July 10
Trump,
according to one of the inner circle
I
haven’t posted anything since April 23 because my computer died, and I was slow
in buying another, loading new programs, transferring data1 and
generally getting organized. It would be
an understatement to say that much has happened in the interim. Before registering my thoughts on the killing
of George Floyd and the mishandling of the virus pandemic, I’ll comment, while
the impression is fresh, on a book I just read.
John
Bolton’s oddly-titled The Room Where It Happened is a memoir of his
seventeen-month tenure as National Security Advisor. The buildup to publication, including Trump’s
attempt to block it, suggested that the book would be a devastating portrait of
our esteemed leader. It hardly is
sensational in tone, being a detailed and often tedious narrative of various
challenges and crises faced during that time. Most of Bolton’s comments about
and appraisals of Trump are not sweeping, but are connected to the discussions
surrounding those events. They certainly
do reflect Bolton’s low opinion of Trump, but then Bolton expressed a low
opinion of most of those in the executive branch — including Cabinet members
and permanent staff — and of the Obama administration, and of foreign leaders,
so a low opinion of the President is, up to a point, just a reflection of
Bolton’s disappointment that others aren’t as wise as he.
True,
he does give many examples of Trump’s limitations and of the near-impossibility
of keeping him focused, but with a few exceptions these are details added to a
picture well known to any reader of The New York Times or The
Washington Post. On one topic,
Trump’s dealings with North Korea, including his fawning over Kim Jong-un,
Bolton is kinder and less detailed than the news reports.
One
exception pertains to discussions between Trump and Xi Jinping, President of
China, on June 18, 2019. Trump, “stunningly, turned the conversation to the
coming US presidential election,
alluding to China’s economic capability to affect the ongoing campaigns,
pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. He stressed the importance of farmers, and
increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome.”2
This is an example, although a shockingly blatant one, of Trump’s known
subordination of policy to re-election, the familiar instance being the
manipulation of aid to Ukraine. However, on this topic Bolton does make a
general appraisal: “I am hard pressed to identify any significant Trump
decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by election calculations.”3
Bolton
confirms reports that Trump was warned of the dangers of coronavirus infection
but did little or nothing to prevent disaster.
His discussion is defensive, reacting to criticism of the structure of
the NSC, but it rings true. He makes the point by quoting a New York Times
report, then adding his evaluation of Trump’s response:
The National Security Council office responsible for tracking pandemics received intelligence reports in early January predicting the spread of the virus to the United States, and within weeks was raising options like keeping Americans home from work and shutting down cities the size of Chicago. Mr. Trump would avoid such steps until March.
“Thus,
responding to the coronavirus, the NSC biosecurity team functioned exactly as
it was supposed to. It was the chair
behind the Resolute desk that was empty.”4
Bolton’s
discussion of the Ukraine issue — whether Trump demanded election help in
exchange for releasing aid to Ukraine — is confusing. However, he refers to Trump’s request to
President Zelensky of Ukraine for “a favor,” makes clear that Trump was holding
up transfer of the funds, and comments as follows: “When, in 1992, Bush 41
supporters suggested he ask foreign governments to help out in his failing
campaign against Bill Clinton, Bush and Jim Baker completely rejected the idea.
Trump did the precise opposite.”5
Bolton
criticizes the way in which the House went about impeaching Trump. There is some merit in his appraisal, along
with some of his ususal negative attitude toward Democrats. One point he makes is that narrowing the
charge to the Ukraine issue “provided no opportunity to explore Trump’s
ham-handed involvement in other matters — criminal and civil, international and
domestic — that should not properly be subject to manipulation by a President
for personal reasons (political, economic, or any other).” He suggests that if attention had been
directed toward the “broader pattern of [Trump’s] behavior . . . there might
have been a greater chance to persuade others that ‘high crimes and
misdemeanors’ had been perpetrated.”6 Perhaps,
but the Senate would have acquitted anyway; contrary to Bolton’s impression,
not only Democrats play politics.
However, a broader and longer inquiry might have been the better plan in
terms of demonstrating to the public just how important it is to send Trump
into retirement next January.
____________________
36.Fortunately, a tech-savvy son retrieved files from the dead box.
37. The Room Where It Happened, p. 301
38. Ibid, at 485
39. Ibid, at 317
40. Ibid, at 468
41. Ibid, at 485. In the ellipsis, the author refers to examples of what, elsewhere, he describes as “Trump’s penchant to, in effect, give favors to dictators he liked. . . .” Ibid, at 458.
