Skip to main content

The GOP’s Putin Caucus Steps Into the Spotlight

Just last week I was pointing out the growing rift in the GOP, a rift centered on the open obstruction of aid to Ukraine by what Liz Cheney has famously called the “Putin Wing” of the party. In the last week, the rift has only gotten wider.

What I didn’t elaborate on then, though it’s closely related, was the apparent influence of both Russian money and Russian propaganda on a growing number of Republicans.

This is now out in the open, and more prominent Republicans are going public about it. Several powerful GOP senators, including Thom Tillis and John Cornyn, are known to be not happy about their party’s ties to the Kremlin.

But it’s two GOP House committee chairs who are making the biggest waves. Michael Turner, chair of the Intelligence Committee, and Michael McCaul, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, both made the startling claim that some of their Republican colleagues were echoing Russian propaganda, right on the House floor. They stopped short of calling these people traitors, but I’m happy to.

McCaul started it all in an interview with Julia Ioffe, who asked him, point blank, for examples of “Republicans who parrot Russian propaganda.” He declined to name names, but his answer to the question was nonetheless priceless:

“I mean,” he said, “it’s pretty obvious.”

In other words, if it looks like they’re doing Putin’s bidding, it’s because they’re doing Putin’s bidding. Whether they’re being paid or blackmailed — or whether they’re just useful idiots totally out of their depth — it’s Putin who benefits.

But before we speculate on the more “obvious” members of the Putin Caucus, let’s go back in time a bit, to December of the infamous year 2016.

Donald Trump had just won the election, and the stench of Russian interference was permeating the national conversation.

If you’ll recall, a big part of that conversation concerned the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee — remember Wikileaks? — which exposed thousands of emails to public scrutiny, embarrassing the DNC and leading to the resignation of the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

What we’ve mostly forgotten is that the Russians had, in fact, hacked both parties. In September, a month before the 2016 election, Michael McCaul — yes, the same congressman who last week stated the obvious — told CNN that the Republican National Committee’s servers had also been breached, but that no documents had been leaked.

Within minutes, the RNC issued a statement denying it had been hacked. McCaul subsequently stated that he had “misspoken.”

So it seems they shut him up, but why? And what happened to the Republican side of those hacks? What happened to the information — let’s think of it as GOP dirt — that Russians could now potentially use as leverage?

Definitive answers are elusive, but there is much circumstantial evidence to suggest that more than a few GOP lawmakers have been compromised.

Consider the July 4th weekend of 2018, in the middle of Trump’s presidency. A delegation of eight Republican lawmakers “celebrated” the birth of our nation in, of all places, Moscow. The negative symbolism alone was staggering.

No Democrats were invited, which was, in itself, a flagrant breach of established norms. But then the delegation met behind closed doors — no press allowed — with Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak, two of Putin’s closest cronies.

No account of that meeting has ever been even slightly edifying. We can only make guesses as to what was discussed, what was exchanged, who was leaned on, and why they were invited to Russia in the first place. Or why they would decide to go, bad look and all.

All we know is that there, in Moscow — the world capital of kompromat, kleptocracy, and blackmail — no explanation would be believable anyway.

So we may never know what transpired that day. Just as we may never know what the Russians got from the 2016 hack of the RNC.

But the fallout from both those events seems to have spread, and in the years since they occurred, we’ve seen an inordinate number of prominent Republicans turn uncharacteristically Trumpy.

Blackmail needn’t be the only force at work here. Putin can easily have one of his oligarchs drop five million dollars on every Republican in Congress. Ten, if he likes you. Or fifty.

Regardless, there are now far too many Republicans behaving as if they’ve been bought — whether with money or dirt — and we really need to look at exactly who McCaul means by “obvious.”

Two of the senators in that Moscow delegation — Ron Johnson and John N. Kennedy — come immediately to mind. Both went from shrewd critics of both Trump and Putin to virtual Russian mouthpieces, and they’ve been echoing Kremlin talking points almost verbatim. (This sordid story was told in detail by Greg Olear in 2019, and it has only become more obvious since).

Through most of last year, Sen. TommyTuberville held up promotions in the military high command, using the military’s abortion policy as a flimsy, nonsensical excuse. This threw much of the defense establishment into chaos, even as the Ukraine War continued to rage. Almost as if Putin had planned it that way.

