Donald Trump is really an absolutely unsystematic candidate who does not owe his victory to any elite group. Among the sponsors of his campaign are traditional industrialists, and globally oriented dotcoms, and the old MIC, and financiers from Wall Street, and, of course, his billionaire friends. This once again underscores that understanding of national problems is present in all elite groups. However, with regard to the ambiguous president, there is no national consensus, the elites do not believe that Trump will solve the accumulated problems. What are the perspectives of the 45 US president we asked Dmitry Simes, president of the Center for National Interests, USA.
- And the strength and invulnerability Trump consists precisely in the fact that from a political point of view, he had no base of support. Although he had a great connection, and we can not say that it came out of nowhere, because he was a very successful businessman, he has established himself as a television person. Trump won the Republican race, precisely because he was not orthodox, and because it is not supported by the traditional republican elites. And it helped him to sound very different than all the other candidates, and this attracted a voter in the year when everyone wanted change.
On the other hand, now, when he needs to be governed, it turns out that a significant part of the business elite, a significant part of the Republicans in the congress, they are not loyal to him. Not that they are against him, he is a republican president, and they need it. But this is not their man. He really managed to make himself as a politician. But it is obvious that he is supported by what I would call an unconventional force in the Republican Party. Probably, it is primitive to call them all populists, because many of them left the business. But these are people who are tired of the direction in which the United States went with both parties: both Republicans and Democrats. These are people who want serious changes and who had a feeling that the administration is changing each other, but the direction of the country's development, in general, remains the same, remains - in the direction of the abyss.
These are people who are bored with multiculturalism and constant praise for diversity in their domestic politics, not only at the level of abstract slogans, but also in practical politics. They have a feeling that some people pay taxes, while other people use these taxes. They had a feeling that in the country there was a racial discrimination on the contrary, this time against the Whites and to some extent against the Asians. A small number of these people, they say, are business captains. But very many of them are successful businessmen above the average level. This is a significant part, I would say, of medium and small entrepreneurs associated with the Republican Party. I think they can be called an elite (if you do not consider only a small group of plutocrats to be an elite). This is quite an elite.
- That is, there are differences with respect to Trump within the Republican Party?
- There was a counter-culture in most of the Republican Party, which is represented by publications on such resources as "Braytbart News", "Dradzhreport". These are people who do not like the Republican Party, as they thought, sought to ensure that all change so that nothing changes. Which aimed to deal with the Democrats in Congress and, in general, never really did not want to rock the boat. This part of the Republican Party wanted to change.
Trump, a billionaire from Manhattan, is for them an unnatural character. But he alone was ready to talk in a different way and offer some real changes. You probably know that the vast majority of American voters do not vote on the basis of foreign policy preferences of candidates, it is secondary. Unless the country is divided because of some bloody costly war, which is not available.
- However, Russia has become an important political factor in the United States.
"Nevertheless, there are so-called" libertarian "in the Republican Party, there are other groups that they want to present as isolationist, although they are not. These are the groups that are tired of endless wars that are unclear because of what. And who absolutely do not understand why Russia is an enemy. It's not because they love Putin. And when Trump begins to tell how Putin praised him, which, as we know, was also a big exaggeration, this is not at all what motivates these groups towards Russia. Because people are asking themselves a question, but what has Russia done badly to us lately? What, they snatched the Crimea? On the Donbass entered? Yes. And where is the Donbass? What, in Crimea there is American oil or American bases? Why our dog business to their cat's European fuss?
According to this logic, if the Europeans are so worried about it, this is why they do not do? Their economy is much greater than that of Russia. If they are so afraid of Russia, why they do not increase their military spending? This is not some kind of conceptual approach formulated. It's just perplexing many thinking people, not necessarily very well-educated. And what is all this done?
And these people like Trump. They could not fully agree with his answers, but he liked what he asks these questions. What kind of allies such that America must defend all the time, and who are always talking about the Russian threat, but not willing to spend more than 1% of their gross national product on defense?
This is a smaller but significant part of the republican elite. Because in the Republican Party this kind of mood always existed, even before the First World War. And sometimes they take even the form of isolationism - Ron Paul, the father of Senator Rand Paul, was an isolationist. At this stage, as a rule, these are not isolationists, but they are just people who want to outline American national interests more, if you want, more modestly, more limitedly. But, on the other hand, I'm fed up with America being shoved and not respected. And they want interests to be formulated more narrowly, but they are defended more harshly.
