Go to Publicity
«Back to news

News

06.05.2017 - 08: 15

Where priplyvot American ship

Donald Trump really is absolutely non-system candidate that his victory is not obliged to any elite group. Among the sponsors of his campaign, there are traditional manufacturers, and globally oriented dotcom and the old military-industrial complex, and financiers on Wall Street, and, of course, his fellow billionaires. This once again emphasizes that the understanding of national problems present in all elite groups. However, with regard to the controversial president is no national consensus, the elite do not believe that it will solve the accumulated problems Trump. What are the prospects 45-th American president we asked Dmitriya Saymsa, president of the Center of national interests, the United States.

- 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, at a time when he needs to control, it appears that a significant portion of the business elite, many of the Republicans in Congress, they are not loyal to him. Not that they are against him, he is the president of the republic, and they need it. But it was not their man. He really managed to make himself as a politician. But it is clear that it supports what I would call non-traditional force in the Republican Party. Perhaps primitive name them all populists, because many of them went out of business. But these are people who are tired of the direction in which the United States came with both parties: both with Republicans and Democrats. These are people who want serious change and who had a feeling that the administration change to each other, but the direction of development of the country, in general, remains the same, it remains - in the direction of the abyss.

These are the people who are fed up with the internal politics of multiculturalism and constant praise of diversity (diversity), and not only at the level of abstract slogans but also the practical politics. At whom the feeling that some people pay taxes, and these taxes other people enjoy. At whom the feeling that the country was racial discrimination contrary, this time against the whites, and to some extent against the Asians. A small number of these people, they say, are the business captains. But many of them are successful businessmen above average. This is a significant part of, I would say, small and medium entrepreneurs associated with the Republican Party. I think they could be called elite (except for the elite only some small group of plutocrats). This is quite 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.

- However, in the Republican Party have so-called "libertariens", there are other groups who wish to be represented as isolationist, even though they are not. These are the groups who are tired of endless war, it is not clear because of what. And that it is not clear why the Russian enemy. This is not because they love Putin. And when Trump starts telling his Putin praised, which is also, as we know, was an exaggeration, it is not what motivates these groups with regard to Russia. Because people are asking themselves, and what we did wrong with Russia lately? What they grabbed Crimea? Donbass entered? Yes. Where Donbass? That, in the Crimea there is an American oil or US bases? Why is our dog's case before the European cat 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 the Republican Party of such sentiments have always existed, even before the First World War. And sometimes they even take the form of isolationism - Ron Pol, the father of Senator Rand Paul, was an isolationist. At this stage, it is usually no not isolationists, and it's just people who want to outline the US national interests more, if you want modestly more limited. But, on the other hand, fed up with America all shoved and not respected. And they want to interest more narrowly formulated, but defended tougher.

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 can be found in the works of such leading sociologists like Dzhon Mirshaymer, Walt Stevon, many others. What it is called the «Ivory tower strategy». I do not want them in any way to belittle. They are really big and courageous thinkers. But they formulate the concept narrowly. This concept of «Offshore balancing»: the United States will not at all interfere with the situation and try to direct them yourself and be how to influence over the ocean on the alignment of forces in the world. Such people often believe that any emotional issues or human values ​​in general should not be part of the "real politik".

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."

- Not for the same offense at it, right? She was quite ready to carry out reset policy. I remember, as soon as the Obama administration came to power, we came with a small group visit by Secretary Clinton. We have created together with Belfordskim center in Harvard Public Commission for Relations with Russia. We came to Hillary Clinton. It took us very cute. And he talks about how it supports the direction of our work, and yes, it is necessary to try to negotiate with Russia. I have repeatedly heard from other members of her administration this approach. So I do not think that Putin or someone else in the Russian leadership could so dislike Hillary Clinton because she is fundamentally opposed to 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.

