Jake Sullivan, Cold Blooded Liar or Weak Politician?

I saw an interview with Jake Sullivan on TV yesterday ("Meet the Press", I believe).  I was impressed by his ability to lie seriously and seemingly sincerely.  Just as he did in blaming Putin for the Nord Stream pipeline bombing, he doubled down on Russia/Putin having sabotaged the U.S. elections in 2016 and 2020.  Of course, we know that Russia did nothing of the sort.  Sullivan, most of all, must know since he was at the center of some of the erroneous claims:

That brings us to Sullivan.

As soon as the conspiracy theory was packaged and delivered to the FBI and the media by Sussman, the indictment recounts an exchange between some of those “VIPs”: “… on or about September 15, 2016, Campaign Lawyer-1 exchanged emails with the Clinton Campaign’s campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy advisor concerning the Russian Bank-1 allegations that SUSSMANN had recently shared with Reporter-1.” The campaign lawyer reportedly was Elias, and the “foreign policy advisor” reportedly was Sullivan.

Sullivan was quoted in an official campaign press statement as stating that the Alfa Bank allegation “could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.” In the statement, Sullivan said: “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia … This line of communication may help explain Trump’s bizarre adoration of Vladimir Putin.”

The U.S. intelligence community ultimately rejected the Alfa Bank conspiracy. It also concluded that the Steele dossier not only relied on a suspected Russian agent but likely was used by Russian intelligence to spread disinformation through the Clinton campaign.

Yet, when Sullivan was later questioned by Congress, he went full Sergeant Schultz, claiming he basically did not have a clue about the basis or origins of the Alfa Bank controversy or other campaign-orchestrated scandals. Sullivan was adept at laying qualifiers upon qualifiers to render statements useless: “broadly speaking, at some point in the summer, and I don’t remember exactly when it was, around the convention, I learned that there was an effort to do some research into the ties between Trump and Russia.” That will make any false statement claim difficult absent direct involvement in the planning of these “campaign efforts.”

Sullivan denied knowing that Elias or Sussman were working for the Clinton campaign, despite numerous news articles identifying Elias as the campaign’s general counsel. Sullivan just shrugged and said: “To be honest with you, Marc wears a tremendous number of hats, so I wasn’t sure who he was representing. I sort of thought he was, you know, just talking to us as, you know, a fellow traveler in this — in this campaign effort.”

That seems odd, given Sullivan’s long, close involvement with Clinton and her campaigns. He advised her during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and later became her deputy chief of staff and policy planning director at the State Department. He was one of the notable names in Clinton’s email scandal and the recipient of her controversial order to strip the classification headings on a key email.  He later rejoined Clinton again during the 2016 campaign as one of her senior-most advisers.

Yet, the lack of disclosure over those behind the “campaign effort” seems suspiciously consistent. Sussman was indicted for allegedly hiding his representation of Clinton in pushing the Alfa Bank conspiracy. Elias was accused of doing the same with reporters on the Steele Dossier. He also reportedly sat next to campaign chair John Podesta when he denied such connections to Congress. Now Sullivan denies any knowledge of the campaign’s early role in these scandals.

It is notable that, when Sullivan was the Clinton campaign’s foreign policy adviser, President Obama was given a national security briefing of Clinton’s alleged plan to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” That briefing was on July 28, 2016 — three days before the Russia investigation was initiated.

Upon reflection, it seems to me that Sullivan is not particularly unique within the United States political establishment.  He lies routinely and matter of factly about the most important issues because everybody does and everybody gets away with it.  Meanwhile, the country is hopelessly divided.  Whatever Trump's faults, he's not wrong about the Democrats.  Should we be surprised about the state of our democracy? 

Mocking "Putin's Unprovoked War"

 "Our democracy" has distinct Fascist characteristics, two of which can be found in the phrase "Putin's Unprovoked War", which has been routinely used by the New York Times to characterize the Ukraine/NATO Russia.  

• Demonizes enemy ("Putin", in this case)

• Big lie ("unprovoked")

Sunday (2/25/2024), the New York Times unashamedly published The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin, with the subtitle: For more than a decade, the United States has nurtured a secret intelligence partnership with Ukraine that is now critical for both countries in countering Russia.

The C.I.A.’s partnership in Ukraine can be traced back to two phone calls on the night of Feb. 24, 2014… The government’s new spy chief… went to an office and called the C.I.A. station chief and the local head of MI6. It was near midnight but he summoned them to the building, asked for help in rebuilding the agency from the ground up, and proposed a three-way partnership. “That’s how it all started,” Mr. Nalyvaichenko said… a C.I.A. supported network of spy bases constructed in the past eight years that includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border… Around 2016, the C.I.A. began training an elite Ukrainian commando force — known as Unit 2245 — which captured Russian drones and communications gear so that C.I.A. technicians could reverse-engineer them and crack Moscow’s encryption systems. (One officer in the unit was Kyrylo Budanov, now the general leading Ukraine’s military intelligence.)  And the C.I.A. also helped train a new generation of Ukrainian spies who operated inside Russia, across Europe, and in Cuba and other places where the Russians have a large presence.

See also How Monsters Who Beat Jews To Death in 1944 Became America’s Favorite “Freedom Fighters” in 1945.

As Hannah Arendt said in The Origins of Totalitarianism: 

In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.

Our leaders, including the mainstream media, lie gratuitously and carelessly.  We've been in an open proxy war with Russia for 2 years, and now the NY Times casually announces that there has been an active spy war going on since 2014, involving secret bases along the Ukraine/Russia border, spies inside Russia, and commando forces.  What kind of democracy is this where the voters know nothing about the most important facts underlying our march to war?  Informing the voters is an afterthought, delivered by the same news outlet that has consistently delivered the big lies.