The Team of Vipers, the BuzzFeed's Report and the September NYT Op-Ed - A particular rear mirror view.

Now that the Team of Vipers* new book is on the bookshelves, and that the recent BuzzFeed News Report looks like it may have already started to fade, I wanted to take up again the allegations made in the NYT Op-Ed article on September 5the, 2018. 

Without comparing the three I would like to take up my very first thought on the NYT Op-Ed when it was published: how long will the issue remain in the headlines? 

My immediate second thought was the answer to the above first question: the response would be simple distractions, nothing more than that.  

My intuition proved correct: months have gone by, much else has taken over the headlines since then, every single day, and the Op-Ed seems like it's history and already out of touch with the current reality. Well, is it?

It did not take much to reach that first conclusion: And the BuzzFeed News item also seems to be going - for now - in a similar direction, specially when taking into account recent comments, such as Mr. Giuliani's: "I don't know if it happened or didn't happen. It may be attorney-client privilege if it happened, where I can't acknowledge it. But I have no knowledge that he spoke to him", then adds "I am telling you I wasn't there then". 

This is what Mr. Giuliani also said in another occasion: " I do have mastery of the facts which is why I can spin them, honestly, argue them several ways".

In view of all has been going on, shouldn’t we still be asking ourselves, and, mark me, I ask this question with what at the core is - believe it or not - a non-partisan point of view: what was the real purpose behind the NYT Op-Ed? Considering the other article and the book just published: aren't the same issues becoming far too repetitive and indicative of something?

For surely there must have been a purpose with the Op-Ed. So did it accomplish what it set out to do? Is it history or are we yet to see the outcome?

Perhaps a "rear mirror" view might help to put these things in better perspective.

The smoke of the gun might be gone but the gun is still in the holster.

One thing is certain: the issue hasn’t been settled. The Op-Ed was and criticized from many angles. Yet, it is my belief that the contents of the letter gave everyone a number of clues as to what was going on - and still is going on - in the WH. Couldn’t we do the same with the very recent news item and the campaign? What was the garbled answer provided by Mr. Giuliani all about? Pay attention to the "I wasn't there" at the end of his riddle.

If anything, the NYT Op-Ed – regardless of one’s views, be them a political or apolitical opinion – is one perfect exemplification of the depth and breadth of the current socio-political divide. It is a clear evidence of a disruption beyond that which could be called normal, even when compared with some of the worst crisis that previous administrations have had to deal with, except perhaps the events we all know from the 70’s. For many the Op-Ed is treasonous. Yet, for others, what seem to be so terrifying are the accusations. 

No one denies that the event is unique and troubling. The Op-Ed has been analysed and criticized from many angles. So is the BuzzFeed's rapport, and the same thing will happen to the The Team of Vipers, just published and to which the President has already responded with the usual tweet: he is just a gofer.

Seriously, can anyone expect something different?

Yet, the contents of the Op-Ed gave us then, and still give us today, quite a number of clues as to what can be expected. If we add some of the more recent developments, it is very hard not to think there is some connection somewhere, though not necessarily the most obvious. I find it hard to believe that the NYT’s core editors, who know their sources, would deliberately put Rosenstein on the spotlight, as if linking him to the Op-Ed, thereby compromising the identity of the Op-Ed writer. 

A mutiny and the Truth Default Theory

Perhaps, a better way to understand what happened, and what may still happen, is to frame the whole issue as an outright mutiny. A mutiny may provide us with some of the key elements that may help to explain the time lag between cause and effect, which in this case is linked to everyone’s desire for an explanation and, equally important: a restitution.

In my opinion truth is the ultimate cure to social malaise caused by any conflict based on perceptions, be these elucidated ones or more intuitive in nature.

Timothy R. Levine’s Truth Default Theory, originally referred to as Truth Bias, goes into the interesting subject of when people abandon the presumption of honesty. I am not going to attempt to explain his theory and his (and others’) scientific approach to studying and help us gain some understanding on this whole interesting issue, but would like to highlight here just two of the main key ideas that evolve from his (and others) work, as I understand it: first, “that the predominant truth-bias switch in us is deactivated when suspicion is actively triggered”, but that the reverse is also possible when people regain trust and “communication as fundamentally cooperative” 1) .

