy is protecting someone/s very close to him, otherwise anyone else would have seen the underside of a bus by now.
This is another case of "show me the man, and I'll find you the crime." You don't have to be a fan of Trump to see this is a McCarthy-esque witch hunt. The logic seems to be that if you oppose Trump's policies, Trump must be a traitor. I mean, only a traitor would disagree with YOUR political views, right? It was exactly the same attitude towards HIlary Clinton: some of those who were opposed to her policies believed that she therefore was a cannibalistic child rapist who worshipped Satan, because who else would be despicable enough to disagree with YOUR political views? The main difference is that the Comet Pizza nonsense never got much traction. People like Alex Jones are not exactly mainstream. It was never given credence by any mainstream media. But here we see the exact same thing: people far too eager to believe the worst of a man merely because he is their political opponent. And this won't be the end of it. Whenever this investigation ends, another will begin. That's what happens when you believe your political opponents are not just wrong, but evil. It becomes a holy war with a divine mission to free the American people from a tyrant. That seems far nobler than what it is: a shabby partisan investigation led by a bunch of crooks interested only in their own petty agenda.
1
The critical responses to Brooks's entirely reasonable observations indicate the damage done by the Times to its readers. They really believe that Trump is an "existential threat" to our institutions, whereas in reality he's merely an obtuse ignoramus who does one thing well, namely articulate the grievances of about half of the American public.
To this I just have to say, "Crooked Hillary" and "Lock her up!" to remind Mr. Brooks where we have just been and the very real possibility that we have a "Siberian candidate" (to quote your Op Ed colleague) in The Oval Office. It's way too late for an "ignorance is bliss" defense.
The left is basing all it's hopes and dreams (retaking the House in 2018, and then on to victory! in 2020) on hanging "Russian Collusion" around the necks of the pubbies.
Democrats need to steel themselves against the reality that there may actually be NOTHING THERE.
Dems - if this all blows over you're going to need a better message - which as things stand now is what is going to happen.
Democrats need to steel themselves against the reality that there may actually be NOTHING THERE.
Dems - if this all blows over you're going to need a better message - which as things stand now is what is going to happen.
2
Brooks: "In the politics of scandal, at least since Watergate, you don’t have to engage in persuasion or even talk about issues. Political victories are won when you destroy your political opponents... Politics is simply about moral superiority and personal destruction."
Bingo. Kind of like jihad, isn't it?
Bingo. Kind of like jihad, isn't it?
Isn't this the same Donald Trump who whined he was "being investigated for firing the FBI director by the same man who told me to fire him", but conveniently left out that he instructed Rosenstein to find a reason to fire Comey? Oh yes, the media is making too big a deal about this matter of possible treason that "ranks #971" on your list of offenses.
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, Everything Trump says is a lie__including "and" and "the."
www.newyorkgritty.net
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, Everything Trump says is a lie__including "and" and "the."
www.newyorkgritty.net
1
David Brooks has been shifting his thoughts in a Democratic way for months, much to the surprise of most NYT commenters.
I find his column today to reflect a sudden return to the conservative viewpoint of "Nothing to see here...move on". Seems to me that he suddenly sees the real liability coming down the pike for the Republican party and tries to throw a little ice on a situation that is getting hotter daily.
This could be a signal that it is nearly disaster time for the party of Reagan.
I find his column today to reflect a sudden return to the conservative viewpoint of "Nothing to see here...move on". Seems to me that he suddenly sees the real liability coming down the pike for the Republican party and tries to throw a little ice on a situation that is getting hotter daily.
This could be a signal that it is nearly disaster time for the party of Reagan.
Ohh David Brooks - so balanced, and so well written. I miss common sense.
Mr Brooks- look at what you just wrote:
"The politics of scandal drives a wedge through society. Political elites get swept up in the scandals. Most voters don’t really care. Donald Trump rose peddling the politics of scandal — oblivious to policy, spreading insane allegations about birth certificates and other things "
Most voters don't care? Apparently they DO care since he not only got elected but even normal Republicans let such garbage continue to fester for 8 years without bothering to swat this stuff away like decent human beings@!
The ONLY time -the ONE time that a Republican unequivocally did was when John McCain took the mic from the old lady blathering about distrusting Obama because "he's a muslim" McCain actually said "NO- NO he's not. he's a good family man with whom I disagree on policy"
What happened to that John McCain as a role model for other Republicans?
"The politics of scandal drives a wedge through society. Political elites get swept up in the scandals. Most voters don’t really care. Donald Trump rose peddling the politics of scandal — oblivious to policy, spreading insane allegations about birth certificates and other things "
Most voters don't care? Apparently they DO care since he not only got elected but even normal Republicans let such garbage continue to fester for 8 years without bothering to swat this stuff away like decent human beings@!
The ONLY time -the ONE time that a Republican unequivocally did was when John McCain took the mic from the old lady blathering about distrusting Obama because "he's a muslim" McCain actually said "NO- NO he's not. he's a good family man with whom I disagree on policy"
What happened to that John McCain as a role model for other Republicans?
Trump lives by creating 'scandals' it's the pot calling the kettle black.
Dear David
I am so looking forward to you having to retract this column when the facts come out though I doubt you will admit you were wrong. You never do. So everyone around Trump has some connection to Russia. The digital election team used and weaponized the DNC leaks and fabricated stories and then targeted prospective Hillary voters led by his son-in-law... but move along nothing to see here. What about the Ukraine plank that was removed at the republican convention? The only change made. The so-called plan for peace in Ukraine from his lawyer Michael Cohen who also just lawyered up. The numerous attempts to lift sanctions. Rex Tillerson who Trump apparently had never met. And now he wants to work on cyber security with the Russians who invaded our cyber security to hack our election. Manaforte, Page, Roger Stone, Sessions. All coincidence. If you believe that I've got a land deal in Arkansas you might be interested in.
I am so looking forward to you having to retract this column when the facts come out though I doubt you will admit you were wrong. You never do. So everyone around Trump has some connection to Russia. The digital election team used and weaponized the DNC leaks and fabricated stories and then targeted prospective Hillary voters led by his son-in-law... but move along nothing to see here. What about the Ukraine plank that was removed at the republican convention? The only change made. The so-called plan for peace in Ukraine from his lawyer Michael Cohen who also just lawyered up. The numerous attempts to lift sanctions. Rex Tillerson who Trump apparently had never met. And now he wants to work on cyber security with the Russians who invaded our cyber security to hack our election. Manaforte, Page, Roger Stone, Sessions. All coincidence. If you believe that I've got a land deal in Arkansas you might be interested in.
1
You confess that you never understood the issues with Whitewater. Well, neither did I. Because real estate development is so heavily regulated, you Repubs seemingly figured if you looked at it long enough you would surely find some paperwork error, some required permit that wasn't filed. But you never did, so the investigator ended the enquiry, right? Of course not! He simply moved on to a series of completely unrelated topics in an endless quest to pin some crime on the Clintons, a quest that only susided after last year's election.
Others here have catalogued the literally dozens of foul-smelling circumstances involving Russia, and you have the gall to claim that Whitewater was more substantive?
Others here have catalogued the literally dozens of foul-smelling circumstances involving Russia, and you have the gall to claim that Whitewater was more substantive?
What world does Mr. Books live in, and can I get paid enough to live there by, like he does, telling people they aren't being calm enough about the possibility that Donald Trump and his advisers worked with a foreign power to alter the course of our election? Brooks's clueless bourgeois comfort has made him a joke for readers -- stay the course, don't get upset, don't question the drug war or military spending or anything that the 'grownups' like him are in favor of. And comparing Whitewater and this circumstance is a ugly and sad joke.
Please, New York Times, you can give a better platform to smarter writers than Mr. Brooks. Make him live in the world of $15-an-hour wages and over-priced health benefits that most Americans do; he may find it illuminating, and I'd certainly find it entertaining.
Please, New York Times, you can give a better platform to smarter writers than Mr. Brooks. Make him live in the world of $15-an-hour wages and over-priced health benefits that most Americans do; he may find it illuminating, and I'd certainly find it entertaining.
1
Mr. Trump - where are the tapes?
1
I urge all David Brooks readers to check out the great Charles Pierce's evisceration of today's column : "This may be the most shameless passage of political journalism I have ever read. It contains more of the elements of passive-aggression, self-absolution, historical amnesia, and outright falsehood in the same place than any other single location this side of the author's own frontal lobes."
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55744/david-brooks-w...
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55744/david-brooks-w...
2
There are no fewer than four investigations into this matter. Is it too much to ask that we all withhold judgement until they've finished their work?
There is, at this point, a strong prima facie case for collusion.
Bearing in mind absence of clear standards in regard to how you prove this, we can still make out a powerful case for strong collusion between Trump and the Russians. A few items--nothing new here.
1. The way Trump has talked about Putin, repeatedly refraining from criticizing him
2. The large number of contacts between Trump's people and Russian officials, most notably Jared Kushner's notorious attempt to establish a back channel for secure communication with them.
3. The repeated pattern of Trump's people lying about these contacts or conveniently forgetting them.
4. Possible evidence of financial dealings with the Russians, as an explanation for why Trump will not release his taxes.
5. On the other side, Trump's strong desire to remove the sanctions. The fact that retaining them was removed from the Republican platform, and that Trump's people were inquiring about removing them as soon as they came in to office.
6. Trump's irrational and highly destructive attack on NATO and our allies.
(6) and (7), are, or would be, overwhelmingly in Russia's interest. Trump has been behaving exactly as he would have had there been collusion. A Manchurian president could not be, or at least try to be, more helpful to the Russians than Trump has been.
Bearing in mind absence of clear standards in regard to how you prove this, we can still make out a powerful case for strong collusion between Trump and the Russians. A few items--nothing new here.
1. The way Trump has talked about Putin, repeatedly refraining from criticizing him
2. The large number of contacts between Trump's people and Russian officials, most notably Jared Kushner's notorious attempt to establish a back channel for secure communication with them.
3. The repeated pattern of Trump's people lying about these contacts or conveniently forgetting them.
4. Possible evidence of financial dealings with the Russians, as an explanation for why Trump will not release his taxes.
5. On the other side, Trump's strong desire to remove the sanctions. The fact that retaining them was removed from the Republican platform, and that Trump's people were inquiring about removing them as soon as they came in to office.
6. Trump's irrational and highly destructive attack on NATO and our allies.
(6) and (7), are, or would be, overwhelmingly in Russia's interest. Trump has been behaving exactly as he would have had there been collusion. A Manchurian president could not be, or at least try to be, more helpful to the Russians than Trump has been.
Most (none?) of us know much if anything about what was discussed by the many Trump surrogates at any of their many chats with Russians. However, those surrogates offer the appearance of cover up. Flynn claims to "have a story to tell" (in exchange for immunity), and others have a remarkable deficit of memory. Trump himself seems obsessed by the "Russian Thing. There may well be nothing there, but the involved parties act as if there were. So, as fantasy-like as collusion may seem, it's not nearly so unimaginable as a Trump presidency.
As for Whitewater, it was always "overblown", not just in retrospect. Indeed, it is nowhere in the league of foreign meddling in our election, conspicuously in favor of one candidate over another, and to the cheers and encouragement of the benefitted candidate.
As for Whitewater, it was always "overblown", not just in retrospect. Indeed, it is nowhere in the league of foreign meddling in our election, conspicuously in favor of one candidate over another, and to the cheers and encouragement of the benefitted candidate.
As others have stated, there is a whopper difference between the Clinton scandals and what happened during the 2016 election. I believe James Comey when he emphatically stated that the Russians most certainly attempted to influence the outcome of our election. And if you follow the money—loans and investments and deals Russian banks (in Russia this means the government) have with Trump and various members of his family and members of his campaign and administration there is a treasonous link of connections that should concern every American citizen. Russia wanted Trump to win. Trump has pointedly praised Putin. Why? What do they have hanging over him? Loans? Incriminating evidence? There is something. We just haven't found it yet. But it is there.
1
The scandal of Whitewater was always the investigations. The Clntons other than losing money, never did anything wrong. The Russians interfered in the election and may have helped elect Donald Trump president. If Mr. Brooks does not see that the Trump campaign may have committed treason in aiding the Russians it is hard to understand why he is still writing for the Times.
1
Funny that we never heard a similar opinion from in every on-going investigation (and there were so many) about Hillary? Double standard? The double standard for the Trump presidency and every other presidency is now being normalized.
My beef, is that all of sturm and drang has seduced the press, including theNYTimes to avoid, evade and ignore the issue that will affect at least 25 million middle class and working class Americans: Healthcare
I'm afraid that Camp Incarnation did not actually instill the values you claim to have.
I would say the gentleman protesteth to much.
My beef, is that all of sturm and drang has seduced the press, including theNYTimes to avoid, evade and ignore the issue that will affect at least 25 million middle class and working class Americans: Healthcare
I'm afraid that Camp Incarnation did not actually instill the values you claim to have.
I would say the gentleman protesteth to much.
"... climate change treaties should be fair to us and include restrictions on all - if it wasn't for the USA, there would be no concern for the environment in the first place..."
I don't agree with the second part of that sentence, but I certainly agree with the first part. When Trump pulled the US out of the Paris climate accord, I was amazed and disappointed to learn that very few NYT readers, much less the general US population, seemed to know that the worlds' "developed countries" had committed to "mobilize" (whatever that means) $100,000,000,000 a year in "financing" to "developing countries," with the US agreeing to supply 30% of that $100,000,000,000 a year.
When various state governments, universities and others pledged to honor the Paris climate accord even though Trump had pulled the US out, none of them offered to take on any portion of this $100,000,000,000 a year obligation. They just "cherry-picked" some of the US' undertakings and ignored the others. Their "commitments" would have been more impressive if they'd undertaken to perform that $100,000,000,000 a year obligation.
The US government wasn't free to cherry-pick -- it was all or nothing. Trump chose nothing, of course, but none of his critics chose "all" -- or even their fair share of the "all."