What prevents the "realistic foreign policy"
- Donald Trump has come to power with the promise to pursue a pragmatic domestic and especially foreign policy in accordance with the true national interests of the country, as he understands them 45-th US president. There is formulation of Realpolitik, so-called "real politics." You can outline the concept, its significance for American elites and of Trump?
- There are two meanings. There is a value that you will find in the writings of such leading sociologists as John Mirsheimer, Stevon Walt, and many others. What is called "Ivory tower strategy". I do not want to belittle them in any way. They are really big and courageous thinkers. But they formulate the concept rather narrowly. This is the concept of "offshore balancing": the United States will not intervene in all situations and try to guide them themselves, but will, as it were, influence the ocean in the alignment of forces in the world. Such people often believe that some emotional issues or human values should not be part of the "real politician" at all.
But I can tell you that it does not have much to do with the other Realpolitik, American realpolitik. America was established from the outset not only as a country but as a certain concept. For America, it is important to the behavior of those people, those countries with which America is concerned. Because America was created by people who have come here because they somewhere something did not suit. And the American political process works so that to ignore this aspect: emotions, values - it is impossible.
The question is in the other. How to think about the values in the context of foreign policy. For example, what place should take the value in comparison with other American interests are more specific. And, finally, how to judge the advancements values: on purpose or by the results?
Maykl Makfol, for example, arrived in Russia to promote values. I began their advance almost any with his second of the day, when there was a reception at the embassy, which invited all opposition. We see how he was trying to promote the values in an interview with the Russian press, with the appearance on Russian TV. He did it honestly and enthusiastically. But can you tell someone that as a result of McFaul as Ambassador American values somehow moved to Russia? No?
- Quite the contrary.
- Quite the contrary. So many people who talk about foreign policy realism, not opposed to expanding democracy. But then let it really expanding, not just that you were yelling about this and beat their breasts, they say, finishing with delight as we are right and noble. I would like to see some concrete results. And there should be, too, of course, understanding what you price for it is willing to pay.
Now, you know, a big row over Russian hackers and their intervention in the American election campaign. And then there are many different theories why Putin did what he did. The latest version was expressed director of the FBI Komi in his testimony to the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. He said that Putin does not like Hillary Clinton, that he decided to help Trump.
Maybe, but if you look from the perspective of what is called foreign policy realism (it's a little bit wider than the "real politik"), you are asking the question: if there is a Russian intervention (I think that on some level, and ANY KIND that within it was), then the question arises as to why this was done. Why Putin as Komi said, do not like Hillary Clinton than it irritated him? Not the same as it is an old woman who presented Lavrov button that instead ...
- "reboot" was written "overload."
"It was not because of this that she was offended, right?" She was quite ready to carry out a reset policy. I remember once the Obama administration came to power, we came with a small group to visit Secretary Clinton. We created a Public Commission on Relations with Russia together with the Belford Center in Harvard. We came to Hilary Clinton. She took us very nice. Also spoke about how she supports the direction of our work, and yes, we need to try to negotiate with Russia. I repeatedly heard from other representatives of her administration such an approach. So I do not think that Putin or anyone else in the Russian leadership could have disliked Hilary Clinton so much because she fundamentally opposed any form of dialogue with Russia.
The concern is that, as claimed by the Russian President, Hillary Clinton played a role in organizing the protests in Russia. I do not know what it means to "play a role in organizing the protests," I never professionally with this issue was not engaged. And if there are Russian special services any specific information on this issue, then it is not available to me. But what is obvious - that with Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration made an attempt to influence Russia's internal politics. And it was done in many forms. And this was done quite openly.
- Recall the same McFaul.
- Recall of the same and to McFaul McFaul. This is not necessarily bad in itself. Because if you bring this argument in the United States, say, "we are also involved in the Russian political process", the answer will inevitably be "what it means, too, we have something to promote democracy, and they are trying to undermine our democracy." Moral symmetry there is no and there can not be.
Each country has the right to consider its system superior to the rest. And each country has the right to feel, at least, a concern when those elements of its own system that you want to promote in other countries are rejected and run into resistance from the relevant authorities. I can understand this argument. That's what I can not understand: if you proceed from the fact that for the states, especially the authoritarian states that Russia considers to be the most important, is maintaining the stability of power, if you know and understand this, how can you think that you will try to change significantly Russian orders from the United States without the risk of receiving an appropriate response?
