What Fiona Hill Learned in the White House

The senior fellow at Brookings and expert on modern Russia had hoped to guide the U.S.-Russia relationship. President Trump had other ideas.

The Brookings Institution is one of many think tanks in Washington, D.C., where scholars and bureaucrats sit in quiet offices and wait by the phone. They write op-eds and books, give talks and convene seminars, hoping that, when reputations falter or Administrations shift, they will be rescued from the life of opining and contemplation and return to the adrenaline rush and consequence of government. Nearly always, the yearning is to be inside. Strobe Talbott, who became the president of Brookings in 2002, served in Bill Clinton’s Administration as his leading Russia expert, and he was rumored to be on the shortlist for Hillary Clinton’s Secretary of State. Others, too, may have expected a call. But, after Donald Trump was elected, only one prominent Brookings stalwart was summoned, and her story became emblematic of all those in Washington who entered the Administration full of trepidation but hoping to be a “normalizing” influence on a distinctly abnormal President.

Fiona Hill, a leading expert on Russia and its modern leadership, had a reputation as a blunt speaker and an independent thinker and analyst. The daughter of a miner and a midwife, she grew up in Bishop Auckland, in northern England, and has a strong northern accent. She described herself to me as “politically engaged but antipartisan.” She has a distaste for the kind of ideological standoff that she observed in the eighties between Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, Arthur Scargill, which was, as she put it, “a clash of titans with regular people smashed in between.”

Hill, who was born in 1965, is a senior fellow at Brookings, and a denizen of the Eurasia Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Harvard University, where she got her doctorate in history. She was a national intelligence officer in the Administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In 2013, she and Clifford Gaddy, an economic specialist at Brookings, published “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin,” which traces Vladimir Putin’s path from his hardscrabble upbringing in Leningrad to his years in the government. She was wary of Obama’s efforts to downplay Russia’s importance in the world—he called the country a “regional power”—convinced that doing so only provoked Putin to assert himself more forcefully. In an updated edition of the book, published in 2015, Hill and Gaddy described Putin as “arguably the most powerful individual in the world.” Hill’s friend Nina Khrushcheva, the granddaughter of the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, said that Putin was “secretly flattered” by the portrayal. Continue reading.

4 Ways Congress Can Amend the Insurrection Act

Center for American Progress logoThe United States has seen widespread protests against police brutality and systemic racism in recent weeks, triggered by the brutal murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery. Despite the largely peaceful nature of the protests and having no real justification, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to use the military to restore so-called law and order on America’s streets. While Trump ultimately did not invoke the act, these events have underscored that the Insurrection Act of 1807 needs to be substantially amended to put in place appropriate checks on abuse of presidential authority over the active-duty military and federalized National Guard for law enforcement purposes. Congress should consider how best to amend the act with more checks and balances so that it cannot be used for undemocratic purposes.

An arcane but extraordinary authority

The Insurrection Act is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act that allows the use of military and federalized National Guard to support law enforcement officers when they are overwhelmed or to quell an uprising; the use of the military for domestic law enforcement is otherwise prohibited under Posse Comitatus. Presidents have used this arcane but extraordinary authority sparingly in recent decades. Yet it is clear now that norms with respect to its modern use rely too heavily on the character and whims of the incumbent in the Oval Office—regardless of political party.

The Insurrection Act gives the president authority to use active-duty and federalized National Guard regardless of the consent of governors and local officials if the president believes that the law cannot be upheld in circumstances of domestic unrest, rebellion, or insurrection. The act is surprisingly vague and places few constraints on presidential authority over when and how it can be used. Its use over the course of American history has varied under different circumstances and leaders, from helping enforce desegregation in the 1950s to quelling the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992—its last use, undertaken at the request of the California governor. Continue reading.

George Conway explains the ‘fateful misjudgment’ John Bolton made

AlterNet logoFormer national security adviser John Bolton made a mistake he didn’t think about.

While many are boycotting the purchase of his upcoming book because he refused to testify to the illegal behavior of his former boss, President Donald Trump, according to Republican lawyer George Conway, that isn’t the mistake.

“Imagine the book Bolton could have written had he testified,” suggested Conway in a Washington Post column. Continue reading.

Court appears reluctant to order judge to immediately drop criminal case against Michael Flynn

Washington Post logoA federal appeals court in Washington expressed reluctance Friday to order a judge to immediately dismiss the criminal case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, suggesting it will allow the judge to question whether the Justice Department’s decision to drop the prosecution is “in the public interest.”

