The dirt is starting to stick on Teflon Don
Regardless of what he’s accused of, Donald Trump has always managed to avoid the consequence of his actions. But is that about to change?
High crimes and misdemeanours:
One of many sobriquets the 45th President of the United States has is Teflon Don. Trump is a man whose entire life has been characterised by turning setbacks that would destroy the careers and reputations of anyone else into triumphs.
Over the course of his career as a self-proclaimed property tycoon and particularly his time in the Oval office and since being defeated by Biden in 2020, virtually every accusation levelled at him has been deflected, denied, repudiated and ultimately dispatched. Despite being impeached over the Ukraine scandal, he wasn’t removed from office. Since then, as many predicted, his lawless behaviour has only escalated and the charges against him continue to build.
But regardless of what he’s accused of, Trump has always managed to avoid the consequence of his actions. Indeed, back in January 2016, he famously declared he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and get away with it. A growing number would say he has committed countless high crimes and misdemeanours and escaped punishment.
That being said, chinks are beginning to appear in his armour and there’s a distinct feeling that things are changing and he’s no longer quite so invincible.
At the beginning of June 2020, I wrote an essay here on Medium entitled Are The Walls Closing In On Donald Trump? highlighting the growing criticism of the President and his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and of the Black Lives Matter protests following the murder of George Floyd. For the first time we were witnessing Governors, Mayors, military leaders, judges, journalists and even a handful of Republicans pushing back against Trump.
If there’s one thing about this President and his administration that you can be sure of, it’s that the next scandal is only around the corner.
Trump the traitor:
And the one that’s happening right now, could be the one that finally brings him down, for it goes right to the heart of American values and exposes Trump for what he’s so frequently been accused of — and which he himself recently accused his predecessor of — being a traitor.
The news first broke on 26 June 2020, when the New York Times, a newspaper that more than any other, Trump despises, reported the story about Russia offering the Taliban a bounty for the killings of US and coalition troops.
The paper — later backed up in reports by the Associated Press, The Washington Post and other news outlets — claimed US intelligence officials had warned the president in March — and that the Pentagon knew as early as January.
The Trump administration immediately did what it always does when the President is accused of wrongdoing: they denied his involvement and disparaged the source.
On 27 June 2020, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany issued this statement:
“The United States receives thousands of intelligence reports a day and they are subject to strict scrutiny. While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA Director, National Security Adviser, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence. This does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence, but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter.”
On 28 June 2020, Trump tweeted that “nobody briefed” him on the intelligence.
“Nobody briefed or told me, VP Pence, or Chief of Staff Mark Meadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an ‘anonymous source’ by the Fake News New York Times.”
That same day, the New York Times published a second piece reporting that intelligence officials were warned about Russian bounties as early as January 2020.
Following that report, the president tweeted:
“Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP. Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News New York Times wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!”
Propaganda from the podium:
Things then went south very quickly. The principal player responsible for this was not Trump himself, but his fourth press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany.
Still a newcomer to the role — a job her own predecessor Stephanie Grisham had managed to avoid doing for the previous 417 days. Indeed Grisham never took to the briefing room podium in her tenure as press secretary — McEnany began her first White House press briefing on 1 May 2020 by pledging she would never lie to the press. Her exact words were “I will never lie to you, you have my word on that.”
Never lying is a tough promise to keep, especially when you’re representing the 45th President of the United States.
Perhaps no one should have been surprised that this would be her first lie as over the ensuing weeks she became more and more brazen in what she said, how she says it and how she treated the press.
Far from being briefings, these quickly turned into propaganda sessions where she called out the Democrats and the fake media. She took questions, but rarely answered them, usually reverting to prepared responses. And what’s most noticeable was how fast they changed from the typical press briefings given by Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders, to something quite different. They became much more abrasive with the central tenet being McEnany getting her retaliation in first.
And with that, I’ll take questions:
Her press briefing on 29 June 2020 could prove to be one of the most important — for McEnany and for Trump.
It began with prepared remarks praising the President and his administration and attacking his adversaries and the media. When she’d finished and uttered the words “And with that, I’ll take questions.” she knew that there was going to be one subject above everything else that was going to be especially awkward for her to field: the Russian bounty story. Of course she came prepared, she had her answer and she had plenty of evidence to discredit the source of the story: the New York Times.
In fact, she’d already given her answer earlier in the day, when she delivered a statement that categorically denied the President and the Vice-President knew anything about the story, that they hadn’t been briefed about it and that the New York Times was writing lies.
The first question to her got straight to the point:
“I know you said that President Trump was never briefed on these reports about the Russian bounties, but can you say that he was briefed today?”
Muddying the waters:
In her response, McEnany first tried to muddy the waters explaining why Trump had not been briefed yet, before disputing reports from multiple media outlets that the intelligence had been included in Trump’s daily briefing.
“Look, I’ll say this: that the U.S. receives thousands of reports a day on intelligence, and they are subject to strict scrutiny. While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA Director; NSA — National Security Advisor; and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russia — Russian bounty intelligence.”
