6.16.19: Perceived Compromise and Individual Cabinet Agendas

We start in the Strait of Hormuz, a Middle East waterway that the world economy depends on for stability. Two oil tankers were attacked and Iran is believed to be responsible. The consensus throughout the program was that it is consistent with Iranian behavior, to borrow a phrase from Pete Buttigieg. There was also positive consensus on using the U.S. military to escort tankers through the strait to protect American interests and allies in the region.

However, as Richard Engel explained, there were many moments that had lead to where we are now - pulling out of the JCPA [the Iran deal], the Administration's continued support of the Saudi war in Yemen, and escalating sanctions. The latter of which, Mr. Engel explained that the U.S. has ratcheted up the sanctions to an unbearable degree, the Iranian hardliners would ascend and actions like this were likely to take place, something that National Security Advisor John Bolton would certainly know, again from Mr. Engel.

There's no cohesive plan coming from the Administration. The president's agenda differs from Mr. Bolton and for that matter Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's as well. The competing forces need to coalesce or mistakes will be made and we will find ourselves in a military conflict. In terms of using the U.S. military as tanker escorts, the decision comes down to 'what choice do you have?' versus 'are we just inviting a military conflict?' The circumstances would have been much better if the U.S. could conduct such an operation with the help and support of its allies, but the Administration has isolated itself, never seeing the bigger picture of foreign affairs and we lay that at the feet of the president.

Click to Watch Video

The New York Times just reported that military advisors didn't fully brief the president about planting malware into the Russia power grid for fear of how the president would react, which is no less than incredible. It says is that even though nothing has been evidenced that the president is compromised in some way, our military has the perception that he is. One could make the distinction between what the president says and what his administration does, but the president needs to lead his administration to lead the country and these mixed messages clearly indicate a lack of steady-handed leadership. However, as George Will elegantly explained, the president is a "complete amateur in American public life" and we should be appalled but not surprised. Little consolation...

Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) said that he was glad the president was being aggressive with Russia with regard to meddling, but again its not the president but his administration. Mr. Scalise readily accepts that Russia did meddle with the 2016 U.S. election, but seemed just as worried about corporate security as much as election cybersecurity. Being part of the Legislature Mr. Scalise should mainly focus on election security; corporations are continually taking steps. Mr. Scalise said their were massive problems with the Democratic Party's H.R. 1 bill that addressed election security and voter rights. The Louisiana Minority Whip is entitled to his spin, like explicitly pointing out that Mr. Obama was president at the time of the meddling. This is true but when Mr. Obama got the leaders of the House and Senate together to put out a unified public statement about it, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked the effort and wasn't concerned. However, by just reading the summary, you'll read that the main issue for Republicans is that it established an independent, nonpartisan redistricting commission in the states. In other words, no more gerrymandering to favor one party over the other.

On that alone, Senator McConnell would never bring it to the floor of Senate so the cybersecurity parts of the bill get scrapped out of hand. Why not have a clean bill on cybersecurity? Even presented with that, Mr. McConnell wouldn't bring it up for a vote. Even given the president's comments this week to George Stephanopoulos that he would take information from a foreign power and use it to win reelection, Mr. McConnell has no interest in an updated bill, one more explicit, about taking money from a foreign government. Why would that be?

Is it because Mitch McConnell's wife Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao's family owns a shipping company based in New York but with ships flagged from countries all over the world and  business in China? How does the Chinese government not know every business aspect of this company's dealings in country? They know it all, and this illustrates several interest conflicts across the spectrum.

There is no plan coming from this Administration for if it at least had that, the president wouldn't be floundering as much as he is. But because of his perceived compromising position and having every cabinet member with his or her own agenda, the rocky road with only continue.


Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; George Will, syndicated columnist; Helene Cooper, The New York Times

One more thing...
Totally agree with Helene Cooper that it's too early to be dissecting polls, or getting to hung up on every provocative statement aimed at a primary opponent, we just let you know that it will be changing soon as the first debate line-ups have been set: