The optics of strength are important to President Trump. That was made clear enough again just last week during NATO negotiations.
Trump has also at times made a fair argument about the value in having a better relationship with Russia, though it’s hard to understand why he felt the need to side with Russian President Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence community in the spotlight of an historic joint press conference. Or why he missed opportunities to confront the thuggish ruler for his country’s conduct. It’s puzzling, but the explanation could be more simple than sinister.
Trump on Tuesday thanked Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for apparently saying, “The President has gone through a year and a half of totally partisan investigations – what’s he supposed think?”
“You really get it!” Trump tweeted to Paul.
Thank you @RandPaul, you really get it! “The President has gone through a year and a half of totally partisan investigations – what’s he supposed think?”
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 17, 2018
That seems telling. A report in Axios on Tuesday claimed that “Trump has, at times, privately conceded that Russia probably hacked. But the minute the word ‘election’ comes up in conversation, his brain shifts into an attack mode that throws U.S. intelligence out the window and delights Putin.”
Democrats, Never-Trump Republicans, and the media overwhelmingly say they want Trump to bash Putin (yes, the same media that was gentler when Democratic politicians like former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sought to repair Russia relations). That doesn’t make it wrong, and it shouldn’t prevent the president from treating Putin appropriately. As many point out, Trump’s policies have been much tougher than his rhetoric.
[Also read: ‘Shameful’: Senate Republicans blast Trump after he blamed US for soured Russian relationship]
Conceding that Russia attempted to meddle in the election would only even remotely risk delegitimizing his victory over Clinton if there was any evidence the results were significantly impacted, and there is not. Further, disentangling the special counsel’s probes into collusion and meddling is important, and Trump could help his own case by emphasizing those distinctions instead of undermining the entire investigation.
Paul is correct that much of the scrutiny has been partisan, and Trump is understandably frustrated. But though some of the critiques have been predictably hysterical, none of these concerns fully excuse Trump’s performance at that press conference. If he believes in the importance of projecting American strength on the world stage, he shouldn’t worry about appeasing his domestic critics in the process.
