Nytt

Bilde: Bekymringen lyser ut av øynene og ansiktet på Michael Flynn. Det er 13. februar og Trumpg og Justin Trudeau skal holde pressekonferanse, men det er nok helt andre ting som tynger Flynn. Foto: Carlos Barria/Reuters/Scanpix.

Hvis man lytter til mediene skulle man tro at Trump-administrasjonen sto foran en snarlig oppløsning, før de første 30 dager var omme. Kaster man blikket på børsen ser man at Dow Jones steg 100 poeng onsdag. Dow Jones og S&P har steget 12 prosent siden innsettelsen.

Investorene har altså stor tillit til Trump, uanfektet av alle skandalene.

Er mediene et autistisk kammer uten berøring med økonomien?

Børsen er følsom for usikkerhet. En kan konstatere at den ikke har latt seg påvirke av det politiske bråket. Så langt.

Flynn

Det forhindrer ikke at det er trekk ved Michael Flynns avgang som fortsetter å interessere, ikke minst fordi forholdet til Russland fortsetter å engasjere. Et russisk spionskip har beveget seg helt opp mot Connecticut. Så langt har russerne aldri trengt opp før.

Man tror at Moskva vil sende et signal: -Dere utplasserer soldater i vårt nærområde, Norge og Baltikum, se hva vi kan gjøre.

Flynn falt på at han ikke fortalte den hele og fulle sannhet om sine samtaler med den russiske ambassadøren. Men kanskje var det også andre ting? Sean Spicer antyder det.

“The evolving and eroding level of trust as a result of this situation and a series of other questionable instances is what led the president to ask for General Flynn’s resignation,” he said.

Flynn skal ha fått Bannon, Kushner og Priebus mot seg. Dette er den indre sirkel man ikke bør komme på kant med.

Obamas folk

Leser man nedover i New York Times’ artikkel dukker Obamas rådgivere opp. Man har gjort et nummer av at Flynn snakket med russerne før han hadde tiltrådt. Men ingen har snakket om at Obamas folk la feller for Trump-administrasjonen. Hvorfor skulle de ikke det? Det var som å etterlate seg synkeminer i farvannet.

Around the same time, Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn’s conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States.

The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.

Det var ingen deal, likevel kjører New York Times storyen halvannen måned senere, som om det var en deal.

New York Times er selv del av undergravingsarbeidet Obamas folk har orkestrert.

Obama gjorde det samme

Obama og mediene har systematisk fremstilt Trump som the bad guy og Obama som the good guy. Mediene har minnet om the Logan Act, som forbyr private å drive diplomati eller forhandlinger på vegne av USA. Men Obama gjorde nettopp det i 2008, da Bush drev forhandlinger med Iran. Obama lot en utsending dra til Teheran og fortelle ayatollahene at han kom til å komme med et godt tilbud. Utsendingen har fortalt om oppdraget, men det er som om mediene ikke vil se parallellen.

Patrick Poole skriver i pjamedia.com:

The heavy breathing by the media about supposed Logan Act violations is totally overwrought, as there has never been a successful Logan Act prosecution in two centuries. But it bears recalling that in 2008 as the Bush administration was trying to negotiate on the Iran nuclear program, those efforts were scuttled by the Obama campaign without any complaint from the media or calls for Logan Act prosecutions.

As our own Michael Ledeen reported here at PJ Media back in 2014:

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. 

The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

It is remarkable that invocations of the Logan Act (e.g. the letter from 47 Senate Republicans to the Iranian leader in 2015) only occur when it can be used to target Republicans.

Politisering av «tjenestene»

Et annet spørsmål Poole reiser er politiseringen av etterretningstjenestene, en potensielt meget skadelig utvikling for den amerikanske sentraladministrasjonen.

Det er allerede tendenser til vondt blod.

Eli Lake i Bloomberg:

Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.

In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton’s nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush’s first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.

And Damon Linker at The Week:

Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. «Finally,» they say, «someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!» It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.

 Overvåking og etterretning har vokst etter 9/11. Under Obama er tjenestene blitt politisert. Trump representer et så alvorlig brudd med Obamas politikk at tjenestemennene «bolts», de er villig til å forråde den nye administrasjonen.

Det kan ikke Trump tillate hvis han vil overlate. Da er ikke Flynn den siste som faller.

I et større perspektiv er det snakk om et alvorlig forfall i institusjonenes integritet.

Hvem er det som egentlig truer USA?

Mest lest

Mot en ny fase av Exodus

Sannhetskampen