World
  1. Home
  2. World
ANALYSIS

Conjuring up Watergate as clouds darken over Trump administration

Paul McGeough

Washington: This town often gets way ahead of the game, but the credentials of some conjuring up the dark days of Watergate in discussing how a deepening Russia crisis might unfold for Donald Trump and the American people are not to be sneezed at.

Writing in The Cipher Brief of Monday's abrupt resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Watergate veteran and something of a journalistic national treasure, Walter Pincus, adjusts the spotlight, asking instead: "What did the President know, and when did he know it? For those of us who went through Watergate, that question, first posed by Senator Howard Baker, is the one most relevant today as the current White House drama unfolds …"

Up Next

Helicopter pilot asks truckie for directions

null
Video duration
01:27

More World News Videos

null
Video duration
01:17

Trump slams 'fake media'
null
Video duration
01:27

Helicopter pilot asks truckie for ...
null
Video duration
01:10

'Our house is on fire right now'
null
Video duration
02:26

Over 400 firefighters battle massive blaze
null
Video duration
01:27

Kiss-Cam captures fans of love
null
Video duration
01:30

CCTV clue in Kim Jong-nam case
null
Video duration
01:59

Donald Trump addresses racism, sort of
More videos

Trump slams 'fake media'

US President Donald Trump takes to Twitter to lash out at what he calls 'fake media', accusing them of publishing illegal information that led to the resignation of his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Similarly struck by rumblings from the past, Nixon biographer Tim Weiner worries about Trump's preoccupation with news leaks, rather than with how the swirling Russia-related crises could wrong-foot his administration – for however long it might survive.

In an op-ed in The New York Times, Weiner writes: "It's been a long time, but remember this: The road to Watergate and the resignation of Richard Nixon began in April 1969, three months after his inauguration, when the president ordered [Henry] Kissinger to wiretap members of his own staff in an effort to stop embarrassing leaks of secret information…

Related Content

"It's been barely three weeks since the Trump team took office, and a distinct aroma has started wafting out of Washington, what Mr Kissinger is said to have called 'the odious smell of truth'."

Kissinger survived for years as Nixon's national security adviser. By contrast, the conspiracy-minded former US Army General Flynn survived for barely three weeks as Trump's national security adviser.

Advertisement

But instead of dousing the flames of crisis, Flynn's ouster from the West Wing has fuelled the blaze, seemingly giving rise to a belief that if Trump would sacrifice such a loyal lieutenant, then others too might be defenestrated – which in turn, emboldens those with secrets to leak.

Exhibit A – The New York Times' Tuesday report that the FBI and other agencies are investigating a trove of telephone data which reveals that some on Trump's 2016 presidential campaign team and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election. The report relied on four unnamed administration sources – current and former.

Exhibit B – similar material to the Times report, but augmented with this gem: "Adding to US investigators' concerns were intercepted communications between Russian officials before and after the election discussing their belief that they had special access to Trump, two law enforcement officials tell CNN".

Despite the chaos of Flynn's demise, the administration depicts his sacking as an "immediate, decisive" presidential act, in which there is an implicit plea that everyone should move on.

But moved perhaps by Kissinger's notion of "the odious smell of truth", some Republicans are succumbing to demands for greater, closer investigation – because the more apparent it becomes that Trump has no control over events and the information coming to light continues to undermine so many denials by Trump and others in his team, GOP members of congress will see the political suicide in being a party to any effort to block an investigation.

See these denials that now look very suspect:

October 24: Trump in Tampa: "I have nothing to do with Russia folks, OK. I'll give you a written statement, nothing to do."

January 11: Trump's response when an NBC reporter asked if members of his staff were in contact with Russian officials during the campaign – "No".

January 15: Vice President Mike Pence gave the same response to a similarly question on Fox News and CBS – "Of course not".

In banging on about the leaks, problematic and all as they might be, Trump conveys the sense of a cover-up, more than what might be read as an articulate and believable denial.