I don't agree with the second part of that sentence, but I certainly agree with the first part. When Trump pulled the US out of the Paris climate accord, I was amazed and disappointed to learn that very few NYT readers, much less the general US population, seemed to know that the worlds' "developed countries" had committed to "mobilize" (whatever that means) $100,000,000,000 a year in "financing" to "developing countries," with the US agreeing to supply 30% of that $100,000,000,000 a year.
When various state governments, universities and others pledged to honor the Paris climate accord even though Trump had pulled the US out, none of them offered to take on any portion of this $100,000,000,000 a year obligation. They just "cherry-picked" some of the US' undertakings and ignored the others. Their "commitments" would have been more impressive if they'd undertaken to perform that $100,000,000,000 a year obligation.
The US government wasn't free to cherry-pick -- it was all or nothing. Trump chose nothing, of course, but none of his critics chose "all" -- or even their fair share of the "all."
1
So far, this column is on the money, so to speak. But we need to follow that money, and it may lead somewhere. In the meantime, though, Trump's world is a take-no-prisoners world of enemies and constant hostility, and I really don't see any alternative to the current strategies. This is a real fight with a lot at stake. Trump is too great a danger to our society and beyond.
1
So far, so true. But I agree with other reader comments that say we need to find out if financial connections exist between the president & Russia. It may be that the president is merely angry about the investigation; but it may also be that in fact, he does have something to conceal, and it has nothing to do with the election.
2
What kind of American campaign is "publically and proudly pro - Putin??? Did you read that sentence after you wrote it??
5
The special prosecutor's report will indicate that reasonable prosecutors may disagree as to whether Trump saying "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go" was obstruction of justice. However, Trump's assertions under oath to the FBI and others that he did not say that to Comey is clearly impeachable perjury.
It might also say that when Trump tweeted that Comey should hope there are no tapes, he thought that false tapes can be easily created if you have recordings of both speakers, by splicing words together as was done in various movies and television programs such a Mission Impossible. Probably Bannon and Jared told him that it might not be a good idea to ask the CIA to do that. After a recording of Comey's testimony was available, Trump tried to create the false tape, but had to wait until it was finished before releasing it. The work was performed in Russia.
“…The question then becomes what did Putin hope to gain by aiding Trump? What Russia and Putin desperately need is money. Even if Putin asked Trump to have the American Treasury transfer, say $200 billion to Russia, that is not going to happen. Even Kellyanne Conway could not spin that one into anything that would be acceptable to the American people or congress. How could Trump cause Russia to gain $200 billion? The answer would be a $50 increase in oil. What has caused most of the oil price spikes? That has been wars in the Middle East..” http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034048
It might also say that when Trump tweeted that Comey should hope there are no tapes, he thought that false tapes can be easily created if you have recordings of both speakers, by splicing words together as was done in various movies and television programs such a Mission Impossible. Probably Bannon and Jared told him that it might not be a good idea to ask the CIA to do that. After a recording of Comey's testimony was available, Trump tried to create the false tape, but had to wait until it was finished before releasing it. The work was performed in Russia.
“…The question then becomes what did Putin hope to gain by aiding Trump? What Russia and Putin desperately need is money. Even if Putin asked Trump to have the American Treasury transfer, say $200 billion to Russia, that is not going to happen. Even Kellyanne Conway could not spin that one into anything that would be acceptable to the American people or congress. How could Trump cause Russia to gain $200 billion? The answer would be a $50 increase in oil. What has caused most of the oil price spikes? That has been wars in the Middle East..” http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034048
1
There's a reason *all* modern presidential candidates have shared their tax returns, and it's not so that everyone else can be jealous of how rich they are. It's so that Americans can have some form of hard evidence that the person they're voting for is reasonably honest and not beholden to foreign interests, criminal organizations, etc. Donald Trump decided this wasn't important, and a lot of trusting Americans went along, for whatever reason. Ever since being elected, he has behaved in a manner consistent with someone who has something important to hide. He has proven far from trustworthy on a wide range of topics. But so far, we have no smoking gun that explains all this weird behavior. Meanwhile, the President tweets a steady stream of nonsense while his handlers regularly contradict both him and themselves. He fired the FBI Director, admitted it was because of the Russia investigation, and floated a trial balloon about firing Robert Mueller. And yet, Mr. Brooks reassures us this unsettling behavior is really no big deal, compared to Whitewater -- a dry well he admittedly never understood, but that dogged the Clintons for YEARS, in part because Mr. Brooks decided it must be important (although it now "seems overblown"). Wow. Mr. Brooks, please allow Mr. Mueller to get to the bottom of whatever possible entanglements Mr. Trump seems to be so concerned about before you decide, yet again, what's important for us to worry our pretty little heads about.
The worst thing about the situation David describes is that the focus is no longer on what the Russians did, which is a threat to our democracy, but on whether Trump & Co were a part of it. And while the media are complicit, it is Trump's insistence that everything is about him that has moved the spotlight from the perps to possible (at worst) enablers.
We keep reading that there is no evidence yet regarding Russia.
Perhaps it just hasn't been disclosed to the public. Follow the money, the obstruction, the Tweets. It's going down.
Perhaps it just hasn't been disclosed to the public. Follow the money, the obstruction, the Tweets. It's going down.
2
The only potential "smoking gun" thus far, which keeps my radar up, is the 35 page dossier, prepared by the former British intelligence guy, who is not a conspiracy theorist and has a reliable reputation amongst the intelligence community. His investigation was first initiated by Republicans. He now runs a lucrative private investigation operation and he does have a reputation to protect, which, if his report is totally false, his credibility is toast.
So in my opinion, there is a "there, there." The behavior of Trump and his closest associates does nothing to mitigate my suspicions.
I will add that I do not favor impeachment until there is concrete evidence of collusion, and if there is not, we have no choice, sad as it is, but to sit out the next 3 1/2 years, making our voices heard, not in petty, shrill, accusations, but loud and clear against the most egregious issues - health care, tax reform that only favor the rich, climate.
So in my opinion, there is a "there, there." The behavior of Trump and his closest associates does nothing to mitigate my suspicions.
I will add that I do not favor impeachment until there is concrete evidence of collusion, and if there is not, we have no choice, sad as it is, but to sit out the next 3 1/2 years, making our voices heard, not in petty, shrill, accusations, but loud and clear against the most egregious issues - health care, tax reform that only favor the rich, climate.
Brooks writes: 'the people who hype the politics of scandal deserve some of the blame for an administration and government too distracted to do its job"
Blame, or credit?
It seems that it hasn't occurred to Brooks, or he is simply unwilling to concede openly, that a distracted and paralyzed executive is actually the goal of much of the scandal-mining that is going on now.
And I do not point that out cynically. Impeachment isn't necessarily the goal here.
Trump is a divisive figure and it seems to bear repeating that the division isn't even necessarily related to his politics. (Would we have seen the past half-year's deeply emotional and passionate obstruction and derision from the Left, if we were several months into a John Kasich administration? I do not think so.) The Left's animus is largely moral and ethical, not political, as Brooks himself has opined in previous columns.
Trump is dangerously ignorant of his responsibilities, an inept politician (a virtue, to a certain kind of American voter), a vice-ridden dissolute without character. That he supports some Republican political positions is hardly the point.
And barring some constitutional or extralegal measure to remove him from office, the burning down of his reputation, his credibility, his standing, his political capital, his legitimacy (with honest and virtuous and well intended legal inquiry, no less) is a reasonable expedient to curtail activity in the executive.
Blame, or credit?
It seems that it hasn't occurred to Brooks, or he is simply unwilling to concede openly, that a distracted and paralyzed executive is actually the goal of much of the scandal-mining that is going on now.
And I do not point that out cynically. Impeachment isn't necessarily the goal here.
Trump is a divisive figure and it seems to bear repeating that the division isn't even necessarily related to his politics. (Would we have seen the past half-year's deeply emotional and passionate obstruction and derision from the Left, if we were several months into a John Kasich administration? I do not think so.) The Left's animus is largely moral and ethical, not political, as Brooks himself has opined in previous columns.
Trump is dangerously ignorant of his responsibilities, an inept politician (a virtue, to a certain kind of American voter), a vice-ridden dissolute without character. That he supports some Republican political positions is hardly the point.
And barring some constitutional or extralegal measure to remove him from office, the burning down of his reputation, his credibility, his standing, his political capital, his legitimacy (with honest and virtuous and well intended legal inquiry, no less) is a reasonable expedient to curtail activity in the executive.
What ever happened to just defeating his policies on the merits in the civil discourse?
All the stuff you just said is exactly what the left (justifiably, in many cases) complained about how the right treated Obama.
As a result of the obstruction of the right, the left shoved Obama care up the country's behind without any moderation from the right. Conservatives predicted exactly what would happen with the destabilizing market today, and even a government controlled by the left could not hide the fact that that destabilization is occurring.
The far right screamers predicted that Dems were pushing Obama care through, knowing it was doomed from the start, because their ultimate goal was to use its failure as an excuse to force single-payer on the nation. The current situation suggests they were right all along.
This country is falling apart because it's not about solving problems. It's about winning and dehumanizing and destroying your political opponents. Your post here is exactly how that spirit of party manifests it's self.
All the stuff you just said is exactly what the left (justifiably, in many cases) complained about how the right treated Obama.
As a result of the obstruction of the right, the left shoved Obama care up the country's behind without any moderation from the right. Conservatives predicted exactly what would happen with the destabilizing market today, and even a government controlled by the left could not hide the fact that that destabilization is occurring.
The far right screamers predicted that Dems were pushing Obama care through, knowing it was doomed from the start, because their ultimate goal was to use its failure as an excuse to force single-payer on the nation. The current situation suggests they were right all along.
This country is falling apart because it's not about solving problems. It's about winning and dehumanizing and destroying your political opponents. Your post here is exactly how that spirit of party manifests it's self.
Good article, although we are already carried away.
I'm no Trump fan. But other than leaks from anonymous sources, there is little to suggest that Russian collusion with Team Trump or obstruction of justice have occurred. Trump's not the patient sort anyway, and he causes most of his own problems, yet I can understand the frustration with the "politics of scandal" that is written all over the press coverage.
Flynn is unique. He's up to his eyeballs in trouble. And why would Kushner want a secure back channel with the Russians? These are matters worthy of staying in the news until they are resolved. But even these matters don't require daily "breaking news" updates. (Sorry CNN, but you're carried away too.)
I'd like to see someone go on record, or see some fact-based finding that supports any of these allegations.
Trump's a lousy president, and that won't change because he can't change. But one way or another, we either elected him or we're stuck with him.
I'd like the House, Senate, and Special Counsel to complete their work until such time as there is something newsworthy to report.
I'm no Trump fan. But other than leaks from anonymous sources, there is little to suggest that Russian collusion with Team Trump or obstruction of justice have occurred. Trump's not the patient sort anyway, and he causes most of his own problems, yet I can understand the frustration with the "politics of scandal" that is written all over the press coverage.
Flynn is unique. He's up to his eyeballs in trouble. And why would Kushner want a secure back channel with the Russians? These are matters worthy of staying in the news until they are resolved. But even these matters don't require daily "breaking news" updates. (Sorry CNN, but you're carried away too.)
I'd like to see someone go on record, or see some fact-based finding that supports any of these allegations.
Trump's a lousy president, and that won't change because he can't change. But one way or another, we either elected him or we're stuck with him.
I'd like the House, Senate, and Special Counsel to complete their work until such time as there is something newsworthy to report.
2
"Let’s Not Get Carried Away"
Desperate dems, knowing that they have lost the battle for the Supreme Court, and that their "transformational" agenda is effectively dead for decades, and having seen their vicarious and almost real power candy snatched away from them, are simply venting their rage and frustration. I can almost feel their pain.
Desperate dems, knowing that they have lost the battle for the Supreme Court, and that their "transformational" agenda is effectively dead for decades, and having seen their vicarious and almost real power candy snatched away from them, are simply venting their rage and frustration. I can almost feel their pain.
1
"In retrospect, Whitewater was overblown." You're just coming to this conclusion now? It was obvious at the time. Ken Starr became Special Prosecutor because his predecessor didn't find anything, and Starr was willing to go anywhere and everywhere to sully the Clinton administration. What's your point? We haven't heard anything substantial is because. Auditors and investigators don't release evidence and findings before they have finished. As usual, your straw man isn't even a good straw man.
1
Thank goodness someone has finally written something with intelligence and a moderating tone. This news bubbling cycle of Russia and Trump is distracting us from far more important national issues like the big picture of keeping foreign powers from influencing our elections, what's happening behind closed doors to our healthcare, Quatar, Dodd- Frank and on & on
Mr. Brooks you have it exactly right.
Mr. Brooks you have it exactly right.
2
OK. so maybe you're right - maybe there is no actual collusion, or maybe no evidence of collusion may be found.
But, I have no doubt that Trump, if not already, will soon enough, trample a law sufficiently to be impeached and/or tried.
He's a bull in a china shop and won't stop until he's really broken the law. He'll always be the leading character in scandalland, a landscape of his own design.
But, I have no doubt that Trump, if not already, will soon enough, trample a law sufficiently to be impeached and/or tried.
He's a bull in a china shop and won't stop until he's really broken the law. He'll always be the leading character in scandalland, a landscape of his own design.
Not sure why David has expected to see more evidence of a scandal of this magnitude so soon. Watergate started being investigated in 1972. But major indictments weren't handed out until 2 years later in 1974.
And this from David, "The people who hype the politics of scandal don’t make American government purer. They deserve some of the blame for an administration and government too distracted to do its job, for a political culture that is both shallower and nastier, and for fostering a process that looks like an elite game of entrapment."
If you meant "the people who hype" as being the Republican Party, yes they truly did hype these scandals- Whitewater, Vince Foster's death, the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky affair, Benghazi, and Hillary's emails (they tired again recently with Seth Rich's death but luckily it has been debunked). All of these scandal made the "administration and government too distracted to do their job." Funny too how the biggest political scandals to hit America were all perpetrated by Republican administrations- Teapot Dome, Watergate and Iran Contra. Not to mention the Great Depression and the Great Recession of 2008-2009. See a pattern here David?
