February 15, 2017
We Need a Special Counsel to Investigate the Trump Administration
As a military intelligence officer, Michael Flynn enjoyed a meteoric rise. He eventually earned three stars following brilliant assignments as the intelligence chief for Joint Special Operations Command and the U.S. command in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Flynn crashed in his next assignment, being fired from his job leading the Defense Intelligence Agency. And in just 24 days on the job as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Flynn crashed even more spectacularly, leaving a smoking hole atop the National Security Council.
There is a risk that the smoke of Flynn’s crash will obscure the larger questions that remain regarding Russian influence on the 2016 election and the Trump administration’s uncomfortably cozy ties with Russian officials and oligarchs. The reporting regarding Flynn’s departure—not to mention the countless conflicts of interest in the White House—shows that the Trump White House cannot investigate itself, let alone answer these questions. The time has come to appoint a special counsel, to protect our national security and ensure the rule of law.
A brief survey of the Russia-related issues afflicting the Trump team shows how mired in this swamp (sorry!) the administration has become. During the campaign, the U.S. intelligence community reached the conclusion that its counterparts in Russian intelligence, as well as firms tied to the Russian government, had waged a broad “influence campaign” to “undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process” and to help elect Trump. Several of Trump’s former campaign leaders maintained close ties to the Russian government, and reportedly are now under federal investigation for those ties. Flynn also kept such ties, including retainers that may run afoul of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause due to his status as a retired military officer. Meanwhile, President Trump and his businesses retain deep financial ties to Russia—ties that bind the president himself because of his continuing refusal to divest his assets or eliminate his conflicts of interest.
Read the full article at Slate.
More from CNAS
-
Sharper: The Next Four Years
Commentary
America will face a range of national security challenges over the next four years. From sustaining military deterrence to bolstering the nation's economic leadership and more...
By Chris Estep & Cole Stevens
-
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the U.S. Military
Commentary
Today’s military has become more equitable since the start of the all-volunteer force in 1972. Much of that progress has been due to Ginsburg....
By Emma Moore & Robert Levinson
-
Vanessa Guillen's Killing Gives Way to Claims of Sexual Harassment, Abuse in the Military, and Hope for Change
Video
The disappearance of 20-year-old soldier Vanessa Guillén began badly and ended horribly worse. The private first class vanished on an April Sunday, in broad daylight, from For...
By Kayla M. Williams
-
Harnessing Military Talent to Compete in the 21st Century
Commentary
Developments in technology mean that the DoD must update its processes to attract, recruit, and harness talent to apply skill sets where they are most needed....
By Emma Moore