As The Washington Post's usually measured Chris Cillizza writes: "Think about that for a second: A foreign government that hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and top Clinton campaign officials for the express purpose of hurting her and helping Trump in an American presidential campaign was reportedly also in regular touch with the campaign it aimed to help.

"That's stunning stuff - even if there was zero collusion or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia."

There are so many other questions, all based on jarring disconnects. Trump's unprecedented junking of GOP orthodoxy on keeping Moscow at arms length; his continual slobbering over Russian President Vladimir Putin; evidence of his historic determination to do business in Russia, despite his current denials.

What was the substance of all the calls between his gang and the Moscow mob? Given that Flynn had put Pence in such a parlous position by having to parrot his deceit on national TV, why did Trump withhold that information from Pence for two whole weeks?

But with so many inquiries now ongoing, and with people close to them happily leaking, it becomes increasingly difficult for Trump to spin events to his advantage as they unfold.

Apart from the links between Moscow and Trump's campaign, the US agencies also are investigating the "dodgy" dossier on Moscow's alleged efforts to manipulate the election to help Trump win – and, more leaks reveal, they are finding it to be less dodgy than Trump would have had us believe when it first surfaced in media reports.

The security agencies are also investigating the activities of Paul Manafort, who Trump sacked as his campaign manager, after media reports last year of Manafort's work as a consultant for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and for the country's former president, Viktor Yanukovych, and in particular the close contact he had in that job with intelligence officials from Kiev and Moscow.

And the FBI and the intelligence committees of both houses of congress are also investigating the Russian interference in the election.

Usually taciturn, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said it was "highly likely" that the circumstances leading to Flynn's sacking would be added to a broader, pre-existing Senate investigation into Russian meddling in the US presidential election.

Roger Stone, a long-time adviser and Trump confidante who reportedly is one of the four Trump associates under investigation for his contacts with Russian intelligence, is urging the President to take the gamble of appointing an official inquiry into the crises.

"The President should tell his attorney general that either he finds proof of this, or he puts it to bed and announces none of it happened," Stone said in an interview with the Guardian.

Republicans will be swayed to back the inquiries by observations such as this from former George W Bush adviser Eliot Cohen on the departure of Flynn: "There was already a cloud hanging over the administration when it comes to Russia, and this darkens the cloud – this is serious."

If the Kremlin is trying to help Trump, it's not doing a very good job.

Possibly carried away by the belief that their interference in the US presidential election has helped in Trump's victory, as US intelligence agencies have concluded was Moscow's objective, some Russian officials were eager to acknowledge that "there were contacts" during the campaign.

Just days after the November 8 vote, Sergei Ryabkov, Moscow's deputy foreign minister, said: "It is clear that people who are called as being part of his entourage, for the most part, are known to us. These are people who were always on display, who occupied important posts."

Last week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov categorically denied that Flynn had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak – but come his Monday eviction from the White House, Flynn admitted that he had been lying and that, yes, he had discussed the Obama sanctions with Moscow's envoy.

And after Tuesday's bombshell report in The New York Times, based on multiple leaks on the FBI and other agencies investigating evidence of extensive contact between members of Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence, Peskov made much negative noise – but on closer examination, it did not constitute a denial.

With a chill seemingly running down his spine, Pincus observes in his Cipher Brief offering: "At 6.28am yesterday, Trump wrote from the White House: 'The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N. Korea etc?'

"That presidential tweet should make people uneasy, the way we felt nervous during Watergate about what military actions President Nixon might undertake as the truth began to threaten him personally. Trump was initiating what can only be described as a typical attempt to divert his roughly 25 million followers from paying attention to what he and his own White House has been caught doing."

But only a cynic would bring up a warning such as this from Pincus as CNN reported on Wednesday afternoon that the Pentagon is considering sending ground troops to Syria. But, of course, the final decision would be Trump's.

Related Content

92 comments