And this from David, "The people who hype the politics of scandal don’t make American government purer. They deserve some of the blame for an administration and government too distracted to do its job, for a political culture that is both shallower and nastier, and for fostering a process that looks like an elite game of entrapment."
If you meant "the people who hype" as being the Republican Party, yes they truly did hype these scandals- Whitewater, Vince Foster's death, the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky affair, Benghazi, and Hillary's emails (they tired again recently with Seth Rich's death but luckily it has been debunked). All of these scandal made the "administration and government too distracted to do their job." Funny too how the biggest political scandals to hit America were all perpetrated by Republican administrations- Teapot Dome, Watergate and Iran Contra. Not to mention the Great Depression and the Great Recession of 2008-2009. See a pattern here David?
1
But then there's Pizzagate! Hahah.
Mr. Brooks,
Unfortunately for all concerned and despite Mr. Sekulow's circular reasoning (Trump is not under investigation but Trump is under investigation) this is a serious matter.
First, the Clintons could not fire the Whitewater investigator, Ken Starr. Secondly, comparing an investigation of allegedly shady business dealings with that of Russian collusion that affected the votes of millions and undermines the very foundation of our democracy is frankly bizarre. Just ask Nixon how firing the investigator Archibald Cox turned out, for that is the real metric for Trump.
Finally, just because Mr. Jay Sekulow is an attorney who is so arrogant to believe that overnight he too can become a criminal lawyer illuminates the one truism, he has a fool for a client, or that's the only caliber of legal assistance willing to work for Trump. After all, when Trump loses, and he will, invariably he will sue Sekulow for malpractice---how fitting.
Unfortunately for all concerned and despite Mr. Sekulow's circular reasoning (Trump is not under investigation but Trump is under investigation) this is a serious matter.
First, the Clintons could not fire the Whitewater investigator, Ken Starr. Secondly, comparing an investigation of allegedly shady business dealings with that of Russian collusion that affected the votes of millions and undermines the very foundation of our democracy is frankly bizarre. Just ask Nixon how firing the investigator Archibald Cox turned out, for that is the real metric for Trump.
Finally, just because Mr. Jay Sekulow is an attorney who is so arrogant to believe that overnight he too can become a criminal lawyer illuminates the one truism, he has a fool for a client, or that's the only caliber of legal assistance willing to work for Trump. After all, when Trump loses, and he will, invariably he will sue Sekulow for malpractice---how fitting.
The Russians used the sycophantic U.S. media to disrupt our election - and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Almost 8 months of investigations into 'collusion' and other various misdeeds by Trump or his minions have produced ZERO evidence of anything illegal. Putin has played the American left like a fiddle - and must be enjoying every minute of this nonsense.
1
Rumor has it that Trump is searching for a replacement for Sean Spicer. It seems that Mr. Brooks has tap-danced to the front of the recruitment queue.
1
I disagree, and so do most Americans:
"Mr. Brooks, where were you when the Republicans spent millions of dollars and wasted countless hours of governing time and staff resources investigating Hillary Clinton's email? If ever there was a story with no "there" there, that was it..."
Incorrect. I don't doubt that HRC had no anti-American intent, as Comey concluded, but she was "extremely careless," as Comey also concluded, and her carelessness may have hurt us greatly.
Several commenters point out that the State Department's own server was hacked by the Russians and/or the Chinese, and insist that HRC's server was not hacked and, therefore, she actually performed a service for us! Lots of problems with that "logic." First, we don't know her private email server wasn't hacked; frankly, I suspect it was, since the Russians and Chinese undoubtedly learned about it early on and undoubtedly tried to hack it (hackers often don't announce they've been there, so we probably don't know whether they hacked her server or not). Second, HRC didn't know when she set up her private email server that the Russians/Chinese would hack the SD server, nor did she think (or have reason to think) that her private email server would be more secure; let's be real here: She set up her private email server to dodge FOIA requests in the future, and she put SD employees (especially spies located in foreign countries) at great personal risk to accomplish her goal.
In short, there WAS a "there" there.
"Mr. Brooks, where were you when the Republicans spent millions of dollars and wasted countless hours of governing time and staff resources investigating Hillary Clinton's email? If ever there was a story with no "there" there, that was it..."
Incorrect. I don't doubt that HRC had no anti-American intent, as Comey concluded, but she was "extremely careless," as Comey also concluded, and her carelessness may have hurt us greatly.
Several commenters point out that the State Department's own server was hacked by the Russians and/or the Chinese, and insist that HRC's server was not hacked and, therefore, she actually performed a service for us! Lots of problems with that "logic." First, we don't know her private email server wasn't hacked; frankly, I suspect it was, since the Russians and Chinese undoubtedly learned about it early on and undoubtedly tried to hack it (hackers often don't announce they've been there, so we probably don't know whether they hacked her server or not). Second, HRC didn't know when she set up her private email server that the Russians/Chinese would hack the SD server, nor did she think (or have reason to think) that her private email server would be more secure; let's be real here: She set up her private email server to dodge FOIA requests in the future, and she put SD employees (especially spies located in foreign countries) at great personal risk to accomplish her goal.
In short, there WAS a "there" there.
Where there's smoke there's fire and this president has been rife with smoke starting when he smeared President Obama's citizenship with treasonous lies. What surprised and dismayed me was how many U.S. citizens believed these outrageous and treacherous lies. A first world country populated by ignorant and racist and mean-spirited citizens does not remain "first world" for long. Please observe how rapidly the U.S. is currently plummeting.
The lies, scandal, incompetence, hate speech, cabinet and White House turnover, toxic legislation and inept foreign policy/climate agreement decisions continue to deeply and irreversibly poison the U.S.A.
Let's not minimize the dire straights this country is in, Mr. Brooks, with this disastrous presidency.
The lies, scandal, incompetence, hate speech, cabinet and White House turnover, toxic legislation and inept foreign policy/climate agreement decisions continue to deeply and irreversibly poison the U.S.A.
Let's not minimize the dire straights this country is in, Mr. Brooks, with this disastrous presidency.
1
To compare this to Whitewater is embarrassingly partisan. This scandal is profound and grows more shocking by the day. Russia meddled with our presidential election and a parade of 45’s allies have lied under oath about their associations and communications with that country. Rather than working toward the truth of the matter like any reasonable person, 45 fired the head of the FBI who was looking into this and more recently, through his surrogates has even threatened Special Counsel Mueller himself. Astonishing. How does this real threat to our democracy compare to a dead-end real estate investigation that ultimately ended with a lie about a semen stained dress? This current drama would have ended months ago but this unstable man has carried on history’s most bizarre clown car show; deliberately surrounding himself with dubious characters and yes men, needlessly firing key officials, and relentlessly stoking the flames of suspicion with ludicrous tweets. Any President suited to the office should be able to withstand the test of scrutiny. Clearly this one cannot.
3
Whitewater substantive? You mean the Clintons did actually make an investment in something they thought they'd make a lot of money from? If that's scandalous then ride me out of town on a rail. Whitewater was nothing but a desperate attempt to get rid of the most charismatic president since FDR.
Whitewater more "substantive" than the Russian involvement? You mean IF there had been anything illegal about what the Clintons did in Arkansas (and there wasn't) it would be more serious than IF the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government? Are you kidding? Are you kidding???
Whitewater more "substantive" than the Russian involvement? You mean IF there had been anything illegal about what the Clintons did in Arkansas (and there wasn't) it would be more serious than IF the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government? Are you kidding? Are you kidding???
1
Mr. Brooks:
Please spare us the false equivalency. The Clinton "scandals" didn't have 17 U. S. intelligence agencies positing an attack on our election process. Once you are quite sure that happened, then you have to ...you absolutely must ... look for domestic aiding and abetting. Benedict Arnold and Quisling are not just names from history. They are part of the language because we need those words to express phenomena that unfortunately exist.
Please spare us the false equivalency. The Clinton "scandals" didn't have 17 U. S. intelligence agencies positing an attack on our election process. Once you are quite sure that happened, then you have to ...you absolutely must ... look for domestic aiding and abetting. Benedict Arnold and Quisling are not just names from history. They are part of the language because we need those words to express phenomena that unfortunately exist.
2
Yet none of these 17 agencies found collusion with the Trump administration. We need a simultaneous investigation of the confirmed rigging of the Democratic Party's primaries and efforts in undermining Sanders. This was Americans cheating Americans. Wasserman and others had to resign. The DNC-Clinton machine cheated Sanders, and you say that Trump cheated Clinton. What goes around comes around. By not running as an independent once it was confirmed the primaries were rigged, Sanders helped get Trump elected.
2
Thanks to David Brook, a sane voice among all the hysteria.
Trump is the president, and, as we just saw with his tweaking of our relationship with Cuba, he does have good reasons for a lot of his actions. People who do not know the legacy of Castro and the Cuban military are showing their ignorance. The military owns an in interest in 60% of the businesses. Trump's actions will make them divest over time, that is if they want to do business with the wealthiest country on Earth. Comparing our treatment of Cuba to China and the Saudis is not relevant. We must deal with each country on an individual basis, and yes, this is dependent on things like trade and oil, not just human rights. NATO should pay up - why do we always have to save the world, i.e. WWI and WWII?; climate change treaties should be fair to us and include restrictions on all - if it wasn't for the USA, there would be no concern for the environment in the first place, no weather satellites, no Ben & Jerry's saving the rainforest; we need fair trade, not trade deficits with major economies - there is a difference between fair trade and free trade.
We need to have a no-party government, term limits, publicly financed elections, and campaign periods limited to 90 days. It should be an honor to serve in office, not a career financed by special interests and PACs.
Our infrastructure, educational, and health care needs are crucial.
We need a legitimate and hones fourth estate.
Trump is the president, and, as we just saw with his tweaking of our relationship with Cuba, he does have good reasons for a lot of his actions. People who do not know the legacy of Castro and the Cuban military are showing their ignorance. The military owns an in interest in 60% of the businesses. Trump's actions will make them divest over time, that is if they want to do business with the wealthiest country on Earth. Comparing our treatment of Cuba to China and the Saudis is not relevant. We must deal with each country on an individual basis, and yes, this is dependent on things like trade and oil, not just human rights. NATO should pay up - why do we always have to save the world, i.e. WWI and WWII?; climate change treaties should be fair to us and include restrictions on all - if it wasn't for the USA, there would be no concern for the environment in the first place, no weather satellites, no Ben & Jerry's saving the rainforest; we need fair trade, not trade deficits with major economies - there is a difference between fair trade and free trade.
We need to have a no-party government, term limits, publicly financed elections, and campaign periods limited to 90 days. It should be an honor to serve in office, not a career financed by special interests and PACs.
Our infrastructure, educational, and health care needs are crucial.
We need a legitimate and hones fourth estate.
2
What you say seems reasonable but I'm surprised at what you don't say: Why doesn't the press spend more time discussing the short, medium and long term consequences of the changes the Trump Administration is making to the government, to domestic policy and to foreign policy? As far as I can tell, those consequences include a more polluted environment, citizens with a lower life expectancy, greater income inequality, and less influence in world affairs.
2
The drama in any political scandal is about one thing and it is not partisan animosity as some people always claim, it's about trust. With people in high elected office who can make decisions that affect people's lives profoundly the most important consideration is trust. Even if a President is from the opposite political party or ideological position than our own we trust that whatever the President does it will not deprive us of live, liberty, and property out of shear indifference or maliciousness, that they mean well even if they are not always right. Clinton with Whitewater and Monica Lewinski never threatened the rights and property of the citizens of this country and we could trust in him that much at least. Trump on the other hand is a man who is indifferent to the truth, indifferent to the consequences of his actions, equally able to express complete confidence in one thing and then the exact opposite the next, and yet something else the next. Nobody can trust him. The only issue in these scandals is how low he can go and how much damage he already might have done.
6
You're not fooling anyone David! Imagine that similar charges of Russian collusion had surfaced during the Obama campaign in 2008 and lingered into 2009. I doubt that you would have been quite so blasé. You would have been raging with your Republican colleagues that the black man in the White House was a traitor! Stop being such a hypocrite!
4
David Brooks, Whitewater, really? If you are serious about your comment, you are obliged to take a very deep second look at that.
6
We expected Trump's boorish ineptitude.
But the Democrats as the reincarnation of HUAC?
Amazing.
If Hillary had won and a similar investigation was being pursued by the Republicans, the Democrats, and The New York Times, would be howling McCarthyism.
Hypocracy and partisanship go hand in glove.
The public be damned.
Good article.
But the Democrats as the reincarnation of HUAC?
Amazing.
If Hillary had won and a similar investigation was being pursued by the Republicans, the Democrats, and The New York Times, would be howling McCarthyism.
Hypocracy and partisanship go hand in glove.
The public be damned.
Good article.
28
Yet your parallel universe left out the one single thing that could even remotely give it weight: Hillary would have had to invite our adversary to work against her opponent, select cabinet members who lied about meeting with nationals from that country, and then fired the acting head of the FBI when threatened with investigation. Only then would you have a point - but of course you don't, because Trump is President, not HRC.
3
A sitting President shopping around and telling our intelligence agencies to drop an investigation on a guy who was being paid by foreign governments and lying about it and getting himself fired is not nothing.
Trump's quibble is with American Law.
Trump's quibble is with American Law.
3
You demonstrate, Melvin, in your Clinton comparison, that Republicans are masters of false equivalency.
It makes no sense to say that until you prove that Donald Trump committed a crime, you cannot investigate.
We know for a certainty (1) that Russia, reverting to its cold-war aggression, meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump, (2) that Trump surrogates met with high-ranking Russian officials during the campaign, (3) that at least one person, Mike Flynn, lied about the meetings, (4) that Flynn also accepted Russian money and lied about it, (5) that President Obama had imposed sanctions on Russia for its earlier aggressive annexation of sovereign territory of Ukraine, (6) that Trump’s former advisor, Paul Manafort, was close to the ousted pro-Russian strongman in Ukraine and received large sums of money, and (7) that Donald Trump and those around him began claiming the Russian sanctions were unjust and should be lifted.
No one can argue persuasively that an investigation should not have been started under those facts.
You position becomes more untenable, Melvin, when we add to the equation that Donald Trump has a very checkered past in business, appeared to need cash until recently, seemed to rebound during the campaign, and steadfastly refused to follow the modern candidate tradition of releasing his tax returns.
Finally, Trump either has fired or threatened to fire every official investigating the Russian connection. Who's getting "carried away" here?
It makes no sense to say that until you prove that Donald Trump committed a crime, you cannot investigate.
We know for a certainty (1) that Russia, reverting to its cold-war aggression, meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump, (2) that Trump surrogates met with high-ranking Russian officials during the campaign, (3) that at least one person, Mike Flynn, lied about the meetings, (4) that Flynn also accepted Russian money and lied about it, (5) that President Obama had imposed sanctions on Russia for its earlier aggressive annexation of sovereign territory of Ukraine, (6) that Trump’s former advisor, Paul Manafort, was close to the ousted pro-Russian strongman in Ukraine and received large sums of money, and (7) that Donald Trump and those around him began claiming the Russian sanctions were unjust and should be lifted.
No one can argue persuasively that an investigation should not have been started under those facts.
You position becomes more untenable, Melvin, when we add to the equation that Donald Trump has a very checkered past in business, appeared to need cash until recently, seemed to rebound during the campaign, and steadfastly refused to follow the modern candidate tradition of releasing his tax returns.
Finally, Trump either has fired or threatened to fire every official investigating the Russian connection. Who's getting "carried away" here?
4
It was Bernie Sanders who said during one of the debates with Hillary Clinton "enough about the damn emails" after hearing about this day in and day out. Can we say the same about the Russian investigation because it is becoming a bit tiring and old. If there had been any findings into wrongdoing on the part of Donald Trump or the Republicans, rest assured it would have been discovered by now. There is nothing to this story. It is like listening to a broken record.
6
Very true. And with no evidence of any crime, the special counsel has already hired 13 high-powered and highly-paid lawyers to prosecute a non-existent crime that the FBI is continuing to investigate. Millions of dollars and a cloud over the Trump administration over nothing. Typical Washington mess, worthy of any banana republic.
2
John and WMK: it could very well turn out to be nothing. But Trump's problem was asking the Director of the FBI to can an investigation. His AG lied about meetings with Russians and his National Security guy Flynn lied. If you don't want to trigger investigations and charges of obstruction, then don't do what Trump did. He is not being picked on- he triggered all of this.
David, if you couldn't follow the stories your own newspaper published about Whitewater, what possible basis could you have for declaring that "the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington"--and why should we believe you?
Three separate inquiries conducted by independent counsels concluded that there was no substance to the Whitewater "scandal." Those inquiries lasted for years. The current special counsel's investigation into the Russia-collusion scandal has been underway for just over four weeks. We don't know what evidence exists or doesn't, but we do know that a lot of people in the Trump administration, including the President himself, have been acting as if they have something to hide.
If they are hiding something, you admit it's likely to be treason. The former FBI director, a man widely respected by both parties before he handed the election to Trump, was so concerned about what he knew and how the President was acting that he went out of his way to ensure that a special counsel would be appointed and the scandal properly investigated. But you want to dismiss the investigation after just a few weeks and conclude that Trump has been the victim of "entrapment" because the investigators haven't yet told us what they know?
Three separate inquiries conducted by independent counsels concluded that there was no substance to the Whitewater "scandal." Those inquiries lasted for years. The current special counsel's investigation into the Russia-collusion scandal has been underway for just over four weeks. We don't know what evidence exists or doesn't, but we do know that a lot of people in the Trump administration, including the President himself, have been acting as if they have something to hide.
If they are hiding something, you admit it's likely to be treason. The former FBI director, a man widely respected by both parties before he handed the election to Trump, was so concerned about what he knew and how the President was acting that he went out of his way to ensure that a special counsel would be appointed and the scandal properly investigated. But you want to dismiss the investigation after just a few weeks and conclude that Trump has been the victim of "entrapment" because the investigators haven't yet told us what they know?
1
The idea of Trump/Russia collusion to ensure Trump won the election seems too far-fetched to be true. However the idea that con artists like Manafort might have been working a double ended "lift sanctions for Russian financing" Quid Pro Quo sting on both Trump and Putin, without their knowledge, seems quite likely. Manafort may even have been working a "lift sanctions for Russian financing" Quid Pro Quo deal with the knowledge of Trump and Putin though this seems less likely. Both Trump and Putin are smart enough to avoid leaving fingerprints. Trump signalled his knowledge of the underworld when he referred to "this thing we have" in conversation with Comey.
There are many possible permutations and combinations for shady and illegal activity and Team Trump has expertise in that field. The thing that is hard to believe is the idea that Trump would pass up a dollar if it's there for the taking.
No, Trumps real sin is that he neither understands the Russian election hacking scheme nor does he care about it.
There are many possible permutations and combinations for shady and illegal activity and Team Trump has expertise in that field. The thing that is hard to believe is the idea that Trump would pass up a dollar if it's there for the taking.
No, Trumps real sin is that he neither understands the Russian election hacking scheme nor does he care about it.
2
Finally, someone has the courage to say what every lucid minded Liberal in America must be thinking. Thanks Mr. Brooks. Regardless of our personal dislike of Trump, this attempt to ruin the president with a hysterical overreaction will blow up in our faces if there is ultimately no quid pro quo between Trump and the Russians. While he must have been delighted, after asking in a television broadcast for the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mails and the Russians hacked the emails of Debbie Wassermann Schultz and the Democratic Party headquarters instead; and some of candidate Trump's supporters may have Russian connections deeper than we would like for officials advising the president to have; and, while there is a likelihood that Trump made a lot of money dealing with the Russians before he became president, there is zero evidence of a crime on the scale that would justify this witch hunt.
3
It's a little late at this stage to stop the juggernaut that's been set in motion. I mean really, where do you think it would lead? There's a "cold coup" going on, and whatever happens is going to be a disaster. There's no way to reverse the tremendous rupture in the public trust that's been engineered.
1
Collusion would merely be the worst of many possible bad acts by this administration. The most likely one - that Trump is coddling the Russians because he's compromised either financially or over fear of scandal - is enough to run him out of office.
4
First off, FTR I did not vote for Trump nor do I approve of most of his Presidential methods.
However, let's be honest regarding what this is all about politically. This is all about running out the clock until 2018 and if necessary 2020 (unless impeachment can be achieved sooner). The policies of Republicans are the REAL poison to Democrats, and attacks on Trump are a massive stalling campaign. It's working so far.
Politics today is all-out war, with any tactic justifiable. This leads to no useful result for the country. We are now the Israelis and the Palestinians. Do we want decades more of this?
Personally I'm hoping for the revenge of the center -- moderate voters backing candidates that commit to build a coalition focused on steady, pragmatic results. Abandoning the religions of fanatic conservatives and liberals alike.
However, let's be honest regarding what this is all about politically. This is all about running out the clock until 2018 and if necessary 2020 (unless impeachment can be achieved sooner). The policies of Republicans are the REAL poison to Democrats, and attacks on Trump are a massive stalling campaign. It's working so far.
Politics today is all-out war, with any tactic justifiable. This leads to no useful result for the country. We are now the Israelis and the Palestinians. Do we want decades more of this?
Personally I'm hoping for the revenge of the center -- moderate voters backing candidates that commit to build a coalition focused on steady, pragmatic results. Abandoning the religions of fanatic conservatives and liberals alike.
3
And while you're at it, Brooks, with this exercise in equivocation, any linking of Trump to accepting emoluments could be rendered mute by his predecessor allowing his governmental salary to include contributions from illegal aliens in the form of federal taxes paid to disallow prosecution & provide a guarantee of safe harbor.
Not that I believe this, but at the Wall Street Journal, you might have passed this discussion along. Although it too is rather difficult to understand, right?
Not that I believe this, but at the Wall Street Journal, you might have passed this discussion along. Although it too is rather difficult to understand, right?
3
This is pure baloney (toning down on the word I use). Telling me any President would act like Trump is acting under the circumstances is baloney. Trump is acting like there is something to hide.
This is not veering into an investigation of itself. The hidden contacts, the secret meetings, the desire to stop anyone from knowing about it justifies an investigation. Trumps opinion the entire Russia interfered with our election is a hoax just adds more fuel to the fire. When senior Government advisors lie on their applications for security clearances and lie to the public about their conduct then, yea, we need to investigate that. And if Jeff Sessions doesn't like that, perhaps he should have considered that before he had his meetings with the Russians and then lied about it. Perjury should be investigated and so far there are three senior figures clearly guilty of that; Sessions, Flynn, Kushner.
The only thing I would agree with in this terrible op-ed (was he late with his submission and just needed to crank something out?) is we should not get ahead of our selves on impeachment or indictment.
This is not veering into an investigation of itself. The hidden contacts, the secret meetings, the desire to stop anyone from knowing about it justifies an investigation. Trumps opinion the entire Russia interfered with our election is a hoax just adds more fuel to the fire. When senior Government advisors lie on their applications for security clearances and lie to the public about their conduct then, yea, we need to investigate that. And if Jeff Sessions doesn't like that, perhaps he should have considered that before he had his meetings with the Russians and then lied about it. Perjury should be investigated and so far there are three senior figures clearly guilty of that; Sessions, Flynn, Kushner.
The only thing I would agree with in this terrible op-ed (was he late with his submission and just needed to crank something out?) is we should not get ahead of our selves on impeachment or indictment.
2
Retrospectively, you are right about Whitewater (much ado about very little) and wrong about Russia and Trump.
The most basic aspect of democracy is potentially involved in regard to Russia. The integrity of our elections is big stuff. How does it get any bigger?
Collusion between Putin and Trump, strong and undeniable, is something never likely to be proven. These guys might not be brilliant, but they are not dumb. Putin is on the record even now with his cover story about "patriotic Russian teenagers" creating memes to undermine Hillary because she was not nice to Russia. You don't need to make up lies to cover your tracks unless you expect the hounds are after you. Putin's lie, classic Russian disinformation, is so silly that only an isolated, pigheaded dictator would imagine anyone would believe it.
Remember, too, Watergate was not about the break-in but the cover-up.
Trump has behaved like a teenager fleeing the scene of petty theft. His actions clearly have appeared to be motivated by what lawyers call "guilty knowledge". How do police catch crooks in crowds of hundreds? They go after the guy who is running away. Trump acts like he knows there is something there and doesn't want anyone to find out.
Trump rode into town with his metaphorical guns blazing. He thinks he can bully his way through anything, the same way he bullied his way to whatever number his fortune actually adds up to. What if he had just left Russia and the possibilities around it alone?
The most basic aspect of democracy is potentially involved in regard to Russia. The integrity of our elections is big stuff. How does it get any bigger?
Collusion between Putin and Trump, strong and undeniable, is something never likely to be proven. These guys might not be brilliant, but they are not dumb. Putin is on the record even now with his cover story about "patriotic Russian teenagers" creating memes to undermine Hillary because she was not nice to Russia. You don't need to make up lies to cover your tracks unless you expect the hounds are after you. Putin's lie, classic Russian disinformation, is so silly that only an isolated, pigheaded dictator would imagine anyone would believe it.
Remember, too, Watergate was not about the break-in but the cover-up.
Trump has behaved like a teenager fleeing the scene of petty theft. His actions clearly have appeared to be motivated by what lawyers call "guilty knowledge". How do police catch crooks in crowds of hundreds? They go after the guy who is running away. Trump acts like he knows there is something there and doesn't want anyone to find out.
Trump rode into town with his metaphorical guns blazing. He thinks he can bully his way through anything, the same way he bullied his way to whatever number his fortune actually adds up to. What if he had just left Russia and the possibilities around it alone?
3
These comments prove David's point. A reasoned, measured piece met with the reaction he would have predicted from a readership that largely sees, just like the other side, only what it wants to see.
4
Well said, David Brooks. This investigation of Donald Trump for political crimes puts the United States in the category of a banana republic where trumped up charges are used to try to overturn election results.
This whole non-existent Russian connection seems farcical to me. But those who profit from clicks and views, like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN, report breathlessly from anonymous sources stories that the Justice Department and FBI know to be false but cannot (by their own policies) contradict.
The press is acting shamefully on this one. Suborning felony leaks and calling that journalism? Farce, plain and simple.
This whole non-existent Russian connection seems farcical to me. But those who profit from clicks and views, like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN, report breathlessly from anonymous sources stories that the Justice Department and FBI know to be false but cannot (by their own policies) contradict.
The press is acting shamefully on this one. Suborning felony leaks and calling that journalism? Farce, plain and simple.
2
Watergate took a long time to unravel. Despite Woodward and Bernstein's methodical reporting, when Nixon was elected in a landslide in November 1972, it was not yet a true investigation. That didn't really come until spring 1973, nearly a year after the break-in. After Alexander Butterfield's revelations about the tapes in summer 1973, it took many more months before the tapes revealed the breadth of the administration's crimes. It has been five (long) months since 45's inauguration. We still have a long time left.
1
Okay -- then why all the lying - under pains & penalties of perjury -- by Trumpeters about their involvement with Russian bankers, spies, officials, and crooks?
4
Dear David, You are simply wrong on this. There was virtually nothing "substantive" about Whitewater, whereas we already have our president revealing top secret information to Russians, barring the American press from meetings while allowing Tass to be there, his close and obviously beloved advisor Flynn being revealed as someone who disobeyed all the rules on being a lobbyist for a foreign government, and Trump expressing the desire nonetheless to have him "back." Evidence of numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. Plus evidence of Russian hacking into the electoral apparatus and voter rolls in 39 states. Those ARE "substantive" while very little about Whitewater was.