With that, she hoped to have cleared Trump and Pence from any prior knowledge of the matter. But in doing so, what she hadn’t thought through was if they hadn’t been briefed, why had the decision been taken not to do so given that this was such an egregious accusation?
It was the start of an uncomfortable back and forth between her and the reporters in the room. Her problem was simple: having categorically denied that neither the President and Vice-President knew anything, she had painted herself in a corner and would now have to explain away why they weren’t briefed.
And that came with the follow-up question from the same reporter:
“But has he been since briefed since all of these reports came out?”
McEnany responded by saying:
“So, let me back up and say this: that there is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations, and, in effect, there are dissenting opinions from some in the intelligence community with regards to the veracity of what’s being reported. And the veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated.”
So now she was giving the reason why Trump had not been briefed was simply because the intelligence community couldn’t agree on how reliable the information coming out of Russia was and because of this, it was determined neither the President or the Vice-President needed to be briefed about it.
With that, she had now firmly nailed her colours to the mast: Neither Trump or Pence knew anything about it, they were never briefed about it and the reason for that was because there was no consensus as to whether the story was true or not.
Given the severity of the allegation, and the improbability of her explanation, it was obvious that the reporters would not leave it there. And they didn’t.
“How could the President not be briefed on the Russia bounty story? Was he out of the loop by his own intelligence community?”
When you’re in a hole, stop digging:
McEnany knew she was in a hole, one she couldn’t dig herself out of. All she could do was reiterate what she’d already said:
“No. As I noted, there was not a consensus among the intelligence community. And, in fact, there were dissenting opinions within the intelligence community, and it would not be elevated to the President until it was verified.”
The next series of questions gave her some respite as they were on a different topic, but CNN’s Kaitlan Collins brought it back to Russia by questioning why the President hadn’t been briefed.
“Isn’t it concerning that there was even a hint of credibility to this report that the Russians were offering to pay Taliban-linked militants to kill American troops, and the President was not told about it? Has the National Security Advisor or anyone explained why they didn’t think it rose to the level that the Commander-in-Chief should find out about it?”
Now McEnany knew she was in trouble. She couldn’t agree with Collins, but she had nothing else to add. All she could do was repeat what she’d already said about the intelligence community’s doubts on the validity of the accusation.
“So, intelligence is verified before it reaches the President of the United States. And in this case, it was not verified.”
With that, Collins immediately retorted:
“So I understand it has to be verified, but not everything in his daily briefings or in the Presidential Daily Brief — that’s the written document — is airtight. They let the President know about what they are hearing. That’s why it’s intelligence. So why would that not have been something that rose to that level if, you know, we’re sharing it with other countries?”
Not for the first time, McEnany had nowhere to go and could only keep repeating what she’d already said.
“The National Security Council and the intelligence community constantly evaluate intelligence reports, and they brief the President as necessary.”
Dissenting opinions:
A few questions later and it was more of the same: as McEnany responded to Darlene Superville of the Associated Press.
“There are dissenting opinions within the intelligence community, and I can confirm with you right now that there is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations.”
Superville followed that by probing McEnany about the lack of consensus:
“So, who is disputing it in the intelligence community?”
McEnany couldn’t give an answer, other than repeating what she’d previously said:
“I have no further notifications for you, other than to tell you there’s no consensus and there are dissenting opinions from some within the intelligence community.”
Superville responded:
“So you guys do not think this is true? You don’t think this report is true?”
Once more McEnany found herself unable to answer the question and yet again have the same reply:
“I’m telling you this: that there is no consensus in the intelligence community, and that the dissenting opinions from some of the intelligence community exists.”
By now, having said the same thing numerous times, it was clear this was her explanation, one she was going to be sticking to.
There was a brief respite as other journalists changed topics, until Reuters Jeff Mason brought it back again:
“Does the President have a specific message for Moscow, given these reports?”
For a moment, McEnany appeared confused: “A specific message for Moscow?” she repeated, before restating her message:
“No, because he has not been briefed on the matter. As I noted, there’s no consensus among the intelligence community and there are, in fact, dissenting opinions.”
Mason quickly followed up, with a new accusation:
“There have been reports that some American service members actually were killed as a result of this Russian bounty. What information do you have on that?”
Rinse and repeat:
An increasingly exasperated McEnany could only repeat her assertion:
“Look, again, I’m pointing you back to the fact that there’s no consensus within the intelligence community.”
Realising she was having no joy in being defensive, she pivoted and went on the offensive, attacking the source of the story:
“And I would also note that, for those of you that are always taking the New York Times at their word, they erroneously reported that the President was briefed on this. He was not briefed on this and neither was the Vice President.”
She then added:
“So before buying into, full-fledged, a narrative from the New York Times that falsely stated something about the President, that you would wait for the facts to come out and note once again.”
And once more she repeated her assertion that the intel community were unclear.
“There’s no consensus in the intel community, and, in fact, there are dissenting opinions from some within it.”