Now they will say to you "yes, but our intentions were very good." My answer to this is: listen, what we tried to do from America was perceived by the Russian authorities as a confrontational position. In any confrontation, you have every right to proceed from the purity of your intentions and your moral superiority. What you do not have the right to do is think that there will be no answer. You can not do this. You will not think that if the United States for someone will strike a military blow, then they will not resist only because the United States is the leader of the free world.
Secretary of State Clinton, President Obama, apparently did not even think that there could be some response from the Russian side. What if you want to avoid further attacks by Russian hackers, then, of course, you can apply some sanctions against Russia in response, you can and should strengthen your own systems of cyber security, you can and should tell Russia both privately and publicly that such behavior can interfere with Russian-American cooperation. All this can be done. But, in fact, one of the possible precautions is to ask yourself the question, but do you want to take actions that can lead to such consequences?
If this is central to your national interests, then probably the answer is: "No, we will still do it". But if it turns out that this is very peripheral for your national interests, that this was done without any analysis of the possible consequences and without the chances of the desired results, then this is not a very realistic policy. And in the Republican Party, especially in the American business, where people are pragmatic enough, they often ask: was not the American policy a ship without a serious navigator? If you are a businessman, then when you compete with other countries, you can be very, very tough, you may well be ready to work with your elbows to promote your interests. But it will not occur to you that only because you are so good, the others will not try to use their competitive advantages and will not resist your expansion.
And the business understands this well. And that's why many American corporations supported Trump, although they were questioning his outrageous statements, his fears, how far he would go, how he would ruin everything, how he would introduce an 45% tariff on Chinese products, and so on. To cautious informed people in business this seemed a somewhat exaggerated approach to international relations. But, on the other hand, they wanted to have a person who will defend American interests, which will not crawl into situations that America does not need and which, as is customary in business, will calculate the consequences. Such a policy can be called pragmatic, realistic. These are the two sides of the coin. Pragmatic - it's just that you look at specific situations and try to behave intelligently. And realistic - you look at the connection of things, and it has such a strategic backbone, on which everything is layered.
I think that many of these people hailed the basic direction of foreign policy thought Trump, even if they did not agree with everything he said. And so they are satisfied with the appointment to the post of Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, not because he was some kind of special Russian friend, who, I think, he is not. He was the head of a large company, and it has with Russia, as you know, was how difficult moments and moments are very positive for him. But he defended the interests of his company.
I think that American business happy with this appointment. Because it says that American foreign policy will be focused on the US real interests, not some dreams that are more natural to the global government than for a particular power, even such a great and powerful as the United States.
Is Trump war with globalists
- By and large, the beneficiaries of past 20, perhaps, 30 years, business has been "globalist". Trump came that promises to shift to the national producer. And, accordingly, it has received the sympathy of the audience at that business, which is focused nationally. This infrastructure, the military industrial complex, small, medium-sized businesses. You can dissolve in the two sides of the elite support for Trump?
- No, we can not. This simplistic. Because if you look at the global companies, they have, as a rule, there and then, and then. Trade war, if you VPK, you too can hit very strongly. Look at a company like "Boeing". It is a symbol of the American military-industrial complex, but with a very large trade with China, with less trade with Russia. Trade wars are not in the interest of almost any large American companies.
Then the question of the American consumer. Look, if you remove the Chinese products in America, the cost, if not all, very much will increase significantly. So I think that was the desire of a large part of American business, if you want to have a correction. When the infatuation of free trade does not come back to the barriers to trade, isolationism, and come to a situation where American interests are considered more concretely and clearly. I'll give you a simple example.
Several administrations were delighted by the European Union, as it is remarkable. But is it wonderful for whom? The United States is an economic giant with huge trade with the European Union. With whom is it easier for the United States to agree: with individual countries or with the EU as a whole? Moreover, with the European Union, where this increasingly important role is played by this unselected bureaucracy of Brussels with its own ideas about the beautiful, with a huge amount of regulation. Trump struggles against regulation in America. But in Europe, it is even greater. And, moreover, many of the restrictions are not connected with considerations of a trade and economic nature, but simply, if you want, reflect the sense of a socialist utopia, where supranational structures must control everything. How can this be in the American interest?
