Swap ‘Clinton’ for ‘Trump’ to see just how bad the Flynn scandal is

What do you think the Republican reaction would be to this state of affairs? Never mind Monica Lewinsky. It would be all impeachment, all the time

By Richard Wolffe / The Guardian / Tuesday 9 May 2017 14.06 EDT

Let’s play a game, shall we?

Let’s pretend that Hillary Clinton, who won almost 3 million votes more than Donald Trump, also won the presidency in the electoral college. And let’s pretend that President Clinton, once installed in the White House, was facing a hostile Republican-controlled Congress.

The Clinton transition was a messy affair, to say the least. Her national security adviser was the subject of a counterintelligence investigation into his secret contacts with the Chinese ambassador, as well as payments from Chinese state-run companies. That adviser also kept secret that he was a paid foreign agent of another strongman leader – let’s say, the Egyptian president. Oh, and he lied to Vice-President Tim Kaine about his Chinese connections.

A rank rain cloud of lies, spies and bribes hangs over the nation’s capital Richard Wolffe

But that’s not all. The Chinese, no doubt drawing on their unique insight into the entire US tech industry, managed to hack their way into every cellphone used by the Trump and Clinton campaigns. But they only leaked the text messages and emails of the Republican operatives, leading to months of negative stories in the media and countless posts on Facebook.

For her part, Clinton refused to reveal if she had any business connections with the Chinese, even though her daughter, Chelsea, bragged to the media about getting money from them. Her husband, the former president, traveled to the UAE to raise money for his new investment fund, promising investors they could snag legal immigration visas for doing so.

Donald Trump’s fist 100 days: a guide to the success, the failures – and the tweets  READ MORE

What do you think the Republican reaction would be to this state of affairs? Would Congress be able to confirm a single Clinton nominee, never mind vote on her legislative priorities? Would the government stay open as it approached its debt ceiling? And would Fox News, as well as the entire right-wing echo chamber, require a boatload of amphetamines to maintain its most obsessive coverage of the foreign spies and corruption at the heart of the new White House?

Never mind Monica Lewinsky. It would be all impeachment, all the time.

Listening to the impeccable testimony of Sally Yates before the Senate on Monday, as well as the astonishing Republican questions, it’s hard to escape this conclusion: Trump’s Washington stinks.

It stinks from the top of Capitol Hill to the luxury hotel lobby on Pennsylvania Avenue, all the way to the depths of Foggy Bottom. It stinks from the Oval Office to the press office, and you don’t have to stop at the counsel’s office to check on the stench. A rank raincloud of lies, spies and bribes hangs over the nation’s capital ready to release its unusually golden shower.

When the acting attorney general first told the White House counsel Don McGahn about Michael Flynn’s relationship with the Russians, the reaction was almost as astonishing as a John Le Carré plot.

Trump’s lawyer first wanted to know how Flynn had fared under FBI questioning. “Mr McGahn asked me how he did and I declined to give him an answer to that,” Yates explained. “And we then walked through with Mr McGahn essentially why we were telling them about this and the first thing we did was to explain to Mr McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself.”

McGahn, who previously defended the wonderfully principled Republican House majority leader Tom DeLay, later wanted to know if Yates thought Flynn should be fired. “I told him that that really wasn’t our call, that was up to them, but that we were giving them this information so that they could take action,” she recounted.

When Yates returned for a second meeting, the White House counsel suggested the whole blather was a storm in a vodka bottle.

“One of the questions that Mr McGahn asked me when I went back over the second day was essentially, why does it matter to DoJ if one White House official lies to another White House official? And so we explained to him, it was a whole lot more than that and went back over the same concerns that we had raised with them the prior day, that the concern first about the underlying conduct itself, that he had lied to the vice-president and others, the American public had been misled,” she patiently explained.

“And then importantly, that every time this lie was repeated and the misrepresentations were getting more and more specific, as they were coming out. Every time that happened, it increased the compromise and to state the obvious, you don’t want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians.”

It’s hard to believe this requires explanation. Obviously nobody wants to have a compromised national security adviser. Obviously the president of the United States would be horrified by these revelations and fire his adviser on the spot rather than waiting 18 days to do so, with full access to the most precious secrets of government.

And obviously you’re thinking of another president who isn’t called Donald Trump. Because that president was busy on his tweet machine, pretending like Yates was saying old stuff that didn’t matter to anyone: