There are two big, outstanding questions surrounding Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and Russia: Did associates of the Trump campaign and transition have improper or illicit contact with Russian officials? Did the Obama administration improperly monitor and leak identifying details about those Trump campaign and transition figures?
Two stories published Monday help bring some clarity—but not full answers—to these questions. Bloomberg View columnist Eli Lake reported that Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security advisor, “requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign.”
That’s in no way a vindication of President Trump’s tweet last month that Obama ordered a wiretap on him and Trump Tower. But it does show Rice, a political appointee in the White House, had unmasked Trump officials who were caught up incidentally in surveillance of foreign persons—something Rice claimed last month she knew “nothing about.” This, Lake points out, is why House Intelligence chairman Devin Nunes needed to view the intelligence reports at the White House on March 21, on a National Security Council computer system that would have documented Rice’s unmasking requests.
Was Rice’s unmasking request legal? Likely yes. Was it improper, or an abuse of power? That’s less clear. The appearance of a politically motivated unmasking isn’t a good look for the Obama administration—especially as some argue former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn was ousted thanks to leaks by Obama loyalists within the intelligence community. Nor does it help the future of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s 702 program, whose opponents argue it violates civil liberties. That’s the argument I’m hearing from Flynn loyalists in the White House. And after the revelations about Rice, it may end up getting voice by one of Flynn’s biggest loyalists: President Trump.
A Back-Channel Meeting With the Russians
The Washington Post, meanwhile, reported Monday afternoon that the FBI is looking into an early January meeting in the Seychelles between a “Russian close to President Vladimir Putin” and an American businessman with ties to Trump, Black water’s Erik Prince:
The story seems explosive and suggestive given the questions about the Trump campaign’s possible connections with Putin’s government. But there’s no evidence in the Post the Trump transition directed Prince or had knowledge of the meeting. There’s also no indication of how truly close the Russian is to Putin, or if both or either party was representing their respective leaders’ actual positions.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the Post story, or whether Prince had had any official contact with President Trump or the administration since the inauguration.
The occurrence of such a secret, “back-channel” meeting is hardly new, as one Obama White House official told the Post. “The idea of using business cutouts, or individuals perceived to be close political leaders, as a tool of diplomacy is as old as the hills. These unofficial channels are desirable precisely because they are deniable; ideas can be tested without the risk of failure,” said Steven Simon, who served on the national security council.
And Simon would know. As Jay Solomon at the Wall Street Journal reported a few years back, it was just through these kind of clandestine meetings that the Obama administration set the table for the nuclear deal with Iran.
The AHCA Gets a Second Chance?
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a critic of the White House-backed American Health Care Act to repeal and replacement Obamacare, is reportedly leading an effort to convince the far-right House Freedom Caucus to give the bill a second chance with some significant changes. The White House, meanwhile, talked up reviving the failed bill with a group of House Republicans Monday. Here’s ABC News:
Paul, a libertarian with allies in the Freedom Caucus, met with the group Monday. “The sense I got from the House Freedom Caucus is that they’re still open to discussion, they still want to have good communications with everyone on it, and they’re still trying to find a middle ground,” said Paul.
Say Goodbye to the Filibuster
One of the White House’s most important legislative goals, the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, looks as if it could be in trouble. By Monday, 41 Democratic senators had come out to say they would oppose a move to close debate on Gorsuch, effectively a filibuster of his nomination since 60 votes are needed to pass a cloture motion.
The realization of that threat has made it all the more clear that Republicans will likely change the Senate rules in order to avert the filibuster. The last Supreme Court nominee to be filibustered successfully was Abe Fortas in 1968, thanks to a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats. (Already an associate justice, Fortas had been nominated by Lyndon Johnson to be chief justice.) Before and since then, no Supreme Court nominee has been denied a seat on the court because of a Senate filibuster.
“I think Democrats are setting a very dangerous precedent when it comes to how they want to do this,” Sean Spicer said at his Monday briefing.
Even Republican defenders of the filibuster like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are now supportive of changing the Senate rules requiring just 51 votes to close debate on Supreme Court nominees rather than the 60-vote supermajority.
Song of the Day
“I Heard It Through the Grapevine,” Marvin Gaye.