2
No mention of the $95 million Putin paid Trump a year ago for some Florida swamp land. The money was laundered through a Cypriot bank and a Russian Oligarch was the buyer of record, but the money was from Russia, and there must be something expected in return. Meanwhile, I am waiting for the promised press conference that was to display proof that Melania had proper working papers when she first got paid for work in the U.S.
Frankly, the corruption and the connections just keeps growing. The Whitewater investigation was going no where until some zealots paid Paula Jones to make up her story. Sex is always good to get attention.
I find Mr. Brooks to be exceptionally naive in his column. All of the rats in the Whitehouse should be getting lawyers now.
Frankly, the corruption and the connections just keeps growing. The Whitewater investigation was going no where until some zealots paid Paula Jones to make up her story. Sex is always good to get attention.
I find Mr. Brooks to be exceptionally naive in his column. All of the rats in the Whitehouse should be getting lawyers now.
3
While there is no doubt that the Clintons engaged in (and continue to engage in) shady dealing, the Russia story is far more important. It involves the meddling in our election by an adversary nation, and a president who is not only indifferent to it, but invites them into the Oval Office and confides highly sensitive classified info, with only TASS present as press.
Maybe there is no collusion. But there is CERTAINLY reason for investigation.
Maybe there is no collusion. But there is CERTAINLY reason for investigation.
1
the problem is, we allow politicians to lie. There is no truth in campaigning law and we don't believe most of what we hear.
But when those people are under investigation, they suddenly must be honest. It kills them: they can't shut up and they can't speak.
It's good to have a scandal every once in a while. it acts like a purgative and gets rid of those who are not up to par.
But when those people are under investigation, they suddenly must be honest. It kills them: they can't shut up and they can't speak.
It's good to have a scandal every once in a while. it acts like a purgative and gets rid of those who are not up to par.
1
It's possible to find a path through this maze by following one thread. When plucked, it sings:
"Why did Donald Trump work so hard to defend and protect Mike Flynn, a proven wacko ... since Mr Trump hates expending effort for anybody other than himself? The answer. Flynn has got the goods on him, and Flynn is unscrupulous as the Donald."
Be patient, Mr. Brooks. This bunch of Republican sell-outs and cheats is a whole lot nastier than the Clintons could ever be, and soon they will begin to rat on one another.
Democrats aren't indulging themselves inventing tasty Republican scandals. Republicans HAVE INDULGED themselves in crude lies, money-laundering scams, and get-rich schemes. There's a lot of activity in those dark corners.
Rats.
"Why did Donald Trump work so hard to defend and protect Mike Flynn, a proven wacko ... since Mr Trump hates expending effort for anybody other than himself? The answer. Flynn has got the goods on him, and Flynn is unscrupulous as the Donald."
Be patient, Mr. Brooks. This bunch of Republican sell-outs and cheats is a whole lot nastier than the Clintons could ever be, and soon they will begin to rat on one another.
Democrats aren't indulging themselves inventing tasty Republican scandals. Republicans HAVE INDULGED themselves in crude lies, money-laundering scams, and get-rich schemes. There's a lot of activity in those dark corners.
Rats.
2
"You may be in for quite a surprise."
Or, you may not be in for a surprise.
Or, you may not be in for a surprise.
Trump told the world he fired Comey to halt the investigation into "the Russian thing". That's indirect evidence of collusion (the fact he tried to block the investigation), and direct evidence of obstruction of justice. Hell, Trump basically confessed to obstruction, through what we used to call in the trade, "spontaneous admissions".
FOLLOW HIS MONEY........Why do you think they ordered up forensic accountants from Treasury.???.Innocent until proven guilty is correct..But, the "innocence" of Mr. Trump , as you appear to believe, assaults the inner core of both decency and his own history......Not only can America do better than this cheesy grifter--AMERICA MUST......
Submission is not a good look for you Mr. Brooks...Go re-read 1984 or visit the third world we are about to become environmentally.....Get back to us when you feel like heaving......
Submission is not a good look for you Mr. Brooks...Go re-read 1984 or visit the third world we are about to become environmentally.....Get back to us when you feel like heaving......
1
David,
You are a bright individual. I thought you would be more considered in your comments. You will likely find yourself on the wrong side of history yet again.
You are a bright individual. I thought you would be more considered in your comments. You will likely find yourself on the wrong side of history yet again.
2
Mr. Brooks, thank you for this thoughtful piece. I've been reading through posts in response to your article, and it illuminates how difficult it is to find middle ground in this polarized political landscape. That's not to say I disagree with your readers views. My husband and I are on opposite sides of this political divide, and we need to find common ground to save our marriage. We want many of the same things, but have different ideas on how to reach those goals. The same can be said of the country. Compromise is necessary for democracy to work, and the people need to focus on issues that affect all of us. I think that is the point of the article. If we are distracted by "scandal" and "breaking news" headlines, we may not pay attention to other issues--like a Congress that is working on a new healthcare bill without public scrutiny. We have got to come together as a people and focus on making the government serve all of us, instead of special interests with large amounts of cash to donate.
1
Whitewater, Benghazi!, fast and furious, IRS, and so on. They all share a common thread that seems beyond Mr. Brooks' comprehension. They were first and last manufactured by the GOP. Not one held up under examination. Watergate and the Russian connection are of a far different species whether Brooks wants to acknowledge it or not.
4
I, a liberal Democrat, don’t see much evidence that Trump personally did anything wrong collusion-wise either. I’m with you on that “well below 971” ranking in importance—at least so far. So what? We have become nothing more than a “politics of scandal” nation. That’s all we are.
If we’re having a little turnabout is fair play here, well, you’ve brought us to this with decades of rumor mongering in right-wing hate radio, Fox fake news, and endless investigations. I’m sorry I have to say this, but the more I keep hearing about how both sides are to blame, the less willing I am to ask my Senators and Representatives to compromise on anything, ever.
Most voters do care, and let’s look at what they care about. I agree, they don’t care about policy or they would make some effort to find out some real facts and stop blaming immigrants and regulations for every ill of this country. But they do listen to and care about the conspiracies and scandals the right-wing has fabricated for decades, and they believe it all. And they elected a guy with 970 bigger problems than a connection to Russia. Nice going.
So if now the shoe is on the other foot, maybe you should learn something here. But, believe me, I’m not holding my breath. It’s not in the Republican playbook to look in the mirror. It’s always about blaming everyone else.
If we’re having a little turnabout is fair play here, well, you’ve brought us to this with decades of rumor mongering in right-wing hate radio, Fox fake news, and endless investigations. I’m sorry I have to say this, but the more I keep hearing about how both sides are to blame, the less willing I am to ask my Senators and Representatives to compromise on anything, ever.
Most voters do care, and let’s look at what they care about. I agree, they don’t care about policy or they would make some effort to find out some real facts and stop blaming immigrants and regulations for every ill of this country. But they do listen to and care about the conspiracies and scandals the right-wing has fabricated for decades, and they believe it all. And they elected a guy with 970 bigger problems than a connection to Russia. Nice going.
So if now the shoe is on the other foot, maybe you should learn something here. But, believe me, I’m not holding my breath. It’s not in the Republican playbook to look in the mirror. It’s always about blaming everyone else.
3
There are innumerable issues, foreign and domestic, pertaining to this presidency that can cause alarm in a citizen paying the barest attention to what Donald Trump and the Republicans are doing, but to say that potential Russian collusion to influence the outcome of a fair and free election ranks as the 971st most serious problem of this administration is horrifying to me.
For the average, unaware Americans, the ones living paycheck to paycheck with no hope of a comfortable retirement, whose wages are flat, whose healthcare is at risk and for whom higher education is increasingly out of reach, they could probably see David Brooks' point: Who cares if our democracy is being undermined/destroyed by Russia? We have more important things to worry about, after all. We're trying to put food on the table.
Then again, Mr. Brooks has no such financial insecurities, he isn't known for speaking for the common man, and he clearly wasn't in this instance. He was speaking for himself, as a former editor at the Wall Street Journal.
You should be ashamed for not being able to see what's at stake, Mr. Brooks.
For the average, unaware Americans, the ones living paycheck to paycheck with no hope of a comfortable retirement, whose wages are flat, whose healthcare is at risk and for whom higher education is increasingly out of reach, they could probably see David Brooks' point: Who cares if our democracy is being undermined/destroyed by Russia? We have more important things to worry about, after all. We're trying to put food on the table.
Then again, Mr. Brooks has no such financial insecurities, he isn't known for speaking for the common man, and he clearly wasn't in this instance. He was speaking for himself, as a former editor at the Wall Street Journal.
You should be ashamed for not being able to see what's at stake, Mr. Brooks.
4
I think Putin put it best...
"For me, this is just amazing. You created a sensation out of nothing. And out of this sensation, you turned it into a weapon of war against the current president... have you all lost your senses over there?
"For me, this is just amazing. You created a sensation out of nothing. And out of this sensation, you turned it into a weapon of war against the current president... have you all lost your senses over there?
2
You do realize, of course, that citing Vladmir Putin is a poor choice if you are commenting on the democratic process. On the other hand, if you are commenting on vicious totalitarian regimes with no regard for human rights, he's your go-to source.
Word to the wise: when Putin asks if you have lost your senses you are likely doing something right.
Word to the wise: when Putin asks if you have lost your senses you are likely doing something right.
Why would there be all these investigations if they had nothing to investigate. There is a big difference between a real estate deal and hacking into our election. Not even close. I'm glad the networks are staying on this. I hope it disrupts Trump's agenda. I hope it makes Republicans look bad for supporting him. I hope their mean-spirited agenda fails.
3
I think Mr. Brooks got it right when he said let's not get carried away. So long as Trump doesn't continue to fire the men charged with investigating him, the investigation will proceed along course and we'll find out the results in the end. But he got it very wrong when he blames the press entirely for the focus: the terrible memory of several Trump officials, even under oath, quite naturally has made many suspicious. And Trump's constant comments regarding it keeps it in the news everyday. When the President of the United States speaks, people listen. If Trump stayed silent about it and went about the business of running the country and pushing his, er, agenda, it wouldn't be half of the frenzy it is.
1
What Mr. Brooks does not articulate is that we liberals are hopeful about Trump's demise if the worst Russian allegations are proven, but we are also happy enough that this scandal has done much to stop Trump's and the GOP's agendas from being enacted. So long as this investigation continues and Trump compulsively responds to it, the prospects of passing bad legislation on healthcare (which would be a windfall for the rich) or tax reform (which would be a windfall for the rich) are much lower. The less Trump achieves, the better it will be for most Americans.
4
Ah, Mr. Brooks. Let's not get carried away and believe Trump's tweets, which so far have been lies, cover-ups, and fake news. When Trump told Mr. Stephanopoulus that the U.S. is no better than Russia because we have also killed people (or something to that effect), he sounded like somebody who was not only defending Russia's actions but like a schoolboy who was defending his father's credibility at all costs.
Trump has never spoken out about Crimea, nor has he ever expressed, at least not that I have read, any sort of interest in the Russians' hacking into our computer systems (with the obvious intent of having an incompetent president be elected to the office). Why? What is his constant loyalty to the state that has upended our electoral process? What have they got on him? We know he is a moral coward (if, indeed, he has any moral compunctions), a liar, someone easily manipulated by flattery, secretive, and an emotional basket case. Putin was well aware of this when he interferred in our elections.
Before we can write him off as being an innocent victim in a witch-hunt, I would want to see his tax returns, the spoken of dossier, and a full accounting of all of his and his family's "dealings" with the Russians before and after the election. In addition, it would be important to understand why there have been so many contacts by his staff with the Russians, and why he has so many staff members who also have something to hide in that regard.
Trump has never spoken out about Crimea, nor has he ever expressed, at least not that I have read, any sort of interest in the Russians' hacking into our computer systems (with the obvious intent of having an incompetent president be elected to the office). Why? What is his constant loyalty to the state that has upended our electoral process? What have they got on him? We know he is a moral coward (if, indeed, he has any moral compunctions), a liar, someone easily manipulated by flattery, secretive, and an emotional basket case. Putin was well aware of this when he interferred in our elections.
Before we can write him off as being an innocent victim in a witch-hunt, I would want to see his tax returns, the spoken of dossier, and a full accounting of all of his and his family's "dealings" with the Russians before and after the election. In addition, it would be important to understand why there have been so many contacts by his staff with the Russians, and why he has so many staff members who also have something to hide in that regard.
3
Shut it all down people, there's no evidence!
Never mind the fact that there are ongoing classified Senate, House, and FBI investigations into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia and potential obstruction of justice.
Has it occurred to any Trump supporters that the people conducting these investigations are not allowed to release classified evidence to the public? Demanding an end to all investigations prematurely is equally as irrational as assuming there is collusion.
Never mind the fact that there are ongoing classified Senate, House, and FBI investigations into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia and potential obstruction of justice.
Has it occurred to any Trump supporters that the people conducting these investigations are not allowed to release classified evidence to the public? Demanding an end to all investigations prematurely is equally as irrational as assuming there is collusion.
1
Mr. Brooks: Not your best effort.
"Let's not get carried away"? So we should just take a nap and enjoy the idea of a tax break coming, and not worry too much about a foreign power compromising our election and undermining our foreign policy?
You just wrote a book about character. What character would be showing if we failed to look deeply into what you acknowledge are questions of potential treason?
This is not partisan; it is existential.
Mr. Mueller is a Republican, investigating other Republicans. This is not a Ken Starr frolic to wherever; this is a serious matter, as the President's panicky and unhinged behavior demonstrates.
When this is over maybe, as you say, there will be evidence of treason, or maybe it will just be that Putin seized upon the low hanging fruit presented by Trump and his operatives to work his mischief. The financial ties, not even investigated yet, will tell us a lot. If there weren't something serious at work, then why is Trump so desperate to help out Michael Flynn, the man he barely knew and just fired?
To suggest that we shouldn't get too worked up about what we're seeing is 100% wrong. We should be paying close attention and readying ourselves to demand that Congressional Republicans get serious about this threat -- particularly if Trump fires Mueller. If our democracy is to recover, we have to have answers to what happened, and why. Anything less would indicate that we lack the character of a democratic republic.
"Let's not get carried away"? So we should just take a nap and enjoy the idea of a tax break coming, and not worry too much about a foreign power compromising our election and undermining our foreign policy?
You just wrote a book about character. What character would be showing if we failed to look deeply into what you acknowledge are questions of potential treason?
This is not partisan; it is existential.
Mr. Mueller is a Republican, investigating other Republicans. This is not a Ken Starr frolic to wherever; this is a serious matter, as the President's panicky and unhinged behavior demonstrates.
When this is over maybe, as you say, there will be evidence of treason, or maybe it will just be that Putin seized upon the low hanging fruit presented by Trump and his operatives to work his mischief. The financial ties, not even investigated yet, will tell us a lot. If there weren't something serious at work, then why is Trump so desperate to help out Michael Flynn, the man he barely knew and just fired?
To suggest that we shouldn't get too worked up about what we're seeing is 100% wrong. We should be paying close attention and readying ourselves to demand that Congressional Republicans get serious about this threat -- particularly if Trump fires Mueller. If our democracy is to recover, we have to have answers to what happened, and why. Anything less would indicate that we lack the character of a democratic republic.
4
There is a point to all this mush. The Russian efforts to subvert our electoral system were real. It was tantamount to an act of war. There is almost universal agreement on this, with the exception of Trump and his administration. We should be taking steps to protect ourselves, major steps, and we should be doing it now. And we aren't. Sessions said "I only know what I read in the papers" (or words to that effect). Comey said there was no discussion regarding the Russian attacks between him and his superiors. The failure to address or investigate is itself the "high crime" and this failure demands an explanation.
1
Mr. Brooks (and the Republicans) doth protest too much, methinks.
There's certainly plenty of smoke. Perhaps investigators haven't found the fire yet because the administration has managed to block their access to financial and communication records so far. Neither the AG nor the intelligence chiefs answered questions that actually matter at congressional hearing, Trump is hiding his tax returns. What are they hiding, and why?
Whitewater was a minor land deal gone sour, to say that it was "far more substantive" than Russian collusion in the election is an example of the twisted logic of Republicans: any minor failing of the Democrats justifies endless congressional investigations. Investigating treason on the part of the Republicans is "getting carried away". Ha!
There's certainly plenty of smoke. Perhaps investigators haven't found the fire yet because the administration has managed to block their access to financial and communication records so far. Neither the AG nor the intelligence chiefs answered questions that actually matter at congressional hearing, Trump is hiding his tax returns. What are they hiding, and why?
Whitewater was a minor land deal gone sour, to say that it was "far more substantive" than Russian collusion in the election is an example of the twisted logic of Republicans: any minor failing of the Democrats justifies endless congressional investigations. Investigating treason on the part of the Republicans is "getting carried away". Ha!
If there is nothing to find, nothing will be found. The truth of the Trump administration is that it contains so little of it. The ease at which Mr Trump and his appointees lie is shameful. Failure to release his tax returns, which might just show a Russian connection, adds fuel to the fire. Why hide them if there's nothing to hide? Why lie of Russian meetings/contacts if there is nothing to hide? The lies are fueling the engine of investigation. We don't know what Mueller and team have found to date, but that it continues to date may indicate all leads are not empty.
2
The politics of Democracy: we lost that a long time ago. Scandal: nothing new, but Trump knows of no way to operate without it. He foments it with lies, threats, tantrums, ill-considered rants, and he deserves to be the target where that particular buck stops.
David, you may be right. Maybe we're making a mountain out of a molehill, maybe there wasn't nothing nefarious going on, but can you explain (or anyone) why Trump doesn't take the Russian meddling seriously. The various intelligence agencies have all expressed a "hair on fire' type scenario, but D Trump seems unconcerned.
We do know that Donald expressed a desire for the Russians to release any damaging evidence on Hilary's emails, he obviously welcomed the wiki leaks on the Democratic National Committee.
And it seems obvious to many that a lot of Trump affiliates did have a Russian connection. Maybe they were only in it for economic reasons, but still there is a sleaziness about the whole thing.
We do know that Donald expressed a desire for the Russians to release any damaging evidence on Hilary's emails, he obviously welcomed the wiki leaks on the Democratic National Committee.
And it seems obvious to many that a lot of Trump affiliates did have a Russian connection. Maybe they were only in it for economic reasons, but still there is a sleaziness about the whole thing.
The status quo-politicians of all stripes, journalists, self-appointed celebrity gurus-would gladly drown Trump in a shallow tub of water if they could. That NOTHING has come out from all possible sources about Trump's malfeasance since earnest investigations began well over a year speaks for itself.
Good luck, Mr. Brooks with this version of reality. I hope it serves you well in the coming months. Reading and listening to you through various media outlets over these past months has been a bit like watching someone sleep walking through a nightmare. I do appreciate your recognition that things are bad enough that you have to give Trump the last word via Tweet. The special counsel's wheels turn slowly as you have acknowledged elsewhere. And they will turn. There are facts and details to be sussed out. If Mr Trump is innocent, then so be it.
3
With all due respect, Mr Brooks, you do not yet know what evidence the investigation has or will turn up. Therefore, your rush to defend Mr. Trump is every bit as foolish and misguided as those who are now assuming his guilt. More disturbing is that you are encouraging those who blindly support Mr. Trump no matter what he says or does. As history has shown us over and over again, this type of allegiance to a political leader can be disastrous.
It makes absolutely no sense to say that until you have proof that a politician committed the crime of which he or she is suspected, you must not begin an investigation.
We know for a certainty (1) that a foreign country with current and historical enmity for America has unlawfully meddled in a presidential election to help one of the candidates, (2) that persons close to the candidate being helped by the interference met with high-ranking officials of the meddling country during the campaign, (3) that at least one of those persons close to the candidate lied about the meetings, (4) that one of the persons who lied accepted money from the meddling country and lied about it, (5) that the outgoing president had imposed sanctions on the meddling country for earlier aggressive action, including murder, to take sovereign territory from an American ally and (6) that the candidate benefiting from the campaign interference and those around him began claiming the sanctions were unjust and should be lifted.
No objective person can argue that an investigation should never have been started and should be ended right now.
This is silly, and it becomes even sillier when we add to the equation that the suspected candidate has a very checkered past in business dealings and has steadfastly refused to follow the American tradition of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns.
We know for a certainty (1) that a foreign country with current and historical enmity for America has unlawfully meddled in a presidential election to help one of the candidates, (2) that persons close to the candidate being helped by the interference met with high-ranking officials of the meddling country during the campaign, (3) that at least one of those persons close to the candidate lied about the meetings, (4) that one of the persons who lied accepted money from the meddling country and lied about it, (5) that the outgoing president had imposed sanctions on the meddling country for earlier aggressive action, including murder, to take sovereign territory from an American ally and (6) that the candidate benefiting from the campaign interference and those around him began claiming the sanctions were unjust and should be lifted.
No objective person can argue that an investigation should never have been started and should be ended right now.
This is silly, and it becomes even sillier when we add to the equation that the suspected candidate has a very checkered past in business dealings and has steadfastly refused to follow the American tradition of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns.
1
In response to "Most voters don't really care." I'm a voter, and I care a LOT. This is devolving into a War of the Roses, in which Henry VII (with over 5,000 mercenaries/hackers paid for by the French/Russians) invades England/the U.S. and over time kills off anyone else with a legitimate claim to the throne. At least once a week, commentator Chris Matthews compares the Trumps to the Romanovs. I'd say the family is more like the Tudors.
The problem is Trump. He created an atmosphere of suspicion because of his history of lies. And the more he tweets, the more the public distrusts him; he says one thing and his lawyer says another and his aids still say something else to try and make sense of the contradictions. If he could just shut up, maybe the confusion and cloud of guilt would disappear. But therein lies the problem: the president cannot stop himself because he has the temperament of an impetuous child.
Although more moderate, don't forget D Brooks is still a conservative so it is not surprising he would make the argument to stop investigating trump (what he fails to say at the same time he is accusing everyone else of playing politics is that he has his own political reasons for doing so). I say go back to the Wall Street Journal!
I would venture to guess the real culprits in this Russian mess are Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, two guns for hire who work for any despot's big bucks. They share a scorched earth attitude toward winning political campaigns and Stone, especially, has a long record of dirty political tricks that he honed during the Nixon years. They and Trump made a Dream Team. Our nightmare.
1
David, luckily your are not a politician, so this column won’t be referenced in political attack ads for the rest of your life, but really, I think you’re going to regret this one.
The idea that no smoking gun YET means there is no “evidence” of collusion is ridiculous on its face. Of course the evidence has not yet been presented. Mueller is far from that point. Nor are the Congressional investigations.
It will take awhile to unravel Trump’s financial ties to Russian oligarchs, but Mueller has the pros and the powers to do it. Trump is a known con man with an established record of ignoring the law. Mueller isn’t looking at money laundering just to amuse himself.
Why did Trump surround himself with an army of aides with deep Russian connections? What other campaign has ever looked like this? Ever?
Why is Trump the only person in America who is unconcerned with the Russian attack on our democratic institutions?
The facts we know go on and on. The secret meetings. The continual lying. The policies and pronouncements that benefit no one but Putin.
Mueller is following the money. In the meantime, the idea that there is “nothing there” is an insult to your readers’ intelligence. There is so much there our heads are spinning every day.
Trump is not on the verge of getting exonerated, he's on the verge of getting caught. He knows it and that's why he's willing to risk obstruction to shut it down. He's sure not acting like there's "nothing there."
The idea that no smoking gun YET means there is no “evidence” of collusion is ridiculous on its face. Of course the evidence has not yet been presented. Mueller is far from that point. Nor are the Congressional investigations.
It will take awhile to unravel Trump’s financial ties to Russian oligarchs, but Mueller has the pros and the powers to do it. Trump is a known con man with an established record of ignoring the law. Mueller isn’t looking at money laundering just to amuse himself.
Why did Trump surround himself with an army of aides with deep Russian connections? What other campaign has ever looked like this? Ever?
Why is Trump the only person in America who is unconcerned with the Russian attack on our democratic institutions?
The facts we know go on and on. The secret meetings. The continual lying. The policies and pronouncements that benefit no one but Putin.
Mueller is following the money. In the meantime, the idea that there is “nothing there” is an insult to your readers’ intelligence. There is so much there our heads are spinning every day.
Trump is not on the verge of getting exonerated, he's on the verge of getting caught. He knows it and that's why he's willing to risk obstruction to shut it down. He's sure not acting like there's "nothing there."
1
Mr. Brooks, Now you want to caution the public to not get carried away? It is good to see that you have learned and grown from past experience. However, Whitewater was a municipal real estate deal that affected a number of citizens in Arkansas. This Russian collusion affects all US citizens. I suggest there is a large difference.
Cheers,
SD
Cheers,
SD
3
Totally agree with Brooks. The problems of Trump are character and policy yet all I hear/read about-even in the NYT-is Russia. Trump will look like the hero he isn't if the Russia probe points at nothing Trump did. We'll then never hear the end of his tweets of fake news-with some justification.
1
It is infuriating that the Republicans dedicated a massive effort to the attempt to crucify Hillary for breaking an email server rule that her predecessors disregarded yet are willing to turn a blind eye to Trump's strongly alleged treasonous collusion with Russia to help him gain office. There is a smoking gun, ten smoking guns....
The only way to know what is going on is to follow the money as many have already said. We must have Mueller investigate Trump's financial ties to the Russian's and Putin via the the money-laundering Bank of Cyprus (where Wilbur Ross has had a major role), Deutsche Bank, Russian investors in his property, and the strong links between Russia and Trump's cabinet members and associates including Wilbur Ross, Felix Sater, Roy Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Mike Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Jared Kushner etc., etc..
Coupled with Trump's attempts to get the FBI to drop the investigation and the information that the Russians made a serious effort to hack the electoral process in 39 states, it is shocking and disappointing that Mr. Brooks suggests that this is all a tempest in a tea pot. It destroys credibility.
The only way to know what is going on is to follow the money as many have already said. We must have Mueller investigate Trump's financial ties to the Russian's and Putin via the the money-laundering Bank of Cyprus (where Wilbur Ross has had a major role), Deutsche Bank, Russian investors in his property, and the strong links between Russia and Trump's cabinet members and associates including Wilbur Ross, Felix Sater, Roy Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Mike Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Jared Kushner etc., etc..
Coupled with Trump's attempts to get the FBI to drop the investigation and the information that the Russians made a serious effort to hack the electoral process in 39 states, it is shocking and disappointing that Mr. Brooks suggests that this is all a tempest in a tea pot. It destroys credibility.
2
Not bad, David. Nice point re "politics of scandal." You can still be insightful when you're not totally overcome with Trump hatred. Maybe you're coming to your senses.
The Donald is not "unfit for the presidency," by the way, but we can skip that for now. Baby steps.
The Donald is not "unfit for the presidency," by the way, but we can skip that for now. Baby steps.
The politics of scandal is no less democratic than the politics of the electoral college.
1
This is a completely ridiculous point of view. All of the following are true:
1. We were attacked by a foreign power, and it is critical that we examine what happened so that we can react and prevent it in the future. Our president has failed to lead on this issue.
2. For unclear reasons, our president wants to follow a rather abnormal policy related to Russia.
3. The president has concealed important details of his finances and so we cannot know his entanglements with Russia. They appear to be significant, based on comments from his own family.
4. The probe has ALREADY uncovered criminality and suspicious activity. That alone is justification for the Special Counsel. Why does this only have to be about Trump for it to be legitimate?
5. The WH is engaged in a coverup. Every action they take reeks of a coverup. Every message they send is either a lie or obfuscation.
6. The president has wrongly accused 2 people of felonies, Comey and Obama, with zero evidence.
7. Kushner wanted to use communication facilities in the Russian embassy to talk with Russia secretly. Then discussed something (we do not know what) with a Russian, ex KGB, banker from a sanctioned bank. Did Trump know about these activities? If not, why is Kushner still an advisor?
You seem to be blaming our political dysfunction on people who want the rule of law to apply. The dysfunction is the fault of Trump, period. It isn't my fault or any other voter's fault. Why should we not hold Trump accountable?
1. We were attacked by a foreign power, and it is critical that we examine what happened so that we can react and prevent it in the future. Our president has failed to lead on this issue.
2. For unclear reasons, our president wants to follow a rather abnormal policy related to Russia.
3. The president has concealed important details of his finances and so we cannot know his entanglements with Russia. They appear to be significant, based on comments from his own family.
4. The probe has ALREADY uncovered criminality and suspicious activity. That alone is justification for the Special Counsel. Why does this only have to be about Trump for it to be legitimate?
5. The WH is engaged in a coverup. Every action they take reeks of a coverup. Every message they send is either a lie or obfuscation.
6. The president has wrongly accused 2 people of felonies, Comey and Obama, with zero evidence.
7. Kushner wanted to use communication facilities in the Russian embassy to talk with Russia secretly. Then discussed something (we do not know what) with a Russian, ex KGB, banker from a sanctioned bank. Did Trump know about these activities? If not, why is Kushner still an advisor?
You seem to be blaming our political dysfunction on people who want the rule of law to apply. The dysfunction is the fault of Trump, period. It isn't my fault or any other voter's fault. Why should we not hold Trump accountable?
5
Wouldn't it be wonderful to live in the perfect world you so often dream of, Mr. Brooks. You have the exact Rx for every illness you perceive. And then -- poof -- we'll all be fixed up and magically cogitating along the lines you've set out for us.
3
David Brooks is just voicing the concern of so many in the media, and rightfully so. A lot of Trump haters are in for a huge let down.
2
So where were you, Mr. Brooks, during the election telling folks the Whitewater investigation was a Republican witch hunt? Apparently when Republicans use investigations to attack their political enemies and slander their political careers its OK. But when there is an investigation into a foreign power's attack on our electoral process and a Republican President is a fanboy of that foreign power's dictator, we are getting "carried away". Sometimes you are such a disappointment Mr. Brooks.
4
Let's start with the unarguable. Trump appointed an unregistered foreign agent to be his National Security Advisor. That just stinks.
Go to the specific suspicions, raised by "The Steele Dossier:" It has been credibly suggested that Mr Trump gossipped to Putin-connected individuals about his dealings with Russian oligarchs, whose activities and always-suspect loyalties were of great interest to Putin. In return, Russians whose funds were derived from the Russian government (in not-necessarily-transparent ways) are alleged to have purchased items from Trump companies that they might not otherwise have purchased. Yeah, for some values of those "mights" and "allegeds" our President would be a foreign agent himself. TOTALLY worth investigating.
And vaguer: it is suggested that parts of Trump projects were purchased with money from "black" sources, and that those purchased interests were then mortgaged, to generate "clean" money. Again, worth investigating.
And there's visible and ongoing: what is the legal [even Constitutional] status when members of the President's family do profitable business in countries (like China and Saudi Arabia) where the line between business and government doesn't really exist? I think er need some serious discussion there.
Go to the specific suspicions, raised by "The Steele Dossier:" It has been credibly suggested that Mr Trump gossipped to Putin-connected individuals about his dealings with Russian oligarchs, whose activities and always-suspect loyalties were of great interest to Putin. In return, Russians whose funds were derived from the Russian government (in not-necessarily-transparent ways) are alleged to have purchased items from Trump companies that they might not otherwise have purchased. Yeah, for some values of those "mights" and "allegeds" our President would be a foreign agent himself. TOTALLY worth investigating.
And vaguer: it is suggested that parts of Trump projects were purchased with money from "black" sources, and that those purchased interests were then mortgaged, to generate "clean" money. Again, worth investigating.
And there's visible and ongoing: what is the legal [even Constitutional] status when members of the President's family do profitable business in countries (like China and Saudi Arabia) where the line between business and government doesn't really exist? I think er need some serious discussion there.
3
What isn't a "phony (sic) story" is that Trump was/is the best America could do selecting a President. If it could have done better it would have. To quote Roger Clemens' sometime consultant, Brian McNamee: "It is what it is."
Hilarious. Mr. Brooks didn't understand the Whitewater scandal as it was plastered across the editorial pages of the WSJ, but now thinks it might have been a bit overblown. Gee, ya think? And, while not bothering to ever apologize or reflect on that failure of journalism, he now thinks we should take it slow when it's a Republican in office. Funny how that works for conservatives.
5
We have never seen anything like the Russian interference in our election. Add to that the facts - the Trump folks seem to have a collective loss of memory about meeting with Russians. No one seems to be able to explain how the change in the Ukrane section of the GOP platform occurred. The person who President Trump selected as his National Security Advisor was forced to register as the agent of a foreign government, having failing to do so when he should. He was paid considerable amounts from the Russian government news agency and did not disclose it. And, apparently that relationship and his failure to disclose was known to at least the White House counsel for 17 days before he was fired - for lying to the VP, not for making false statements on his security clearance form. this is just a short list of suspicious or actually illegal actions of the people working in this administration or in the Trump campaign. If this was Barack Obama you and every other Republican would be intensley demanding his resignation. If you want to be a philosopher, you have to be consistent. You have just proved that what you are is a partisan who has choosen to act as such in this very dangerous and frightening situation for our country. I am a disappointed avid reader of your work. I'll get over it. Let's hope the same can be said for our country.
2
Boy! talk about a day late and a dollar short. Looks like mister B is paying his occasional dues.
The only three people in the world who do not want the American people to get carried away with Russian hacking and attacking American politics and elections are the troika consisting of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and David Brooks.
They must think that we are 320 million stooges.
But this is much worse than either Monicagate or Watergate.
They must think that we are 320 million stooges.
But this is much worse than either Monicagate or Watergate.
4
This newspaper has already gotten carried away, but we can hope for saner and impartial judgment in the future.
Yes, let's hope Special Counsel Robert Mueller uses good judgment, which has become so rare inside the Beltway.
Comey should have been fired. Hillary Clinton would have fired him before Trump did because she's more competent and has less tolerance for dead-weight.
Yes, let's hope Special Counsel Robert Mueller uses good judgment, which has become so rare inside the Beltway.
Comey should have been fired. Hillary Clinton would have fired him before Trump did because she's more competent and has less tolerance for dead-weight.
"(Trump's campaign)was publicly and proudly pro Russian leadership (Putin) "
Good God, Mr.Brooks, don't you find that preposterous ?
Good God, Mr.Brooks, don't you find that preposterous ?
4
Collusion...? Perhaps not.
Corruption...? Definitely!
Corruption...? Definitely!
4
If the Russian intrusion into the presidential election is so important , why isn't it being investigated. The now discounted accusations of Trump/Russian collusion have been shown to be groundless , and yet investigations are still going on involving trump campaign associates and others. If the Russian interference really is important, it happened during the 0bama administration, and the 0bama administration was responsible for not preventing it. Perhaps we should be more interested in how Russians were able to do whatever they did ( which has not really been made public, if it has even been determined) and in knowing how national security failed, we can be better prepared to prevent such attacks in the future. Or maybe it isn't so important after all, and only a pretext.
Do not forget, Obama told Putin to "knock it off" referring to election meddling in September 2016. Another famous red line moment.
1
Don't clutch your pearls, Mr. Brooks.
Per Department of Justice Memorandums dated 1973 and 2000, the President cannot be indicted under criminal statutes nor can he be tried by Judicial branch proceedings (a court and jury). It remains their official determination.
The President can only be tried in the Congress via impeachment proceedings.
The Republican leadership in the Congress must be compelled to make a flat statement they will not allow impeachment of the President. Sen. McConnell and Speaker of the House Ryan should stand four-square behind their President with regard to these scurrilous Russian collusion charges and will not allow the special counsel to investigate and report its findings to support a proceeding they have not been charged to investigate to wit- Impeachment.
Since it is the official determination per memorandum by the Department of Justice they cannot indict a sitting President, the special counsel, which is part of the DOJ, should be dismissed.
Enough is enough. The DOJ has many reasons to support their memoranda. Chief of which is that the courts cannot be allowed to so encumber the President to execute his official duties it is imperative that only the elected branch be charged with this responsibility.
Per Department of Justice Memorandums dated 1973 and 2000, the President cannot be indicted under criminal statutes nor can he be tried by Judicial branch proceedings (a court and jury). It remains their official determination.
The President can only be tried in the Congress via impeachment proceedings.
The Republican leadership in the Congress must be compelled to make a flat statement they will not allow impeachment of the President. Sen. McConnell and Speaker of the House Ryan should stand four-square behind their President with regard to these scurrilous Russian collusion charges and will not allow the special counsel to investigate and report its findings to support a proceeding they have not been charged to investigate to wit- Impeachment.
Since it is the official determination per memorandum by the Department of Justice they cannot indict a sitting President, the special counsel, which is part of the DOJ, should be dismissed.
Enough is enough. The DOJ has many reasons to support their memoranda. Chief of which is that the courts cannot be allowed to so encumber the President to execute his official duties it is imperative that only the elected branch be charged with this responsibility.
2
To all that I say, let the investigation begin.
If there's nothing to hide, nothing will be found.
If there's nothing to hide, nothing will be found.
To help avoid the politics of scandal we need to conceive of a system in which politicians and political functionaries lack incentive to act scandalously.
The archetypal David Brooks column: "Let's not get carried away."
We have a President who has fired his own FBI Director, who was investigating the President's administration--after telling his AG to leave the room and then directing Comey to drop the investigation.
He asked Dan Coats--his Intel head--to do the same thing.
He has draped himself in foreign emoluments, in violation of the Constitution, and has returned none of these gains--as he promised to do. This is what DC and MD are bringing suit against him.
He hired an NSA who had been paid by Russia, sat at Putin's elbow--and was paid to do so, and acted as a foreign agent for Turkey. He manifestly refuses to acknowledging the election hacking of Russia--despite the evidence of all
17 Intelligence Agencies which confirm this hacking.
Now--as Angus King has described as terrifying--evidence of State electoral hacking is arising. We have a State electoral system.
This is a very incomplete list of Trump's action, given space availability.
To compare this to a land deal in Arkansas is absurd.
Given the extant facts--we are hardly concerned enough.
We have a President who has fired his own FBI Director, who was investigating the President's administration--after telling his AG to leave the room and then directing Comey to drop the investigation.
He asked Dan Coats--his Intel head--to do the same thing.
He has draped himself in foreign emoluments, in violation of the Constitution, and has returned none of these gains--as he promised to do. This is what DC and MD are bringing suit against him.
He hired an NSA who had been paid by Russia, sat at Putin's elbow--and was paid to do so, and acted as a foreign agent for Turkey. He manifestly refuses to acknowledging the election hacking of Russia--despite the evidence of all
17 Intelligence Agencies which confirm this hacking.
Now--as Angus King has described as terrifying--evidence of State electoral hacking is arising. We have a State electoral system.
This is a very incomplete list of Trump's action, given space availability.
To compare this to a land deal in Arkansas is absurd.
Given the extant facts--we are hardly concerned enough.
16
And:
Angus King stated on Sunday that the Collusion Investigation is very active--and that they have only finished 20% of it.
Angus King stated on Sunday that the Collusion Investigation is very active--and that they have only finished 20% of it.
3
Amen!! The conflict of interest that the Press has is wanting ratings for ad views. Not at all unlikely slander mongers of 2-3 centuries ago, the modern Press loves a hint of scandal more than the dry details of excellent process deliberation, rationalism, and integrity. So far, Trump is as easily baited as HRClinton said he would be but the investigations seem to be a lot of noise about almost nothing of serious legal concern.
2
I wonder if David Brooks has considered joining the Trump Administration. How about becoming the new Press Secretary, to replace Sean Spicer?
=========================================
Brooks can put this essay on his resume, if the White calls for an interview!
Seriously, hope can he trivialize the Russian investigation? Is Brooks making the OK sign, like Trump does all the time? Hello?
=========================================
Brooks can put this essay on his resume, if the White calls for an interview!
Seriously, hope can he trivialize the Russian investigation? Is Brooks making the OK sign, like Trump does all the time? Hello?
1
The political scandal is not whether or not the president or members of his campaign team colluded with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election. The real political scandal is that the president seems completely unconcerned that 17 agencies of government assert that the Russians interfered in our elections. He dismisses the importance of the fact that a foreign government tried to undermine the electoral process, the basis of our democracy. Is his indifference an impeachable offense? Unfortunately most Republicans do not see it that way. But this is certainly the real political scandal.
8
The constantly repeated but wrong "17 agencies" appears again. It was not 17, but 3, and among those 3 there were differences as to degree of certainty.
1
Mr. Brooks, where were you when the Republicans spent millions of dollars and wasted countless hours of governing time and staff resources investigating Hillary Clinton's email? If ever there was a story with no "there" there, that was it--as several Republican-led committees concluded.
Indeed, I believe it was reported that part of the reason Mr. Comey came out with his public announcements on the investigation of her emails was because the Republicans, thinking she would win the election, were already scheduling more hearings on email-gate for the new term. He knew they would never let it go and didn't want to look like the FBI was somehow helping her out.
At risk of sounding unduly partisan, today, the more distracted our so-called president is, the better--less harm will get done while he's captivated by his Twitter feed.
Indeed, I believe it was reported that part of the reason Mr. Comey came out with his public announcements on the investigation of her emails was because the Republicans, thinking she would win the election, were already scheduling more hearings on email-gate for the new term. He knew they would never let it go and didn't want to look like the FBI was somehow helping her out.