Every country has the right to be considered superior to the rest of your system. And every country has the right to feel at least a concern when the elements of their own system that you want to promote in other countries, are rejected and met with resistance of the relevant authorities. This argument I can understand. That's what I can not understand: if you proceed from the fact that States, particularly authoritarian who consider Russia, the most important thing is to preserve the power of stability, if you know and understand, how can you think that you will try to substantially change Russian orders from the United States without the risk of getting an appropriate response?

Now you will say, "Well, yes, but our intentions were very good." My answer to this is: Listen, what we tried to do in America, the Russian government perceived as a confrontational position. In any confrontation you have every right to proceed from the purity of his intentions and his moral superiority. That you have no right to do - is to think that there will be a response. That's what you can not do. You will not think that if the United States by someone inflict a military strike, there will not resist because the United States - the leader of the free world.

Secretary Clinton, President Obama apparently did not even occur to you that may be from the Russian side some kind of answer. What if you want to avoid further attacks Russian hackers, of course, you can apply in response to any sanctions against Russia, you can and should strengthen their own cyber security system, you can and should tell Russia and in private and public that this kind of behavior may interfere with the Russian-American cooperation. All this can be done. But, in fact, among the possible precautions need to ask yourself, and whether you want to take action itself, which can lead to such consequences?

If this is your central to the national interest, then perhaps the answer: "No, we're still going to do it." But if it turns out that for your national interests is very peripherally, that it was done without any analysis of the possible effects and no chance of the desired results, it is not very realistic policy. And in the Republican Party, especially in American business, where people sit quite pragmatic, very often asked the question: not whether American policy the ship without a serious mate? If you are a businessman, then when you konkuriruesh with other countries, you can be very, very hard, you may well be ready to work with his elbows, to promote their interests. But you will not come to mind that just because you're so good, the others will not try to use their competitive advantage and will not oppose your expansion.

And the business can understand. And so in many American corporations supported Trump, though they doubt, if you like, its shocking statements, concerns how far he will go, he will break all he 45% cent tariff impose on Chinese products and so on. Careful informed people in the business, it seemed somewhat exaggerated approach to international relations. But, on the other hand, they would like to have a man who will defend American interests, which would not get involved in a situation that America does not need and which, as is customary in the business, it will calculate the consequences. Such a policy may be called pragmatic, realistic. These are two sides of the coin. Pragmatic - it's just you look at specific situations and try to behave sensibly. A realistic - you look at the connection of things, and it has the strategic backbone to which all accumulates.

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 admired the European Union, as it is remarkable. But it is remarkable for someone? The United States is an economic giant with a huge trade with the European Union. With whom the United States easier to negotiate: with individual countries or the European Union as a whole? Especially with the European Union, where all the big role played by this no one selected the Brussels bureaucracy with their ideas of the beautiful, with a lot of regulation. Trump struggles against the regulation in America. But in Europe, it is even more. And, with many of the restrictions are not related to considerations of trade and economic nature, but simply, if you want to represent the feeling of a socialist utopia where supranational structures have to control everything. How can that be in American interests?

I'm talking, of course, simplified. Because it is quite clear that the United States also want predictability, stability in the trade. In some way it is always easier to negotiate with such large structures. But these questions about why we are so fond of the European Union, despite the fact that the European Union, which at first was a common market, which eliminated tariffs, and then turned into something completely different, with increasing political component why is in the interests of the United States, to what extent is the benefit of States, to what extent it is in the interests of the United States? These questions are 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 truth of both. That the same American companies are concerned that China itself is increasingly closing its market. What, for example, contrary to the hopes, in terms of access to financial liberalization, China insurance market in recent years has moved in the opposite direction. And these American global companies that are very interested in China as in the trading partner, are also concerned, although perhaps less about how for the US domestic producers bad Chinese presence. Let's say they are not the manufacturers of refrigerators or televisions, it is their less worried.

But they are worried about other things. They worry that they more and more difficult to get into the Chinese market. Therefore, they are united with those who are responsible for American industry, with the industry of the United States companies and say the administration: "Yes, we are for that the American market was opened to China, but to the same extent only in which their market is open to us ". And they want the administration Trump insists on it. In this sense «America First» slogan. Not to all the press, all heading, all teach. And to remember that the United States - is not a global government. United States - is power.