I speak, of course, simplistic. Because it is understandable that the United States also wants predictability, stability in trade. To some extent it is always easier to negotiate with such large structures. But these questions are about why we fell in love with the European Union, even though this European Union, which was at first a common market where tariffs were eliminated, and then turned into something completely different with an increasing political component, why it is in the interests of the United States, up to how much is it in the interests of the States, to what extent is it in the interest of the United States? These questions were not asked.
- Trump began to ask them?
- Yes, and I want to assure you that many American supra-national company is welcome. For example, in its relations with China. Very few people in America want a trade war with China. Of course, many US companies are reluctant to cover the Chinese market, the United States shut out of China's trade barriers. It's true.
But the pure truth and another. That the same American companies are concerned that China itself is increasingly closing its market. That, for example, contrary to hopes, in terms of liberalizing access to the financial, insurance market, China in recent years has moved in the opposite direction. And these American global companies, which are very interested in China as a trading partner, are also concerned, although perhaps less think about how bad for the American domestic manufacturer is the Chinese presence. Suppose they are not manufacturers of refrigerators or televisions, this is less of a concern.
But they are worried about something else. They are worried that it is getting harder and harder for them to enter the Chinese market. Therefore, they unite with those responsible for American industry, with the industrial companies of the United States and tell the administration: "Yes, we are for the US market to be open to China, but just as much as their market is open to us ". And they want the Trump administration to insist on it. This is the meaning of the slogan "America First". It's not to push everyone, to lead everyone, to teach everyone. And to remember that the United States is not a global government. The United States is a power.
And it has two elements. The first is that the United States will more take into account the interests and prospects of other countries. But at the same time, the United States will proceed from the fact that they have their own interests, and that we need to think less about some general principles, global supranational structures, and more about how to prop up specific American interests to the extent possible in keeping with the norms of decency. And many people like this, first of all, in American business. But it is pleasant, if it is done pragmatically, without sharp movements, without creating artificial crises. And, of course, not so that it led to a trade war, especially with a power as large as China.
- If simplistic to say that Trump is not just a sharp antagonist globalist elites, it is part of their own interests. Question in a pragmatic representation of these interests.
- Look at the Trump empire distributing worldwide. He global company. He tried to establish a presence in Russia, it did not work. But Trump is not isolationist. Nobody around him are not isolationists. Take a look at the composition of his cabinet. It is absolutely obvious, people with an international perspective. But these are people who see the United States as a country, and not as a global government.
Trump ready very hard to defend American interests in many areas of the world, if you clearly understand why the United States is important. For global government is more important than another. It occurs a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This is one of those conflicts, which warned Dzhordzh Vashington. The United States, European conflicts should not get involved. And that was a big part of the American foreign policy tradition, if only there was some sort of threat to the balance of forces in Europe and, therefore, the United States itself.
Such a threat could be, of course, when he was Napoleon. Such a threat was when Hitler was, and then there was Stalin. To some extent the Soviet Union after Stalin. What threat to US interests in Europe is Russia? I do not say who has what may be nostalgic feelings about the fact that it would be better, something to keep, something completely destroy something, maybe not completely destroy the territory of the Soviet Union. But it is very difficult to see Russia as this kind of apocalyptic threat to Europe, US interests in Europe.
This does not mean that Russia can not have any of its ambitions and willingness to use force to carry out these ambitions in life. But these are those European conflicts (according to the principles of George Washington), which do not affect vital American interests. So when Trump began to say that, in general, we can establish some other relations with Russia, I want to repeat that it was not due to some unnatural love for Putin or some admiration for the Russian system of government. This was because he began to ask questions: what does this have to do with us, why should this be an American priority?
Trump has not been able to formulate a conceptual answers to these questions. This made him vulnerable. He asked the right, interesting questions. But he is not yet able to give them an answer.
What Trump's problem
- There is a theory that Trump was not ready to what will win. He had a very distinct, a good concept for the duration of the campaign. But afterwards, he found himself without a huge program of action, which should be immediately implemented.
- She was not ready for many reasons. One reason, the most simple - I think it is up to the last minute was not sure of his elect. Secondly, I can not say that it came out of nowhere. He came out of the business elite of Manhattan, and it was linked to high politics for many years. But he was at the same time, if you want a single craftsman. Single craftsman to a very high level, but, nevertheless, like the cat who walks alone in the rain. Perhaps this is not a cat was a big tiger. But nonetheless.