Flynn, joined by the Justice Department, wants the appeals court to force U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to quickly close the matter and put a stop to the judge’s examination of the retired three-star general’s politically charged case.

But Judges Karen Henderson and Robert Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seemed skeptical of Flynn’s argument that Sullivan cannot review the Justice Department’s abandonment last month of the long-running prosecution. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s ambassador. Continue reading.

John Bolton’s new book will allege Trump misconduct with other countries — not just Ukraine: report

AlterNet logoFormer Trump national security adviser John Bolton’s long-delayed book will reportedly allege that President Donald Trump’s corruption of American foreign policy went beyond his attempts to shake down the Ukrainian government for dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

According to Axios, Bolton’s book will argue that there was “Trump misconduct with other countries” besides Ukraine, although the publication’s source did not go into specifics about which countries are involved.

Trump’s attempts to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden by putting a hold on its military aid led to him being impeached on abuse of power charges in the House of Representatives last year. Continue reading.

If Trump loses in November, he will thrust the U.S. into a legitimacy crisis

AlterNet logoOne month ago, the polling aggregator at RealClearPolitics showed Joe Biden with a four-point lead over Donald Trump. As of Wednesday, that lead had jumped to eight points. Additionally, Gallup reports that Trump’s approval rating has dropped ten points in the last month. In other words, things aren’t looking very good for the president’s re-election.

In the month before the 2016 election, this is what Trump was tweeting.

It is probably fair to say that, at the time, Trump was preparing an excuse for why he lost—something that everyone was expecting. But the stakes are much higher in 2020. Failing to win a second term would brand Trump as a loser, something his narcissistic ego cannot tolerate. Even more importantly, it is very possible that the president could face criminal charges once he is out of office. So he’s picked up the mantra of a rigged election once again. Continue reading.

More than 1,250 former Justice Dept. workers call for internal watchdog to probe Barr role in clearing demonstrators from Lafayette Square

Washington Post logoMore than 1,250 former Justice Department workers on Wednesday called on the agency’s internal watchdog to investigate Attorney General William P. Barr’s involvement in law enforcement’s move last week to push a crowd of largely peaceful demonstrators back from Lafayette Square using horses and gas.

In a letter to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, the group said it was “deeply concerned about the Department’s actions, and those of Attorney General William Barr himself, in response to the nationwide lawful gatherings to protest the systemic racism that has plagued this country throughout its history.”

“In particular, we are disturbed by Attorney General Barr’s possible role in ordering law enforcement personnel to suppress a peaceful domestic protest in Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, for the purpose of enabling President Trump to walk across the street from the White House and stage a photo op at St. John’s Church, a politically motivated event in which Attorney General Barr participated,” the group wrote. Continue reading.

Common Defense: Too many emergencies

Just as it’s better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission, the president gets the benefit of the doubt on what constitutes a national emergency

ANALYSIS — Like many other Americans in these trying times, I find myself exhausted living through two simultaneous national emergencies.

I’m speaking, of course, about the situation along our southern border with Mexico and the ability of Saudi Arabia to counter Iranian aggression in the Middle East.

Wait, did you think I meant something else?

Last year, President Donald Trump’s administration felt that both of these situations posed enough of a threat to the American way of life that it declared national emergencies in order to address them. In both cases, it was circumventing the express will of Congress. Continue reading.

McRaven backs Mattis, Mullen: Clearing peaceful protesters for a photo op is not ‘morally right’

Retired Adm. William McRaven said there is “nothing morally right” about clearing peaceful protesters amid national unrest following George Floyd’s death in police custody.

“Trust me, every man and woman in uniform recognizes that we are all Americans and that the last thing they want to do as military men and women is to stand in the way of a peaceful protest,” McRaven, who oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in 2011, said in an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday.

“You’re not going to use, whether it’s the military, or the National Guard, or law enforcement, to clear peaceful American citizens for the president of the United States to do a photo op,” McRaven said. “There is nothing morally right about that.” Continue reading.

Murkowski, Mattis criticism ratchets up pressure on GOP over Trump

The Hill logoCriticism of President Trump from former Defense Secretary James Mattisand Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is ratcheting up pressure on other Republicans to push back on the president’s handling of nationwide civil unrest.

Mattis, who is as close as anyone to being universally respected on Capitol Hill, called out Trump on Wednesday for what he called the president’s lack of a “mature leadership” and accused him for intentionally trying to divide the nation.

Murkowski said she thought Mattis’s words were “true and honest and necessary and overdue” and suggested that it might embolden other Republicans who privately disagree with the president’s often controversial tone and conduct to speak out. Continue reading.