Is Trump as Blind to our National Security Interests as to "Family Values"?

Long ago, the phrase “motherhood and apple pie” meant pure stuff every politician would embrace; and conservatives stood for “national security” and “family values.”

Now? 

Thursday I watched the House Judiciary Committee soap opera, starring FBI agent Peter Strzok. Strzok has a great reputation as an investigator, but imprudently texted his girlfriend about candidate Donald Trump. 

Lifelong Republican Bob Mueller is the special prosecutor investigating the Russian effort to tip the scales for Trump in the 2016 election. He's mostly kept his mouth shut. He's already obtained convictions and guilty pleas. Trump's former campaign manager is sitting in jail and his long-time lawyer and “fixer” seems headed there. Before Trump started running seriously for President, it was common knowledge that Russian and Ukrainian folks, some unsavory, were helping him stay afloat financially. 

Russia helped Trump in 2016. Perhaps coincidentally, Trump has made great strides toward accomplishing some of Putin's key goals, such as sowing discord in NATO and minimizing criticism of Russia's conduct toward the Ukraine. That doesn't make the case for impeachment; but it should make any patriotic U.S. citizen seek an investigation.

Judiciary Committee Republicans are trying to undermine Mueller's investigation by holding up Strzok and reading his imprudent emails over and over. Mueller fired Strzok when the texts came to light. There's not the least showing that Strzok did anything improper investigatively. As a lawyer and a journalist, I've frequently investigated or litigated with a vigor and professionalism that would leave you at sea about my “real” feelings. Same with Strzok. You follow where the facts lead.

Ironically, all the Republicans who spoke were white males, mostly older. They gave laughable performances as cross-examining attorneys, making outraged faces and implying horrible things, but so short on useful information that they mostly wouldn't let Strzok even answer.

The Democrats – two black, one Asian, one white guy sort of Jewish-looking – creatively poked fun at the whole thing. One member, a black woman who'd been a police chief, and actually knew law enforcement, said cops are people, and should hold political views – and can do their jobs despite those.

Stepping back from the one-liners, I could only wonder what happened to Republican concern for our security. Trump's closest associates violated the law in connection with Russia and the Ukraine; but instead of letting the investigation play out, these guys are obsessed with discrediting it. (Trump's bizarre misbehavior at the NATO session was a little much even for them; the House passed by voice vote a resolution saying, “Yo, Orange Hair, NATO matters to us!”)

Meanwhile I've wondered how the party of “family values” so wholeheartedly embraced a serial adulterer who bragged about groping and seducing women who weren't interested. (Republicans made much of Strzok's extramarital affair.) When Trump separated immigrant families, doing obvious harm to the psyches of small children, it seemed that maybe family values don't apply to Spanish-speaking families.

Then news surfaced regarding an international health conference where everyone expected to pass an innocuous resolution saying breast-feeding was the healthiest option and that countries should try to prevent misleading advertising saying otherwise. Our government not only opposed it but bullied Ecuador into withdrawing its sponsorship. Why? Formula is big-business. Breast-milk isn't.

Trump attacked the story as “fake news” but confirmed its truth.

Does Russia own Trump? I've no idea.

Investigate? No, let's bury our heads in the sand, and hope for the best.

                                                    -30-

[The above column appeared Sunday, 15 July 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and other newspapers, as well at on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week both on KRWG Radio and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (or streamable at www.lccommunityradio.org.]

[Walt Rubel also saw the hearings as comical.  And here's one quite conservative ex-Congressman who saw what I saw in the Judiciary Committee hearing.
David Jolley, a Republican Congressman from Florida before he retired in 2017, called it "humiliating" for his former pals, and said they "behaved like children. . . . This was not about getting answers from Strzok. Even Goodlatte towards the end of the day said each member gets five minutes but Strzok doesn’t get to answer.”
He recalled the use of Benghazi hearings, not to uncover truth but to lower Hillary Clinton's poll numbers, and said, “This has been part of the incremental strategy of both Trump, yes, those in Congress who go along with him, to undermine the integrity of the investigation from the very beginning,” he said.]

[What isn't comical is the very serious and detailed indictment handed down by a grand jury in the Russia investigation.   I'm reading the 29-page indictment now, and will post a summary and comments this week some time, along with a link to the full document.   But what's abundantly clear is that (1) this was a Russian governmental operation and more extensive than we'd realized; (2) it was carried out largely by Russian military officers, which Putin had to have approved, and involved participation by U.S. individuals, possibly some involved in Trump's campaign; (3) it involved spying not only on Democratic Party entities and the Clinton Campaign, but on governmental agencies as well; and (4) the detailed nature of the allegations indicates that the investigators know a great deal more than they put in the indictment, and that further indictments (or cooperation), of U.S. citizens this time, are almost certain.  (Notably, one sitting congressperson, running for reelection, sought and received damaging documents from the Russian conspirators regarding his or her opponent.  S/he may or may not have known whom s/he was dealing with.)
Above all, the extent of the operation, the fact that it was government-directed, the clear fact that it was aimed at determining a U.S. election, make it imperative that this investigation continue.  It's not overstating the case to say that our national security depends on it.  This is not merely about whether Mr. Trump was sufficiently involved to warrant his impeachment (and/or imprisonment for treason), but about gaining more specifics so as to defend against further successful efforts by the Russian military to penetrate our government operations and determine U.S. elections.  
Aside from Trump's bias, being a possible target here, he is clearly disqualified from overseeing or curtailing this investigation because he has a man-crush on Putin, has previously been close to Russian and Ukrainian interests, and -- despite clear evidence and the unanimous view of our intelligence agencies -- continues to deny Russia's involvement or try to minimize the seriousness of the matter.
Whether Mr. Trump is just a little naive or has been an "asset" of Russia's for several years is a reasonable question.  Only through a continued vigorous and independent investigation can we -- perhaps -- learn the answer.]

[By the way, sorry if the column is a touch disjointed.  I started one earlier in the week regarding the breast milk controversy then got fascinated (and both amused and appalled) by the House Judiciary Committee hearings, and ended up with a combination.]