And it has two elements. The first - that the United States will no longer take the interests and perspectives of other countries. But at the same time the United States will proceed from the fact that they have their own interests, and what you need to think less about some general principles, global supranational structures, but more about how the extent possible in compliance with the norms of decency promote specific American interests. And it's very much like in the first place, in American business. But it's like, 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 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 may not be some of their ambition and willingness to use force to carry out these ambitions in life. But it is 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, it was not because of some kind of unnatural love for Putin or some admiration of the Russian system of government. It was because he began to ask questions: What is to us has to do with why it should 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 not stood no movement behind it. He liked the idea during the campaign that he would like is a movement began to talk of it. But really no movement, except resentment of many people, especially white people, and many Asians about being treated in Obama's America with them, no other traffic was not for him. And so we had to create not only your team from anywhere. They had to, if you want to produce all of its basic concepts. Because they had not been designed for him was there was no party for him even no faction in the Republican Party. Behind him there was no academic teams 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 to this Russian businessman to some extent closer. His company created by his father, inherited and expanded tremendously Trump. In this company, except for him and his children, no real value had. I do not mean this in any critical way. It is a private company, it is not a public company with shareholders. And he had no experience of such work in its system with people who would not depend on him and on which 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 it came without any like-minded team. He had the idea of ​​realistic, natural approach, he, taking advantage of Lenin's expression, "a spontaneous realist." But he has not been realists team around him. If you look at the people who surrounded him during the election campaign, with the exception of Paul Monoforta, which seemed to play a practical, rather than conceptual role - they were all men of traditional foreign policy views, in many respects close to the neoconservatives. So, relying on them, he could not buy any additional new realistic ideas, and certainly, the more he could not meet with the 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 are investigating this - these are the people he was going to remove from power. These are people appointed by previous administrations to serious post that 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 perceive it as a threat not only to America, as a whole, but also to its well-being is very specific. And so, of course, the desire to, shall we say, not to help him during these investigations do not actively help, this desire is very great.

Of course, when you're under siege, it is very difficult to do some constructive policy, for example, in relations with Russia. When demonized both Trump and Putin. For Democrats, it is necessary to understand one reason for the hatred of 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, come together, then the degree of hatred begins to go off-scale. They are of both, as they say, can not be tolerated. But when they come together, it is for the Democrats is a great explanation of why they lost the presidential election, right? Not because they are something not managed, something not done, but because sneaky Trump brought in the American campaign of the evil, the bad Putin.

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 administration of Trump, of course, that these investigations are over, and as soon as possible. That all that is, was, honestly put on the table, and to this end has come. There will always be people who will not be satisfied with this. But now it is a bleeding wound. And what happens is that, on the one hand, they can not find the so-called "smouking gun." If by "smouking gun" to understand the evidence that the company Trump directly coordinated with Russia any hacker attacks and other Russian actions, which may be considered as interference in the American elections. Here it has no just could not prove it, but I did not see it and no evidence.

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 it creates a problem for Trump, because he lived for many years in a large business. He operated in many countries around it was a lot of people, one way or another, had some contacts with Russian and even some deal with Russia. And when every day something new about it appears when you look at it from the point of view of an ordinary American practice, you say, and that this has happened, that the enemies of Russia? Especially if we are talking about what happened, for example, in 2008-2010 year, the Obama administration strongly encourages interaction with Russia and the 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 the administration Trump is very important not to impede objective investigation, strive to ensure that everything that can be found, it has been posted on the table. There are always people who want more. But that in terms of objective standards did not seem that the administration is trying to hide something. But at the same time, if someone is trying to use this situation in order to bring national secrets, the president and his Minister of Justice still have all the power to give instructions to the law enforcement bodies 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.

A source: Expert Online

Author: Petr Skorobogaty

Tags: USA, Trump, Policy, Research, Russia, International Relations, West Interview