Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
‘Regular Channels’
Those not enrolled Ambassador Marie’s booster club may be baffled by the rather selective integrity on display. She speaks for her group (deep state/ interagency consensus/ career policy staff/ whatever) when she says that she disapproved of Rudy Giuliani wandering in and identifying which investigation targets the US government should instruct the Ukrainian government to investigate or not investigate. But the same group had no problem with a do-not-investigate list from “regular channels” nor any reservations about working closely with DNC operatives looking for dirt on anyone connected with Trump. And, of course, her testimony was totally unaffected by Trump firing her for overt partisan allegiances and actions. (How dare he!)
Leaving aside the issue of Mr. Giuliani’s spectacularly poor judgment in this entire matter, we need to get a clearer understanding of “regular channels.” One might think that “channel” implies a passive conduit through which information and directives flow. One would be wrong. These “regular channels” get to decide what flows through them, like a cable box that can veto your viewing choices. It means deference to sensibilities if not the specific preferences of The Experts.
We need to recall the great interagency traditions that gave us the Bay of Pigs and the coup/ assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem—our policy pros providing infallible guidance. They were the experts who realized that Ronald Reagan would only exacerbate tensions with a Soviet system likely to outlast our own. They are the people who have the sophistication and education to understand the need to respect foreign cultures—except when we want to pressure them to implement birth control and abortion policies that are more than just a tad different from that nation’s existing values.
The pros realize that when you want to know what’s really going on in a country you should ask someone from the educated urban elite because they will have the same deep connection with average folks as the American elite does with our own deplorables. The experts knew that Yasser Arafat would deliver peace if given enough cash and signed papers. They knew the Iraq War Surge was silly—we should have turned Iraq over to Iran and abandoned Israel to achieve regional peace. And they gave us the Iran nuclear deal.
In the case of Ukraine, the highly principled Friends of Marie did not threaten resign, leak or conspire when Barrack Obama rolled over for Vladimir Putin and expressly refused to take any meaningful action to help Ukrainians defend themselves. But these same paragons would have us believe that a delay in aid delivery was an unprincipled foreign policy disaster because of actions not done through “regular channels.” Or more precisely, legality and propriety is solely determined by the partisan politics, sensibilities and acknowledgment of the importance of The Experts.
Institutional narcissism gussied up to look like a principled position is nauseating. Marie is not the only one who should have been shown the door. Once anyone in policy work forgets who has final authority under American law, that person needs to move on. Don’t like the policy? Resign and write op-eds and a memoir but don’t think you have a right to organize a coup.
Published in General
Yes, it is a tad ironic that they use a short pause in more aggressive aid than Obama ever provided as the grounds for “impeachment.” And that these careerists would even cooperate in the farce much less promote it is outrageous.
To any normal person, the concept that an unknown career bureaucrat working at a political job who was previously appointed to that job by a past President whose policies you specifically voted against, should have precedence over the policies and direct orders (Lt Col Vindman) of the current President, whose policies you voted for, are, to say the least, alien. One could go further and call them seditious. The least that should happen is a career change. For the Lt Col who is active military, his dress uniform should become much lighter. For the tearful woman who broke International Diplomatic rules of conduct by interfering in the prosecutions of corruption in Ukraine, her resume should no longer have current government employee status. For the current President, he should have the support to appoint men and women in these positions who truly represent his policies.
This is akin to the vapors that were gotten back in March of 2017 when Trump fired Preet Bharara as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Any collective memory of Bill Clinton coming into office and firing all of George H.W. Bush’s U.S. Attorneys, or of the ones replaced by Barack Obama, went out the window — the spin was this was an unprecedented outrage, even though Trump or any president can fire people working for the Executive Branch at any time without cause, including U.S. Ambassadors.
It’s the double-standard employed with The Narrative that’s the most irritating, and not because the Democrats do it, but because the media follows their lead and somehow think the Internet doesn’t exist, and people can’t just flip on their computer to check if they’ve been consistent in holding both parties to the same ground rule of what it allowable and what sparks supposed moral outrage.
Excellent post, Old Bathos. The outrage and arrogance of these bureaucrats is disgusting. But I assume they’ve been getting away with these activities for years. No one has stopped them. No one has chastised them. No one has fired them. Those who let them stay in their positions are as disgusting as those who report to them.
Speaking of “regular channels”, Glenn Beck has a well-researched expose of how the Obama State Department partnered with George Soros to destabilize societies around the world. A little money goes a long way, when professionals utilize social media to stir-the-pot in small countries. The State Department provides diplomatic pressure and a Soros spin-off provides the boots-on-the-ground. Sometimes the US military gets involved too. Ukraine, Macedonia, Libya, Chile, Bolivia, … I don’t know how this chaos benefits America, but I am sure that George Soros knows how to turn a profit. Surely other DNC grifters were there to make a buck too.