To illustrate my “mutiny” approach to the Op-Ed incident, and all that is needed to understand it, the Caine Mutiny film, with Humphrey Bogart in the leading role together, with a good number of good actors, incredible script and direction, came quickly to mind as the reason why the cause and effect relationship might need some time and discipline in order to have the proper and more conclusive perspective. Based on the 1951 Pulitzer price winning novel by Herman Wouk this very successful movie adaptation of the book is a must see, at least for its magnificent acting.

The central character in the movie is Captain Queeg. His character can be summed up in one of his own lines: “There’s the right way, the wrong way, the Navy way, and my way—and if you do things my way, we’ll get along”. By the time he heads the USS Caine destroyer straight into a typhoon, everyone knows Captain Queeg is a freak. As the movie moves to the setting of a court-martial hearing against the Lieutenant Officer of the Caine the startling question for the audience of this dramatic film is: will Captain Queeg’s obsessed, judgmental, insane personality become evident during the hearing? The film is worth seeing, so go ahead and discover what happens in that courtroom.

There is no intent to draw any comparison beyond the key basic elements of my very short description of the plot, which I throw in as a reference point, particularly for the last points I throw in at the end of this article.

The debate

There are quite numerous valid approaches to the issue and I am not going to debate every one of them in this article. To put some of my considerations in some frame of reference, I have chosen Scott Jennings’ article, a CNN contributor, and a former special assistant to President G. W. Bush and former campaign adviser to Sen. Mitch McConnell. He wrote on Thursday, 9/6/2018, an article: “How dare a senior Trump official arrogantly subvert an elected president”. His article leaves room for much discussion. I will only refer here to what I consider is the core of his argument, namely: “Is it right for unelected people to make decisions for him? Is this a signal we want to send the rest of the world, that constitutional order has fallen apart in the world’s most durable democracy?”

I could have also chosen other opinions, such as one from another well-known CNN’s journalist, Chris Cuomo, quite different from Scott Jennings, but not precisely in agreement with, for example, Rachel Maddow, from MSNBC, both of which are derived from their own opinion, but accompanied, in both cases, with a thorough analysis and a very translucent delivery.

To start with Scott Jennings seems to belittle DJT’s rampant behaviour. To refer to him, as he does in his article, in terms of his “misguided impulses” or “… has certainly done some things that are not defensible” for then to throw a sweetener “…his administration has also done things… that have been successful for the nation”, seems to me as being out of focus with the fact-based reality. He then goes on to refer to “the destabilizing effect this op-ed (referring to those “to the political left”, those that are openly or anonymously “thwarting” the policy desires of the President) will have on America’s standing in the eyes of our friends… and our enemies.

I beg your pardon Mr Jennings but in my opinion you were wrong on most, if not all, counts. I really wonder what your views are now?

Let me try to summarize my reflections then, which are still valid today. 

1) America’s standing improves (and there are sighs of relief to be heard) when we hear that DJT is subject to checks and balances from individuals in order to avoid that he does not do something really outrageous and potentially dangerous. A poll in August 2018 revealed that DJT is German people’s foremost concern. It still is. A good part of the so called free world are either worried or even given up on the US, thanks to DJT persona and what he says and does. Articles pour in daily on the subject across Europe. Hence America’s standing has not been hurt by the White House insider’s disloyalty. To the contrary, if anything is hurting America right now is DJT and his conduct. It is, for example, his choice of words, on top of his already earned reputation that caused laughter, for example at the General Assembly. This is the view shared by many familiar with the intricacies of American politics and system. Mostly, what is on people's minds is outright fear.

2) That the situation is unusual, if not outright crazy, and that the system doesn’t seem to be working well, is correct. I’ll grant Mr Jennings that much. To start with there is the election itself; and Mr Jennings actually pointed to DJT as not feeling “particularly bound by the party’s traditional platform”. I would then like to add that the platform, or platforms, do not seem to be bound precisely by the principles or the “remedies created for us by the founding fathers”. Even his original stand (Cleveland GOP candidate’s debate) on pledging not to run as independent was riddled with ifs. Loyalty and compromise has been missing across the political spectrum. The whole system has been rather dysfunctional; weak on its foundations, and not just because of the unfaithful staffers you refer to who, according to you, have committed the sin of “circumventing the established constitutional order that has served our republic well”. Just to mention one example: how many years and how difficult has it been – since the founding fathers absolutely beautifully worded constitution – for its African Americans citizens to gain legal equality? So, instead of raising the constitutional remedies to a level of absolutely no reproach – a constitution often misquoted and misused by many, including the NRA and others, not to mention those who see DJT as some sort of GOD’s elected messenger – I think the critical mind, the objective view, is not Mr Jennings rather tilted and short-sighted criticism of the “unfaithful” and yes, questionable, perhaps “selfish”, or as you call it, “vigilantism”, that you, Mr. Jennings, so strongly denounce.