At risk of sounding unduly partisan, today, the more distracted our so-called president is, the better--less harm will get done while he's captivated by his Twitter feed.
11
Mr. Brooks belittles the investigation into Trump's ties with Russia. True, perhaps other campaigns might also have contacts with Russian officials but with Trump there's a big difference with regards to context:
1) Trump rarely has a disparaging word for Russia and absolutely never one for the authoritarian Vladimir Putin. For Putin, Trump has only gushing praise. This should disturb any American still interested in preserving freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Hopefully we still have enough Americans who believe in this though lately I have been wondering.
2) Trump's foreign policy so far has often been beneficial to Russia at the cost of our allies. NATO and the European Union are weakened. True this may be the result of incompetence rather than an attempt by Trump to strengthen Russia's hand but once again Russia is helped.
3) Trump's own Attorney General testified that Russia hacked our 2016 election to influence the results and will try to do so again. But from Trump on this topic we hear almost nothing. If he mentions it at all he calls it "fake news". How can we be sure that something will be done to counter this in 2018 and 2020 elections if our own President either at best doesn't believe it, or at worst doesn't care?
Finally, imagine for a moment that this was a Democratic administration with these close ties to Russia. Does anyone seriously believe that the Republican controlled House would not have already impeached back in February?
1) Trump rarely has a disparaging word for Russia and absolutely never one for the authoritarian Vladimir Putin. For Putin, Trump has only gushing praise. This should disturb any American still interested in preserving freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Hopefully we still have enough Americans who believe in this though lately I have been wondering.
2) Trump's foreign policy so far has often been beneficial to Russia at the cost of our allies. NATO and the European Union are weakened. True this may be the result of incompetence rather than an attempt by Trump to strengthen Russia's hand but once again Russia is helped.
3) Trump's own Attorney General testified that Russia hacked our 2016 election to influence the results and will try to do so again. But from Trump on this topic we hear almost nothing. If he mentions it at all he calls it "fake news". How can we be sure that something will be done to counter this in 2018 and 2020 elections if our own President either at best doesn't believe it, or at worst doesn't care?
Finally, imagine for a moment that this was a Democratic administration with these close ties to Russia. Does anyone seriously believe that the Republican controlled House would not have already impeached back in February?
12
Sorry, but the sensationalism and sense of scandal is 90% Trump, who with every new ridiculous claim or accusation creates a tumult that has to be responded to. Otherwise, the investigation would grind on, mostly out of sight. The fact that no collusion has been reported could as easily be because investigations have been so impeded they have been unable to proceed, not because they have proceeded and found nothing. I agree that this, like Whitewater, will be about the money. Hopefully, the people working on this have not been prevented from doing their work, which will necessarily require looking at Trump's tax documents, and those of Kushner and other associates.
6
The scandal is Trump's dereliction of duty in protecting the bedrock of our republic - fair, credible elections - from Russian interference. What good is finding collusion if the American people no longer trust our election results?
2
Really? So Brooks is saying on one hand, wait for the facts to come out and on the other "if it hasn't leaked by now it must not be true".
He also says voters don't care about scandal and in the very next sentence acknowledges that Trump got elected using the politics of scandal.
Which is it?
He also says voters don't care about scandal and in the very next sentence acknowledges that Trump got elected using the politics of scandal.
Which is it?
10
"In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown. And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington."
When the stakes are considered, i.e. war with a long-term nuclear rival, the possibility of Trump's collusion with a national enemy, the perception of which Trump himself conceived and fostered, is more than a mere "scandal."
Clearly, Mr. Brooks, your risks are lower than those of the rest of us.
When the stakes are considered, i.e. war with a long-term nuclear rival, the possibility of Trump's collusion with a national enemy, the perception of which Trump himself conceived and fostered, is more than a mere "scandal."
Clearly, Mr. Brooks, your risks are lower than those of the rest of us.
3
Exactly. Whitewater was about painting the Clinton's as if they were the Arkansas mafia. Trump's scandal is about the Russian mafia.
I grow weary of the Trump talking point, "no evidence of collusion," and now Brooks takes it up. Why would there be CONCLUSIVE evidence leading to prosecutions BEFORE a thorough, independent investigation? After all, the people on the American end of any collusion can be expected to obfuscate, conceal, lie and obstruct. And the people at the Russian end will not cooperate. Unravelling the facts of any such collusion is a complicated business that requires highly professional investigators to run down hundreds of details (who made what phone call when, what money was laundered through three shell companies in Khasakstan, etc.) and squeeze participants until someone talks.
Meanwhile, there is more than ample preliminary evidence to justify such an inquiry, including candidate Trump publicly calling on Russia to keep interfering (how is that not collusiion), his flattering Putin, his denigration of NATO, a series of 2015-16 contacts by a half dozen Trump associates with Russians and their universal attemots to conceal them, and even Trump's myriad of known financial ties to ethnoRussian businessmen in former Soviet states who are linked to Russian mafias. And let's not forget the Steele memorandum in which the highly respected former MI-6 officer reported that Russian contacts of his made over 25 years described a long-term information-sharing relationship between Russia and Trump world.
Meanwhile, there is more than ample preliminary evidence to justify such an inquiry, including candidate Trump publicly calling on Russia to keep interfering (how is that not collusiion), his flattering Putin, his denigration of NATO, a series of 2015-16 contacts by a half dozen Trump associates with Russians and their universal attemots to conceal them, and even Trump's myriad of known financial ties to ethnoRussian businessmen in former Soviet states who are linked to Russian mafias. And let's not forget the Steele memorandum in which the highly respected former MI-6 officer reported that Russian contacts of his made over 25 years described a long-term information-sharing relationship between Russia and Trump world.
7
I find it difficult to believe that there was no coordination from within the Trump campaign for such a thorough and successful intrusion into the 2016 election. It doesn't seem logical anymore. There are too many lies and apparent cover-ups. Why did Kushner want a secure channel with the Kremlin (inside a Russian facility) that could be monitored by Russia, but not US intelligence? Why did Russian oligarch and friend of Putin, Rybolovlev, buy Trump's Palm Beach mansion for twice its' market value? Why was his jet on the tarmac in Las Vegas and Concord, NC the day of Trump rallies there? Why did Jeff Sessions lie under oath? Who paid Paul Manafort to work on Trump's campaign? Why do so many of Trump's cabinet picks have Russian ties?
6
Yes, David, you may be right about the collusion side of the issue, but tRump could have allayed much of this frenzy surrounding the Russians if he had come out squarely for an investigation into the Russian meddling in our elections. That is what is crucial and urgent. Yet, he didn't. Why? Because he is wholly unfit to defend democracy in any way. His lack of intellectual curiosity and preparedness is astounding.
1
Follow the money.....also his tweets show a stream of conscience and guilt. This investigation has a long way to go with plenty of subpoenas to go out yet. Very disappointed with this article you are critical thinker that is backing off Trump to save face.
4
Good job, David. It takes a special kind of thoughtful courage to calmly suggest "what if" while all those around are shouting their beliefs. Socrates would be proud. Maybe some of us can now get back to a much needed reasonable dialog.
3
By now it's become clear to some of us that whoever touches Trump in any way comes away dirtier, more sullied, on shakier moral ground, less certain of which way is up. This goes for his family, his staff, those members of Congress and other politicians who support him, his cabinet, his voters and supporters, the press who cover him, and yes, even his critics and those of us who only read and hear about him. He and everything he touches have always been the stuff of scandal sheets, or worse. The history of what has come out of his own mouth, his behavior, the choices he has made, his marriages and divorces, his affairs, his business dealings, the crass, hateful, dishonest way he clawed his way to the top of American politics - if you've even so much as followed all this, much less been a part of it, I would argue you have been touched by something you would have been better off being able to avoid.
How much does it matter whether there was collusion by Trump or his campaign with the Russians and Putin? If there was collusion, which I wearily agree absolutely must be discovered, that treason, in my view, from a moral and ethical perspective, adds not all that much potential for poisoning and destroying our society than what we already know and, for some, have embraced, about the man the American people actually chose to be president. Because of that choice, I believe our country, and all of us as Americans, are already something far less than we used to be.
How much does it matter whether there was collusion by Trump or his campaign with the Russians and Putin? If there was collusion, which I wearily agree absolutely must be discovered, that treason, in my view, from a moral and ethical perspective, adds not all that much potential for poisoning and destroying our society than what we already know and, for some, have embraced, about the man the American people actually chose to be president. Because of that choice, I believe our country, and all of us as Americans, are already something far less than we used to be.
2
Your column is helium dispersed from the balloon, there is nothing to what you say except this:
"the perfectly legal ways (trump) kowtows to thugs and undermines the norms of democratic behavior."
You see, David, this is exactly why the investigation needs to be done. Other persons in his campaign may have broken the law, trump may have conflicts of interests and others. For trump if he has known of these acts he is as guilty of conspiracy as anyone else.
By the way, David, in my opinion, the 25 mil law suit settlement to those defrauded is only acceptable as not criminal because the corrupt legal system allows these settlements without the trump's of the world admitting any wrong doing. To me all those that putout millions for there misdeeds without admitting any wrong doing are flat out criminals in my moral-value system. And yes, I believe trump is a crook.
"the perfectly legal ways (trump) kowtows to thugs and undermines the norms of democratic behavior."
You see, David, this is exactly why the investigation needs to be done. Other persons in his campaign may have broken the law, trump may have conflicts of interests and others. For trump if he has known of these acts he is as guilty of conspiracy as anyone else.
By the way, David, in my opinion, the 25 mil law suit settlement to those defrauded is only acceptable as not criminal because the corrupt legal system allows these settlements without the trump's of the world admitting any wrong doing. To me all those that putout millions for there misdeeds without admitting any wrong doing are flat out criminals in my moral-value system. And yes, I believe trump is a crook.
6
"It's good to hear of David Brooks' remorse(?) for his collusion in generating the unwarranted outrage over the Whitewater non-scandal."
Whitewater indeed was an example of the old practice: "Let's throw a lot of mud against the wall and see what sticks."
I always thought the Clinton's actual Whitewater investment was innocent. As Hillary and Bill Clinton pointed out many times, they lost money on it, and I don't recall any credible evidence that they did anything wrong.
But...
The excessive focus on Whitewater distracted attention from some OTHER shenanigans that did seem wrong -- notably, HRC's commodity investments. She claims to have made a lot of money on those, and I don't dispute that. But even if she did, commodity investments typically use very considerable leverage -- i.e. borrowed money. That doesn't matter if the commodity price rises, but it matters a great deal if it falls. Even if HRC did well, as she claims and I don't dispute, she took very large risks with the then-precarious finances of her then-young family -- unless, of course, someone was there to "backstop" any losses she might incur (for example: a friendly broker who hoped for some state-government favors in return).
I always thought the focus on the Whitewater investment distracted attention from where it should have been placed: on HRC's commodities trading.
Whitewater indeed was an example of the old practice: "Let's throw a lot of mud against the wall and see what sticks."
I always thought the Clinton's actual Whitewater investment was innocent. As Hillary and Bill Clinton pointed out many times, they lost money on it, and I don't recall any credible evidence that they did anything wrong.
But...
The excessive focus on Whitewater distracted attention from some OTHER shenanigans that did seem wrong -- notably, HRC's commodity investments. She claims to have made a lot of money on those, and I don't dispute that. But even if she did, commodity investments typically use very considerable leverage -- i.e. borrowed money. That doesn't matter if the commodity price rises, but it matters a great deal if it falls. Even if HRC did well, as she claims and I don't dispute, she took very large risks with the then-precarious finances of her then-young family -- unless, of course, someone was there to "backstop" any losses she might incur (for example: a friendly broker who hoped for some state-government favors in return).
I always thought the focus on the Whitewater investment distracted attention from where it should have been placed: on HRC's commodities trading.
1
David Brooks is not an Independent party member. He is a Republican, sickened by Trump but refuses to blame the Republicans for backing an unstable and unfit man to the highest office in the land. It is easier to blame the press which he was a member of but recently donned the coat of a social psychologist, which in my opinion he is not very convincing.
6
Maybe Mr. Brooks is right, maybe not. We should all hope that Mr. Mueller will be able to provide some clarity one way or the other.
Regardless, what is galling about Mr. Brooks' piece is how it ignores Whitewater's role in where we are today. Whitewater led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, gave us George W. Bush and the policies that followed, tarnished the credentials of Hillary Clinton (almost certainly affecting the results of the 2016 election) and taught Republicans that their path to victory is blazed with "overblown" investigations like Whitewater, Benghazi and e-mail servers.
But now a Republican pushing a conservative agenda is now the target of an investigation and, lo and behold!, Mr. Brooks now contritely says "Wow! That Whitewater thing may have been a bit too much! We should take a calm, measured approach to this."
This doesn't mean his main point isn't correct, but Mr. Brooks has little, if any, moral authority to make this point when he readily "rais[ed] serious question" promoting an "overblown" investigation of a President on the other side of the aisle.
Regardless, what is galling about Mr. Brooks' piece is how it ignores Whitewater's role in where we are today. Whitewater led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, gave us George W. Bush and the policies that followed, tarnished the credentials of Hillary Clinton (almost certainly affecting the results of the 2016 election) and taught Republicans that their path to victory is blazed with "overblown" investigations like Whitewater, Benghazi and e-mail servers.
But now a Republican pushing a conservative agenda is now the target of an investigation and, lo and behold!, Mr. Brooks now contritely says "Wow! That Whitewater thing may have been a bit too much! We should take a calm, measured approach to this."
This doesn't mean his main point isn't correct, but Mr. Brooks has little, if any, moral authority to make this point when he readily "rais[ed] serious question" promoting an "overblown" investigation of a President on the other side of the aisle.
2
OK, Mr. Brooks, you don't like "collusion." What would you call giving government favors (lifting sanctions) in exchange for personal financial gain (loan forgiveness). Corruption? High crimes and misdemeanors?
1
Whitewater was well-known to be "overblown" while the hearings were going on. No retrospection was needed.
2