Trump Has Already Moved To His Last Line Of Defense

It looks like Donald Trump has already reached the last line of defense with regard to collusion with the Russians and obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, the evidence against Trump and his campaign just keeps growing day by day.

Yesterday, it was revealed Trump made another two attempts to obstruct Comey's FBI inquiry. Shortly after Comey revealed that there was an ongoing investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion in late March, Trump contacted both Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and director of the National Security Agency Mike Rogers and asked them to publicly deny that there was any evidence of collusion. Both declined the President's "request".  In addition, Trump's senior advisers asked senior intelligence officials about the possibility of getting them to intervene with Comey to shut his investigation down.

This marks the sixth specific attempt that Trump has made to stymie Comey's investigation since he became President only four months ago. There was the dinner where Trump asked for Comey's loyalty and the private meeting where Trump asked Comey to "let this go". Both those meetings came immediately after the White House had received information about the expanding status of the Russian investigation, the first after the Sally Yates meeting and the second after Comey's announcement that collusion was part of the investigation. Then there was the actual firing of Yates and Comey. I could also add the attempt by Priebus to get Burr and Nunes, the heads of the intelligence committees, to push back on the story as well. And those are just the ones we currently know about.

In addition, we also heard from former CIA head John Brennan yesterday who testified that he saw intelligence last summer that "revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign". That intelligence was troubling enough for him to refer the matter to the FBI for a counter-intelligence investigation. That is, in fact, how Comey's investigation came to be.

This is an incredibly important revelation. Brennan is an experienced Washington insider with years in intelligence. He saw a pattern of conduct and contacts that was recognizable to him and disturbing enough to recommend a counter-intelligence operation by the FBI. This information must have been pretty compelling because Brennan would certainly realize just how explosive asking the FBI to begin an investigation of a presidential campaign a mere few months before the election would be. It would not be a step that Brennan would take lightly and without real consideration. Now, as we saw in the run-up to the Iraq war, intelligence is not real evidence in a legal sense and Brennan made that point repeatedly under Republican questioning. But it is evidence of a possibility.

Which brings us back to Trump's request to Coats and Rogers to publicly state there was no evidence of collusion. Based on what Brennan knew and what Coats and Rogers would now know in their current capacity, Trump was asking them to make a false statement. There was clearly enough evidence of possible collusion to convice Brennan and added to that is the Russian dossier, which has had numerous elements of it corroborated, and the remarkable synergy between Russian interests, timely WikiLeaks revelations, targeted Russian fake news, and the talking points and strategies of the Trump campaign.

In addition, Brennan's alert to the FBI makes it clear that possible collusion was part of the FBI investigation of the Russian hacking of the election from the very beginning. In September, the Obama administration was so concerned that it provided an intelligence briefing to the gang of eight in Congress, which would have included McConnell and Ryan. The purpose of that meeting was to get a bipartisan statement condemning the Russian hacking. McConnell specifically refused, saying the evidence was suspect and Ryan apparently dutifully went along. It seems entirely reasonable to think that the possibility that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia was part of that briefing. After all, Harry Reid pressed Brennan to release the damaging information he had about Russian hacking that the American people deserved to know just a few weeks later. If Reid knew about the possible collusion, then it goes to reason that Ryan and McConnell did as well. And they stonewalled and covered up for Trump.

But by far the most telling line of questioning of Brennan came from Republican water-boy Trey Gowdy who kept on pressing Brennan not on whether there was evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, as other Republicans had done, but whether there was any evidence of collusion by Trump himself. Brennan, as he had done repeatedly, answered that he collected intelligence and left it up to the FBI to determine what was evidence. But the emphasis by Gowdy solely on Trump himself shows us where we are going.

This line of questioning indicates that we have already reached the last line of defense for Trump. He himself began this defense in his press conference last week when he said, "There is no collusion - certainly myself and my campaign - but I can always speak for myself and the Russians - zero." I believe this will be the basis of Trump's defense going forward. Essentially he is saying that he himself did not collude with the Russians but had no idea or responsibility if members of his campaign were. Since he truly believed there was no collusion with Russia since he himself did not engage in it, then there can be no obstruction of justice because there was no intent to deceive. It's a small needle to thread, but that is already where Trump is at.

Rachel Maddow asked an interesting question last night. She pointed out that there is the collusion investigation and the investigation into financial crimes. They are part of the same investigation but she is unclear how they fit together. I think the answer is pretty clear. I don't think anyone in the Trump campaign really believed they would win. Flynn was in it to influence Trump to spout Russian propaganda and to keep the money flowing from his Russian and Turkish paymasters. Bannon and Conway were simply hired help for the Mercers and were happy to take their money. Manafort, like Flynn, could continue to keep his Russian money coming in. And Trump and Kushner could keep those "investments" coming from Russia too. As long as they questioned the relevance of NATO, attacked the integrity of the election, and weakened Hillary Clinton, the money would keep rolling in. Best of all, they would all still be powerful voices in the Republican party after the election, meaning that every one of their grifts could keep on giving.

The worst thing for everyone, except the Russians, was for Trump to actually win. Manafort was already in trouble, Flynn is fired and disgraced and facing years in jail, and Conway has utterly disgraced herself having to defend Trump's narcissistic, predatory behavior. Trump and Kushner now have all their businesses being examined with a fine-tooth comb. McConnell and Ryan started the cover-up last September. Trump enlisted his top White House aides to engage Burr and Nunes in continuing that cover-up. Sessions un-recused himself to help create a cover story for Comey's firing. Trump himself has tried to enlist Coats and Rogers in the cover-up and he has fired Yates and Comey when their investigations showed progress. In addition, there are the veiled threats against Yates and Comey and the message to Flynn to stay strong. The obstruction of justice is widespread and comprehensive at this point.

And now Trump is going to throw every one of his co-conspirators overboard with a strategy that absolves only himself. The real question is which one of his co-conspirators will turn against him first.