Question: Dan Radcliffe was nominated for head of DNI and then withdrawn. Did the Deep State (regular channels) force his withdraw, because he would have nixed this whole “whistleblower” hoax? Personnel is policy and the Deep State controls the personnel.
Good analogy. Another analogy would be if air traffic controllers demanded that they should be the ones who decide on the destinations of flights, as well as assisting in how they get there.
I’m more interested in the answer to the following.
How do two brothers, active duty Army officers, wind up both seconded to the NSC? I presume the one is probably a FAO (Foreign Area Officer ) specializing in Eastern Europe. Service on the NSC staff would be a very desirable plum assignment.
But how does the other one, a JAG officer, get a job with an office down the hall from his brother?
Has anyone bothered to look into it?
Good questions, both. Career officers bucking for promotion learn early that you work the networks that guide your career. When I was a JAG officer decades ago, my boss spent a lot of time keeping in touch with people who could help his career, and they did.
I am personally inclined to have much latitude in my opinion regarding Rudy Giuliani’s path through irregular channels in pursuit of facts related to the origins of the meddling in the 2016 election by people from Ukraine or Russia. ‘Irregularities’ abounded in our own American law enforcement and intelligence communities during that 2016 election period and we have yet to hear those details. Whether we refer to it as the Deep State or merely entrenched career bureaucrats, possibly aligned with certain elected officials or political appointees, the fact remains that Presidential policies are subject to improper resistance. I still have a suspicion that some political appointees from the previous administration have been placed in career civil service positions without having gone through proper screening for selection into those positions. In any event, one can be certain that ‘regular channels’ are not to be trusted for total commitment to serving American interest as set forth by the President.
Oh, I am sure that the correct people are all over this. Riiiight. But think about this spy novel: a set of identical twins are placed in a position, one being military, the other civilian, in our government. The civilian brother works in the IC and the military works in the State Dept. The CIA brother gets tasked with listening and transcribing the POTUS phone calls with other heads of State amongst other things. The military twin is working in the Russian/Ukrainian theatre of operations. How did these twins get placed in these positions? I’ll let you all know when I finish my book.
That’s routine. I’m wondering how the conversation went.
NSC Staffer: Hello DoD. We need a military lawyer to fill a vacancy on our staff.
DoD: Okay. We will send over a list of candidates.
NSC Staffer: Make sure the list includes the Army.
DoD: Roger, that. Any other requirements?
NSC Staffer: Just a few. Must be fluent in Russian and Ukrainian. Must be an O5. And the last name needs to start with a V.
DoD: That’ll be a pretty short list.
NSC Staffer: It will. Yes, it will.
Yes, we do.
I don’t see why Giuliani’s judgement is deemed “poor” or “spectacularly poor.” Does no one remember Harry Hopkins or Colonel House. I would also recommend a book titled, “The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan” which tells the story of his use of a back channel civilian who was knowledgeable about the Soviet Union.
https://www.amazon.com/Rebellion-Ronald-Reagan-History-Cold-ebook/dp/B001P9W9Q8/
A review of the book;
Mr. Mann delivers an interesting perspective on the mechanics of Ronald Reagan’s Soviet foreign policy. Using four separate themes, Mann describes how Reagan ostensibly parted company with many on the right to bring about the end of the Soviet Union. Mann covers the Nixon-Reagan relationship (perhaps the best part of the book), the role of Reagan’s informal advisor/diplomat Suzanne Massie, the Berlin Wall speech, and the summits in highlighting the complexity of US-Soviet relations from 1980-88.
I don’t object to a private figure being used as an alternative to the use of government officials/appointees/employees. I do object to making requests for assistance that would be embarrassing if made public to deep state personnel who would certainly leak it—and did so.
Durham has already reached out to Ukraine. Pompey or Grassley can make the same requests more cleanly. This was gratuitous.
Trump needs people who can get things done for him so as to minimize the downside of his impulsive tendencies and lack of awareness of legal minefields. Giuliani has shown he is not that guy. I like him but he is not that guy.
Exactly. But are we not seeing some drift here and there. It affects some bothered by the non professional aspects of people who play at the top.
OldB,
Aw, c’mon Oldb, you’re talking about some of the most highly trained people in this country. So they stubbed their toe on a few minor issues. Lighten up would you.
Regards,
Jim
It is a conservative maxim that most ‘solutions’ require some kind of trade-off.
I believe that to be true.
However, professional managers of trade-offs will never find an actual solution, because in ain’t their job.
In the X-Files, when you see the bug profile in the back of the neck of the bad guys. And they bleed green.
Trump seems to be able to sniff them out, like the Conan dog and the team sniffed out that “Albag-Deadguy.”