Also last year, Sen. Rand Paul — the same guy who once hand-delivered a letter from Trump to Putin — placed a hold on all ambassadorial appointments until he could get some silly information on Covid he’d been loudly demanding. This left 50 U.S. embassies waiting for Senate approval of new ambassadors. By last October, when the Gaza attacks broke out — a moment when a strong diplomatic corps might have come in handy — the U.S. was still without ambassadors in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and the UAE. Almost as if Putin had planned it that way.

In July of last year, Sen. Chuck Grassley — in another norm-busting move — released the confidential FBI report in which Alexander Smirnov accuses Joe Biden of taking bribes from a Ukrainian oligarch. Smirnov’s evidence, we know now, was wholly fabricated by Russian military intelligence, yet Grassley gave it to James Comer’s bogus impeachment committee, even over FBI objections. They both knew it was fraudulent, but they tried to use it against the Bidens anyway.

The list of “obvious” Russian assets could be longer than we think. To the above names you could add Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, and most of the Freedom Caucus. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t single out “Moscow Marjorie” for special mention.

Ken Buck, one of the Republican congressmen who quit in disgust last month, assigned that nickname to Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose ditsy but seditious public statements have moved her to the front of the GOP’s anti-Ukraine faction. Buck accuses her of getting her talking points directly from Russian propaganda sources.

It’s Moscow Marjorie who is putting the most pressure on the hapless House Speaker, Mike Johnson, to get him to deny a House vote on Ukraine aid. Her “motion to vacate” was a clear shot across Johnson’s bow, and he can’t ignore the possibility that she could trigger his removal at any time, consequences be damned. Marjorie doesn’t do consequences.

Of course, Johnson faces even more pressure from the pro-Ukraine side of his party, who are loudly urging him to bring that vote to the floor, where it would pass easily.

Which could happen, or not happen. This week, or next week. Take your time, Mr. Johnson. It’s only Ukraine — and possibly the free world — hanging in the balance.

But however that plays out, we can be sure Putin’s interests will be well represented.

 

Comments

  1. The irony that these Putinestas are leading an army of flag-waving Americans is not lost on me. Putin must be having a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Whether they’re being paid or blackmailed — or whether they’re just useful idiots totally out of their depth ..."
    Of course it could be all three.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

France and Britain Just Gave the Finger to Fascism

There is now ample evidence that people with democratic systems of government actually like them, and would just as soon keep them, flaws and all. There seems to be a strong backlash occurring in several European countries, a trend toward shoring up democracies threatened by toxic authoritarian forces. In Poland last year, then in France and Britain last week, actual voters — as opposed to deeply compromised opinion polls — gave a big middle finger to the fascists in their midst. I don’t pretend to understand the electoral systems of these countries — let alone their political currents — but I’m struck by the apparent connections between different elections in different countries, and what they might be saying to us. I’ve spoken before of Poland , where ten years of vicious minority rule was overturned at the ballot box. A ban on abortion was the galvanizing issue — sound familiar? — and it brought an overwhelming number of voters to the polls, many for the fir

Don’t Let the New York Times Do Your Thinking

  My father would not live any place where the New York Times couldn’t be delivered before 7:00 a.m. To him, the Times was “the newspaper of record,” the keeper of the first drafts of history. It had the reach and the resources to be anywhere history was being made, and the skills to report it accurately. He trusted it more than any other news source, including Walter Cronkite. Like my dad, I grew to associate the Times with serious journalism, the first place one goes for the straight story. Their news was always assumed to be objectively presented, with the facts front-and-center. Their op-ed writers were well-reasoned and erudite, even when I thought they were full of shit. But there was more. The Times became — for me, at least — a sort of guide to critical thinking. It helped teach me, at an impressionable age, to weigh the facts before forming an opinion. And many of my opinions — including deeply-held ones — were formed around facts I might have read

Democrats, Step Away from the Ledge

  Anxiety comes easily to Democrats. We’re highly practiced at perceiving a crisis, wanting to fix it immediately, and being consistently frustrated when we can’t. Democrats understand consequences, which is why we always have plenty to worry about. Republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about consequences — which is, let’s face it, their superpower. I wasn’t intending to write about last Thursday’s debate, mostly because I post on Tuesdays, and this could be old news by the time it gets to you. But then the New York Times weighed in with a wildly disingenuous editorial calling for Joe Biden to drop out of the race, and the rest of the mainstream media piled on. In the Times' not-so-humble opinion, Biden needs to consider “the good of the country,” something their own paper has repeatedly failed to do for almost a decade. And since this is now the crisis du jour for virtually every Democrat who watched that shitshow, I thought I might at l