And behind him there was no movement. He liked the idea during the campaign that he seemed to represent the movement, began talking about it. But there is really no movement, except for the indignation of many people, especially white people and many Asians about how they were treated in Obama's America, there was no other movement behind him. And so I had to create not only my team from nowhere. They had, if you want, to work out all their basic concepts. Because they were not developed before, there was no party behind him, there was not even a faction in the Republican Party behind him. Behind him there was no academic team in any field.
Therefore, it is difficult. And then there are its features. He came from a company he owned and headed by himself. If it came from a company with shareholders, the so-called public company, which controls the board of directors, where the company's management is responsible to its shareholders, it would be a different experience, which is more prepared for working together with colleagues, and not just subordinates.
I remember a conversation with a leading Russian businessman. There was a small lunch in Washington. And they talked about their difficulties with their American and European counterparts. And the head of the Russian company said: "Look, one thing I did not say. We are, in general, for me personally with these people it is difficult to talk. Because I'm the owner, and they hired managers. I have not until the end of perceive themselves as equal. And we have different backgrounds and different mentality. "
So, in this respect, Trump would have been closer to this Russian businessman. His company was created by his father, inherited and enormously expanded by Trump. In this company, except him and his children, no one really had any value. I do not mean it in any critical way. This is a private company, it is not a public company with shareholders. And he had no experience of such work in his system with people who would not depend on him and on whom he depended.
He had to be, of course, deal with the government, many governments, other companies competing with it. But within his own organization, he had the control that he wanted to have. When he shared this control, this was his voluntary decision.
But the US government is not functioning well. Because, first of all, when we talk about the US government, there are three branches of government. The President heads the executive, but he does not head, of course, the legislature - the Congress. He does not head the courts. And even in its executive, you see, it does have limitations. He can not give directions to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It can not by itself simply instruct somebody to organize whatever wiretap. He can not say "go and arrest somebody."
He can say, "let's check someone's taxes." But if it turns out he may be in big trouble. Because it is considered that the tax office should be independent. This, of course, is not the truth, far no wall between politics and the Internal Revenue Service. But the president said so directly, "Look, it's a nasty, nasty man, let him be as the frustrating", - it is impossible.
And Trump for the first time have to deal with this completely new reality for him the decision making process and the process of carrying out these decisions. And it's easy for him, if you will, the process of political education and the gradual habit of this completely new rules for him.
- A resistance with which he is confronted, not merely ideological?
- Of course, it is not only ideological. He went against the whole direction of the American evolution over the last decade. That's why he won the Republican nomination. Because a large part of the Republicans and the Republicans not only seemed that the country is heading downhill. But he did not just say that the Democratic establishment is responsible for everything and goes the wrong way. He has also talked about the Republican establishment.
But he came to power, something contrary to the will of the political establishment. He did not come to the will in spite of all the elites, because we are talking about the elite who supported it and continue to support. But if you are talking about the political establishment, he did not come to him, he broke into it, sweeping away everything in its path.
And he came without any team of like-minded people. He had these realistic ideas, elemental approaches, he using the expression of Lenin, "spontaneous realist." But he did not have a team of realists around him. If you look at the people who surrounded him during the election campaign, with the exception of Paul Monofort, who seemed to play a practical rather than a conceptual role, they were all people of traditional foreign policy views, in many respects close to neoconservatives. So, relying on them, he could not get any additional new realistic ideas, and, moreover, could not get acquainted with foreign policy realists.
I talked with one of the leaders of his company, the conversation was somewhere in April. I told him that, given the approach of Trump, perhaps it makes sense to start to get acquainted with the concept of "real politik". He did not understand what I'm saying. Because this concept had no relation either to his education, or his life experience. It was quite well educated and intelligent man. But it's just not what he was doing, not what they talked about in the circle in which he moved.
And so, when Trump came, it turned out that the exception to the general tramp Flynn, no it was not true realists in his entourage. If you look at the team of Paul Renda, who, as you remember, too, tried to run for president, he was conscious realist foreign policy. He thought about it, read it. One can agree with him or not, but he knew the main expert, he knew some people who were in different administrations, but preferred this realistic approach. At Trump this was nothing.
- It turns out, it is still two years only a little bit to get used to the role, type the command, and then to spend on something that may be re-elected or re-elected for another two years. It may be just a flash to American life, which came to nothing lead.