3) Furthermore, to defend DJT’s presidency to the point of giving him a green light to dismantle anything he feels like based on his capricious and misinformed opinions and obsessions, often without serious consultation, is nothing but democratic. To use the electoral result when it is questioned from various angles, from his evident expressed desire to expose his political oppose with Russian intervention, his non disclosure of tax records, his disregard for the “emolument clauses”, his lack of ethical standards and hush-money payments, his insulting, racist and repetitive non factual and contradicting child-like speeches that mystify and confound everyone except his mystified followers, his disregard for the rights of other Americans and of laws enacted and in force for years, and a long etc., you, Mr Jennings, brush aside, and all of it because your presumed and noble respect for the principles enacted by the “founding fathers” seem to me, as irreverent, distorted and contradictory as what you seem to be using to mesmerize your readers. I can only refer to it as pseudo-patriotic non-sense.

I do not want to compare the two men, but if we go back to Germany in 1933 (when no one knew what the outcome would be), wouldn’t it have been kind of “nice” if people around Hitler had resisted and actively did all they could to stop that man then and not wait until 1945. And, please, do not forget that the man gained power thanks to Hindenburg winning the democratic elections in 1925 and, yes, quite a number of special circumstances aptly described by Benjamin Carter Hett, a professor of history at Hunter College and the Graduate Centre of the City University of New York, in his book “The death of Democracy”, as “a moral crisis that preceded a moral catastrophe”. He refers to the Nazis as being “the great artists of victimhood”. When I think of victimhood, this idea is deeply imbedded in the callow, shadowy if not directly deceitful definition of “greatness” in the MAGA slogan. There is no place for mystical indoctrination or for pampering the electorate with grandiose and illusive dreams that are not commensurate with the current issues and the current world scenario. The USA does not retain the same position it attained after the avoidable – to some extent, as I do not forget the Pacific – WWII, had Hitler’s been stopped way before he started, or before Nazi Germany amassed the means to embark on a crusade of relentless murder. The world today has changed and is changing rapidly. The US has to deal with that reality, not with a foregone world. Like it not, the world has changed. And the real and troubling question is: has it changed for the better?

4) The Russian “witch-hunt” – consistently referred to as collusion – is in the appointment of Robert S. Mueller as Special Counsel and referred to in its first point, B)i), which is written as: “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”. The interference, hacking, fake news and conspiracy theories, perpetrated by Russia are a reality, with only a few lose ends to tie up. And so is the gerrymandering of districts (more common where GDP is the governing side) linked to the Single-Member District legislative district system and which do not guarantee a true majority, even if it’s the existing system. Yet, this should at least be taken into account by Mr Jennings when, for example, considering the extent of DJT’s real base, which is definitely not the majority of Americans. Any government must always represent all its citizens. It must also have a sense of past and future, of continuity, even if pursuing something better. 

5) Mr Jennings alleged “hypertextuality” in his attempt to interpret the Constitutional rights and obligations seemed to me as being overly generous with the “Executive Prerogative”, which up until now has given, for example, a lot of discretion to the President on Foreign Affairs, when most of these powers are constitutionally given to the Senate. Let us recall the confrontation between Alexander Hamilton together with James Madison and George Washington precisely on this issue. Or recall James Iredell, one of America’s first Supreme Court Justices, who rejected the idea that presidents were immune from legal prosecution. And why not the Whistle-blower Protection Act, which was referred to recently when a Federal Court clarified that a Trump administration executive order is not the Law.