That sparked this question, which sought to drill deeper into whether the President and Vice President had been briefed:
“So you say that he wasn’t briefed. Does that mean it wasn’t in the PDB either?”
Now McEnany had to be careful in how she replied, having categorically stated on multiple occasions that neither had been briefed.
“He was not personally briefed on the matter. All I can share with you today, is that both the CIA Director, the National Security Advisor, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm neither the President or the Vice President were briefed.”
For the next few minutes the subject of the questions changed once more to cover coronavirus, masks and statues. But Todd Gillman of The Dallas Morning News steered it back to Russia and whether the President has now been briefed:
“I just want to be clear: There are congressional leaders who are being briefed on the Russia situation, but the President has still not been briefed on the situation?”
Asked and answered:
McEnany could only respond by saying:
“Look, this has been asked and answered. The President is briefed on verified intelligence.”
That non-answer didn’t satisfy Gillman who countered:
“And how does he know, if he hasn’t been briefed? How is he certain that Russia didn’t put out these bounties?”
Not for the first time, McEnany had nowhere to go:
“The President is briefed on verified intelligence. And again, I would just point you back to the absolutely irresponsible decision of the New York Times to falsely report that he was briefed on something that he, in fact, was not briefed on.”
She then launched a second attack on the New York Times, citing pre-prepared examples of their inaccurate reporting.
“It is inexcusable, the failed Russia reporting of the New York Times. And I think it’s time that the New York Times, and also the Washington Post, hand back their Pulitzers.”
And with that, she swiftly ended the briefing and departed the room.
Later that evening the New York Times reported that Trump had been given a written briefing in February on suspected Russian bounties to kill US troops in Afghanistan.
Economical with the truth:
Unsurprisingly, those conflicting messages from the President and his press secretary’s insistence about the lack of “consensus” on Monday, contradicted Trump’s tweet from the previous evening, only deepened the intrigue about what was really going on, leaving major questions unanswered. Specifically, whether Trump had been briefed on such explosive intelligence about Russia and US troops in Afghanistan.
If he wasn’t told about such a fundamental threat to US security and American troops overseas, why was the information not brought to his attention? Was it contained in his written intelligence briefs, something which is well-reported he disdains to read, or did he just ignore it?
That still doesn’t excuse Trump’s claim of ignorance. Also, three NATO members confirmed they were warned by the US one week earlier. Why would non-credible intelligence be passed to allies at all, and why would they do it months after the US had it, and why would Trump be ignorant of all of this?
However this plays out, it’s hard to seen how there can be a positive outcome for the President or his press secretary who has blatantly lied or at least been extremely economical with the truth in trying to defend him.
As the Washington Post put it in its headline the next day:
“Trump’s ignorance is total — and you can quote his press secretary on that.”
Former Chief of Staff CIA and Dept of Defense, Jeremy Bash, and now MSNBC’s National Security Analyst, had this to say about the matter:
“It’s inconceivable that for the last six months not one person said hey Mr President, we have a direct threat to our troops. It is just outlandish that Kayleigh McEnany is standing there saying that. She’s just insulting the intelligence of everyone who works in national security.”
On 30 June 2020, the New York Times reported that the U.S intercepted financial transfer data that bolstered suspicions about Russian bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Those disclosures further undercut Kayleigh McEnany’s claim that the intelligence was too uncertain to brief Trump. The newspaper went on to claim that two officials said the information was provided to him in his daily written brief in late February.
Fifteen minutes of blame:
The next day (30 June 2020) McEnany held another press briefing (with only 40 minutes notice) Lasting just 15 minutes, she began with a rant about the national security concerns of information leaking from the administration and other parts of government and once again attacked the New York Times:
“The front page of the New York Times is not the venue for discussing classified information.”
This was a pivotal statement to make as it implied confirmation that the Russian bounty story was correct, something she was strenuously denying just 24 hours earlier.
What’s more, it suggests the White House isn’t mad about what Russia did, they’re just mad it became public knowledge.
About the author: Based in Sussex-by-the-Sea, on England’s south coast, Gary is a creative writer and image-maker. He specialises in creating out of the ordinary portraits of musicians and people with interesting faces, as well as photographing some of the world’s finest flowers and gardens, not forgetting an array of automotive exotica.
On the writing side, he has used his research skills to author deep dives into some noteworthy songs beginning with Bryan Ferry’s ‘These Foolish Things’ ‘Ghost Town’ by The Specials, ‘Real Wild Child’ by Ivan and ‘All The Young Dudes’ by Mott the Hoople.
He has also written a biography of Robert Palmer and the stories behind Whitesnake’s blatant Led Zep rip-off, ‘Still Of The Night’, Harry Styles’ anthem to positivity, ‘Treat People With Kindness’ and the little known Queen track ‘Cool Cat.’
Most recently, Gary has penned the fascinating story behind George Orwell’s dystopian novel ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four.’ as well as ‘Believe It Or Not’ a look into the rise of fake news.
All these can be found here on Medium, along with his reviews of gigs and events and chats with musicians including the likes of Royal Blood, Joe Satriani and Wolf Alice.