Of course Trump uses back channels. All the front channels, like Fmr. Ambassador Yack-a-Nonsense are suspect, if not actually corrupted.
These “regular channels” are also the source of deep-state leaks, which in Trump’s case were done to him early in his Presidency. It’s no wonder he bypassed this leaky pipe in order to conduct business. His only “crime” is denying the deep state the ability to leak or interfere with his policies. This is why we have not witness after witness, but hearsay after hearsay.
Frankly, so what if Trump put a condition on assistance? We should do it more often. If a country behaves in a manner unbecoming to a good relationship, it should be denied funds until it has cleaned up its act for at least five years . . .
My understanding of the crux of this inquiry remains Trump mentioning the Bidens, which includes a potential political opponent, while exhorting the Ukraine President to root out corruption in Ukraine’s government and business. To make this an impeachment it issue has been tied to withholding Congressionally authorized military assistance funds. All the political attention seems to focus on the fact that a potential political opponent was included. Another piece is that Trump’s interest is clearly the events around the 2016 election.
Tell me if I have any of that description wrong.
Those conducting the impeachment inquiry are charging that President Trump conditioned the release of the military assistance funding to a public commitment by President Zelensky to do the investigation of the 2016 election interference.
Can anyone point out some revealed evidence, not hearsay, of this last.
I meant to ask another question with this. Are those vying for political office exempt from criminal investigation or inquiries that might result later in such? That part of the above statement by the President involving the Bidens seems to be a peripheral issue and I wonder why the Bidens are in the middle. Maybe Hunter Biden should be more careful what he does.
Certainly not when they make this public statement:
Is anyone on this thread familiar with what were the underlying circumstances that led Joe Biden to pass on a run for President in 2016 when it is now apparent that he is interested and he is now four years older and four years removed from a seat of power?
My favorite phrases that have been used during all of this:
…against the consensus views of the inter-agencies…
…irregular channels of diplomacy…
…contrary to long standing U.S. policy…
By coincidence, Mr. CowGirl and I have been re-watching the series “The Crown” and it is remarkable how their “inter-agencies” get their panties in a bunch constantly when someone at the top doesn’t do something that has always been done a certain way. The big difference in the British story seems to me that their bureaucrats have been doing it for many centuries, and our bureaucrats have only had a couple hundred years to get this devoted to their “long-standing” ways of obstructing the current elected leader. Granted…we don’t have a queen, but we apparently still have a whole layer of government who have decided that they are actually in charge–voters be damned.
If Trump withheld aid for entirely personal reasons, for example, to get a cash bribe from Zelensky, it would be impeachable. But there was no tangible exchange or any communication about an exchange.
The problem for Democrats is that it depends on Trump’s intent, his mental state. They are trying to prove that he did something (and it is not entirely clear what he actually did) solely to (a) improve his chances against Biden and (b) that he does not believe Biden is corrupt.
If Trump believes Biden’s involvement is corrupt (e.g., he thinks it is prima facie corruption that Biden the Younger gets a gazillion dollars, Biden the Elder then runs interference for Biden the Younger’s corrupt employer) and if Trump believes this occurred within a larger context of corruption involving Democrats’ use of Ukrainian help in the 2016 election, then Trump has done nothing wrong because the President is supposed to press for investigation of this kind of thing.
The Schiff principle is apparently that a Republican President may not exercise his statutory duty to enforce American law against corrupt practices by Americans overseas if the targets of any such investigation include a Democrat who may someday run against that same Republican president in the next election. Any exposure of corruption on the part of that Democrat might confer an electoral advantage upon the Republican president, therefore, the Republican President is obligated to adopt a mental state in which he does not see or suspect corruption. I find the underlying theory of impeachment to be utterly nuts.
To put it another way, if Trump were to say, “Yeah I ordered the Code Red because I have always believed the Bidens are dirty as hell” it would actually be exculpatory technically speaking though not particularly prudent.
You would probably get a kick out of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.
Sir Humphrey Appleby is one of the greatest things ever to happen to television.
I’m baffled by the almost unanimous effort by the Left to ignore this idea. Somehow the Democrats believe that only Russia was implicated in the effort to tamper, so Ukraine must not have done anything (through the Democrats or otherwise) to influence 2016. The narrative is all about the Bidens (as you’ve described). Maybe the Ukrainians will investigate the Ukrainian/Democrat/Hillary connection, but it will likely either be buried here, discounted, or be publicized in two years–too late to make a difference.
It was Hillary’s turn. She controlled the DNC. I suspect he knew or was told that he couldn’t get funding and support.
No. They know that the DNC/Clinton was up to its ears in collusion with Ukraine to influence the 2016 election so they need to charge Trump with their crime to distract attention. At least this is true of the PTB. If regular Democrats are drinking the Party kool-aid then that just means that things are working as desired.