6) Whoever is behind the NYT anonymous Op-Ed was evidently taking risks. Few or no one, no matter if they disapprove of DJT’s presidency, would hire someone who is “disloyal” to the boss. That he or she went out in the open is a daring act, even a courageous one, given the evident risks and consequences if discovered. But how could have anyone express surprise or disagree with the contents of the NYT op-ed article? The description of the atmosphere in the WH an the over-pitched demagoguery of the “twittery” commander-in-chief, can not be a surprise to anyone; at least not to people who read, hear and see how he acts and communicates every day, regardless of anyone’s opinion on his ideas on any particular issue. Is it normal for the president to react to the author of "The Team of Vipers" with a childish rebuke through twitter? In this, Captain Queeg ?s personality and behaviour came to my mind. This is not partisan or political opinion.  It’s just common sense.

7) One cannot lose sight of the fact that no presidential candidate has all the experience and knows all of what he needs in order to dictate policy or take decisions. Therefore, anyone who occupies the Oval Office must rely on the knowledge, acumen, experience, good judgment, all of it coming from a good number of people with the solemn commitment to the laws and principles that govern and carefully balance out the obligations and constraints that apply to both the Executive Branch and all other parts of what constitutes a government - regardless of political affiliation. The obligation is to listen, and from various angles, before even starting to steer the nation in whatever direction. Mr DJT, the reality-show Trump, the repeatedly bankrupt-and-debt-loving Trump, the I-got-the-greatest-genes Trump, the “I-know-it-all-big-negotiator guy, etc., is evidently not the man for this job, no matter if he took the slogans of “little government”, “low tax”, “Mexico pays” and everything else that part of the American electorate identifies with? 

8) Hence, what the anonymous writer is telling all readers is that he is not alone in what can be labelled as “treason”. If, in fact, there is an active confabulation of some sort between a number of key advisors in the White House, then the writer of the Op-Ed is not only protecting himself but also others who may have not known and who probably have not given their consent to him/her to write the Op-Ed, as well as the cause that has united them in their cause. Shouldn’t the writer and his like-minded key people in the White House be given credit for doing what at other times may be considered unthinkable, for the only reason that they see their “USS USA” being steered to dangerous waters, perhaps directly into a typhoon; this being the way for them to stop it, while everybody else is lost in technicalities and petty politics and are seemingly not getting to a solution of the problem? Aren’t there people who, beyond political-bias, denounce the current situation as potentially dangerous or even terrifying? In other words: are the two chambers, or others, going to their job to their utmost, regardless of political affiliation, or are they just tangled up in petty politics?

9) Last, can’t we see a calculated risk in the Op-Ed? Didn’t it actually – despite the de facto mutiny – put tremendous pressure on not just the “conspirators” but everyone else in the administration (at least those who keep a more or less sound mind) who could have been, and still may be, held accountable if what the Op-Ed and others have denounced was and is taking place in the White House, affecting the management and direction that the whole nation is moving towards to and which could have a terrible impact on the well-being of its citizens and to global stability? Are we to expect soon a massive reality show-like “you-are-fired”, or just a face-saving selective counterfeit one, in order to try offset the damage caused by that Op-Ed and all that lies behind it? Or is ignoring it the best possible solution; perhaps one in which DJT is actually also being counselled to adhere to, perhaps by some of the same insurgents, or others, that identify with some or all of the same issues the Op-Ed denounces?

Whatever the outcome or the length of the game, I will reinstate what in my opinion – and consistent with the Truth-Bias theory – that the truth, as clearly as it became exposed in the Cain Mutiny film’s trial, seems to me the only way to reverse the Mistrust or Lie-bias which has taken over the country, no matter where it has its roots or the problem has actually evolved from. 

We have not yet seen the end of the story. It will take much time to digest and understand all of what has been going on and, at the end of the day, something more important: at what cost? 

Irrespective of opinion or affiliation or whatever, one thing should be clear to all: what is happening is, by no means, normal, and much less “great”. The whole thing is worrying not just to informed Americans but to many abroad too. The whole thing has gone in an embarrassing disarray.

So let me bring up the TRUTH BIAS theory again: “that the predominant truth-bias switch in us is deactivated when suspicion is actively triggered”, but that the reverse is also possible when people regain trust and “communication as fundamentally cooperative” 1) .

Footnotes:

* The Team of Vipers - my 500 extraordinary days in the Trump White House, by Cliff Sims, former W.H. aide.

1) Quotations from “TDT”, by Timothy R. Levine (2014) – Distinguished Professor and Chair of Communication studies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

This photo and a previous version of the article was originally published in Bizcatalyst 360o. This version is revised and up-dated.