- You know, the good news from the point of view of Trump is that he has a really base, which, with its enthusiastic support. And this base has not yet shaken. Nixon was not like this, he has always been a compromise candidate. And second, unlike Nixon - remember, because then Nixon Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and now just the opposite. Therefore destroy Trump through various investigations in Congress, the persecution of the Congress much more difficult. This is good news for Trump.
The bad news is that, of course, especially with these Russian hackers, he was under siege. And a significant part of the law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies that investigate this are exactly the people whom he was going to remove from power. These are people appointed by previous administrations to serious positions, which Trump subjected to merciless criticism. And so, on the one hand, they work in the government, but, on the other hand, Trump is absolutely not their man, and they feel him as a threat not only to America, in general, but also to his well-being very concretely. And therefore, of course, the desire, let's say, not to help him during these investigations, is not actively helping, this desire is very large.
Of course, when you are under siege, it is very difficult to pursue a constructive policy, for example, in relations with Russia. When both Trump and Putin are demonized simultaneously. And for the Democrats, one must understand, one reason for such hatred for Putin (not the only one, but one reason) is that it seems that he preferred an even more hated Trump. And when these two figures, Putin and Trump, converge, the degree of hatred begins to go off scale. They both can not stand the one and the other, as they say. But when they converge, it is for the Democrats an excellent explanation why they lost the presidential election, right? Not because they did not do something, they did not do something, but because the mean Trump led an evil, bad Putin into the American campaign.
And, maybe, on the contrary, evil, bad Putin used Trump. So the situation is serious foreign policy implications. It becomes very difficult to conduct any negotiations with Russia, which will inevitably require compromises. Talking about these compromises involve some hypothetical solutions: but if, as it were. If the next day it will be poured on the page "New York Times", "Washington Post" and present liberal broadcasters, it will look like this: "Now, Trump has once again played in the game Putin" ...
- "We have been warned."
- ... "We warned." Normal diplomacy is starting to look like treason. Or, at least, it gives rise to suspicion. You know, people are people. Very few people in this situation wants to be a hero and do those things that are required in diplomacy to discuss, experiment, to show some flexibility, saying "you me - I told you." It all becomes very difficult.
Therefore, in the interests of the Trump administration, of course, that these investigations are completed and as soon as possible. That all that is, it was honestly put on the table, and that this was the end. There will always be people who will not be satisfied with this. But now it's a bleeding wound. And what happens is, on the one hand, they can not find the so-called "smokking gang". If by "smokking gan" understand the evidence that Trump company directly coordinated with Russia some attacks of hackers and other Russian actions that can be considered as interference in the American elections. Nobody has not been able to prove this yet, but I have not seen any evidence of this either.
But, on the other hand, every day there's some new revelations, some things, which in themselves can be quite trivial. "Paul Monofort worked with Oleg Deripaska." How many people in American business worked with him? Russia do not blame the fact that it helped Hillary Clinton accused that helped Trump. And so begin any contacts between the people associated with the administration of Russia, to look like a very predrassuditelnogo or at least very suspicious.
And this creates a problem for Trump, because he lived for many years in big business. He operated in many countries, around him there were many people who somehow had some kind of contacts with Russia or even some deals with Russia. And when every day something new about this happens, if you look at it from the point of view of the usual American practice, will you say, what happened, that Russia is an enemy? Especially when it comes to what happened, say, in the 2008-2010 year, when the Obama administration strongly encouraged interaction with Russia, both political and business.
On the one hand, and what's wrong with that. But look is not in terms of the standards of the time, but in terms of standards that tries to formulate the opposition Trump today. When the usual banal contacts when it comes to members of the Trump team, are extremely objectionable. Even in the case Monoforta. After all, its relationship with Deripaska had long before Monofort somehow was associated with Trump's team.
Therefore, it seems to me that it is very important for the Trump administration not to obstruct an objective investigation, to strive to ensure that everything that can be found is laid out on the table. There are always people who want more. But that from the point of view of objective standards it does not look that the administration is trying to hide something. But at the same time, if someone tries to use this situation in order to betray national secrets, then the president and his minister of justice still have all the powers to instruct law enforcement agencies to put an end to this.
Because in the current situation this administration is tested for strength. And it in no case do not need to go to the unconstitutional actions. But, on the other hand, it must be able to not even defend himself, and the American system of democratic governance based on the rule of law. Administration should be able to defend themselves.