James Mattis, President Trump’s Defense Secretary, has resigned his post. A reserved, yet forceful when necessary former Marine Corps General, Mr. Mattis is widely respected and had long managed to stay in Mr. Trump’s good graces despite fundamental disagreements about the President’s foreign policy approach. However, relations between the men have reportedly soured in recent months. Mr. Mattis resignation comes a day after Mr. Trump announced his decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria, a move Mr. Mattis bitterly opposed.
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position,” Mr. Mattis wrote.
Mr. Mattis stressed the importance of our international alliances and his concern about the threats posed by Russia and China, whose authoritarian leaders Mr. Trump has often embraced more readily than traditional American allies.
“While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies,” Mr. Mattis wrote.
Adding, “I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies.”
“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues,” Mattis said.
The full letter is below.
December 20, 2018
Dear Mr. President:
I have been privileged to serve as our country’s 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.
I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department’s business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.
One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO’s 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.
Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense. My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.
Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better allied with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department’s interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability within the Department. I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.
James Mattis
Mueller’s Filings in the Cohen and Flynn Cases Hint at ‘Collusion’
Prosecutors often drop bombshells in court filings. The sentencing memos Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed in the Michael Cohen and Michael Flynn cases are not bombshells. They are the legal equivalent of carpet bombing the White House. Read from the perspective of a professional investigator ‒ a position this author held with congressional committees for nearly 20 years ‒ the memos, particularly those in the Cohen case should worry, if not terrify, President Trump and his legal team. They paint a vivid picture of potential collusion which began much earlier than anyone thought or knew and link Russian interference in the election to Trump’s businesses.
Possible Collusion in 2015?
Cohen told the Special Prosecutor’s office in one of his seven debriefings that “in or around November 2015” the President’s self-described fixer spoke with a Russian, who claimed to be trusted by Vladimir Putin, and said he “could offer the campaign ‘political synergy’ and ‘synergy on a government level.’”
Take a deep breath. Think about that hand grenade that Mueller dropped into the President’s lap. Someone close to Putin offered to have the Russian government assist the Trump campaign a year before the election.
Mueller also said this unnamed Russian offered to set up a face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin. The Russian said the proposed meeting “could have a ‘phenomenal’ impact” on the election. The proposed meeting never happened. But the Special Counsel significantly does not say whether Cohen or anyone else in the campaign followed up on the offer by Russia to provide “political synergy” with the nascent campaign.
What Else Cohen Told Mueller
Buried within the Cohen sentencing memo is the revelation that he told Mueller “about attempts by other Russian nationals to reach the campaign.” We know about the Trump Tower meeting. Were there more Russians who tried to speak with the Trump campaign or its officials? Cohen provided information “about his conduct and that of others on core topics under investigation” by the Special Counsel. Starting in August of this year Cohen held seven “lengthy” meetings with Mueller in which he spoke about “his own contacts with Russian interests during the campaign and discussions with others.” Do the “others” include President Trump, who was identified in court filings as “Individual 1”? Mueller didn’t say. It might.
Mueller says Cohen told his office facts about “Russian-related matters” that Cohen obtained during “his regular contact” with unnamed Trump organization “executives” during the 2016 campaign.” Until shortly after he was sworn in the President was head of the real estate empire that bears his name
In an almost off-handed way, Muller says Cohen talked about “his contacts with persons connected to the White House during the 2017-2018 time period.” Mueller doesn’t reveal the names of those persons, but the President obviously is someone “connected to the White House.”
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/11/what-to-make-of-michael-cohens-newest-guilty-plea/
It’s Strictly Business
The press has long speculated that Trump’s largest potential legal liability stems not from the campaign’s contacts with Russians but from his business dealings. Cohen provides a direct nexus between the Trump real estate business and possible Russian collusion. Mueller, based on Cohen’s information, says there was a direct connection between contacts the campaign had with Russia and a planned Trump Tower in Moscow.
Cohen admitted he lied to Congress about when the Moscow project died. He testified it ended before the Iowa caucuses. Cohen in fact continued to “discuss it with Individual 1 well into the campaign.” Those chats with Trump directly related to Mueller’s probe because they “occurred at a time of sustained efforts by the Russian government to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.” That’s link number one.
Link Number two may be equally if not more damaging. Mueller said the Moscow Project could have reaped millions for the Trump Organization and thus “was a lucrative business opportunity that sought, and likely required, the assistance of the Russian government.” The unnamed Russian close to Putin offered that assistance when he spoke with Cohen in November 2015. He suggested that a meeting between the now-President and Putin that would help move the project along. Cohen says he spoke with Trump before he reached out to the Russian government to set up the meeting. That implies the President approved it.
The meeting never happened because, as Mueller put it, Cohen “was working on the Moscow Project with a different individual who Cohen understood to have his own connections to the Russian government.” That describes Felix Sater. The House Intelligence Committee called Sater someone with “a unique and colorful background.” Sater told the panel about “his path from Wall Street banker to white-collar criminal to government informant.”
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/07/muller-investigating-trumps-business-ties/
What Michael Flynn Told Mueller
The Mueller sentencing memo in the Michael Flynn case isn’t particularly enlightening. The same cannot be said for the Attachment to that memo or the one filed by Flynn’s attorney.
Mueller, in the attachment, hints that the “links or coordination” between Russia and the Trump campaign after the election. He says Flynn has helped on a probe of “interactions between individuals in the Presidential Transition Team and Russia,” among other topics. The portion of the attachment that describes “useful information” about those contacts was redacted, indicating that it is an ongoing and sensitive investigation.
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/12/what-to-make-of-michael-flynns-sentencing-memo/
Both Mueller and Flynn’s attorney say the former National Security Advisor has had 19 debriefings with Mueller’s office and the Department of Justice, which took up nearly 63 hours. His lawyers say Flynn “has produced thousands of documents” to DOJ and turned over his “electronic devices.”
Flynn, who served as senior advisor to the Trump campaign and then as a senior White House official gave Mueller a treasure trove of documents and presumably every email or text message he had. The noise you hear is every campaign or White House official who communicated with Flynn speed dialing criminal defense lawyers.
Only a stupid or reckless prosecutor would make false or misleading representations in court filings. Mueller is neither. He has a reputation for being very smart and thorough. He likely has evidence to substantiate every word in the sentencing memos. If even half the revelations are true, President Trump may be in very serious political or possibly legal trouble.
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/12/can-president-obstruct-justice-might-not-matter/