On Monday, an unsealed indictment revealed President Trump's former foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, was charged with making false statements to federal agents and impeding the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Because federal investigations like Special Counsel Robert Mueller's tend to work inwards towards central figures, Papadopoulos' indictment is particularly of note because it includes references to other yet-unnamed campaign aides who were involved in conversations with Kremlin agents.
The timeline begins in early March 2016, when Papadopoulos signed on as a Trump campaign adviser. "Based on a conversation that took place on or about March 6, 2016, with a supervisory campaign official (the 'campaign supervisor'), defendant Papadopoulos understood that a principal foreign policy focus of the campaign was an improved U.S. relationship with Russia," the charges claim.
Later, after being offered "dirt" on Hillary Clinton by a character referred to as "the Professor," Papadopoulos emailed a "senior policy adviser" to say that there were "some interesting messages coming in from Moscow about a trip when the time is right." Then, in conversation between Papadopoulos and another "high-ranking campaign official," Papadopoulos wrote: "Russia has been eager to meet Mr. Trump for quite sometime and have been reaching out to me to discuss."
The official forwarded Papadopoulos' email to another unnamed campaign official and wrote: "Let's discuss. We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign as not to send any signal."
Another passage claims Papadopoulos attempted to arrange an "off the record" meeting between at least one campaign representative and "members of President Putin's office and the [Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs]." Papadopoulos also sent an email with the subject line "New message from Russia" to a high-ranking official.
Papadopoulos was arrested in July 2017 and has reportedly been cooperating with the FBI. Jeva Lange
The second and final presidential debate was supposed to have a section devoted to national security, and perhaps that's what a few unilluminating questions about North Korea and foreign election meddling were intended to be. Or perhaps, as I first assumed given the topical order, that section was cut for time. Either way, this bare minimum of attention to foreign policy is inexcusable for an examination of the two candidates running to be commander-in-chief in a country addicted to perpetual war.
Our Constitution assigns power to initiate military conflict to Congress, and Congress, as a matter of habit, does its best to abdicate that responsibility in favor of unaccountable executive war-making. The Constitution also gives the president authority to prosecute wars already underway. As it happens, we have several.
The war in Afghanistan is our nation's longest ever, now in its 19th year and long since lost to any sort of American "victory." It was given no substantive attention tonight, nor was it discussed in the first debate.
The war in Iraq was also not addressed. That failed regime change project has cost us about $2 trillion, created the power vacuum that led to the rise of the Islamic State, and has a civilian death toll estimated in the hundreds of thousands. Too boring for a debate, perhaps?
Yemen, where the United States is enabling the world's worst humanitarian crisis, was ignored. So too recent (and in some cases ongoing) U.S. military interventions in Syria, Libya, Somalia, and more than two dozen locations in North and Sub-Saharan Africa.
These are literally matters of war and peace, life and death. They are also matters in which one of these men soon will have considerable discretion to leave or stay the course of two decades of inhumane and counterproductive foreign policy. That discretion requires interrogation. It didn't get it tonight. Bonnie Kristian
The best thing about Thursday night's presidential debate is that it probably didn't leave millions of Americans wanting to take a shower, despairing for the future of democracy.
That is a low bar, of course, but one set by the historically atrocious first encounter between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, which was marred by the president's interruptions and rudeness to both Biden and Chris Wallace, the moderator. Afterward, a number of observers begged the Commission on Presidential Debates to shut down the remaining debates altogether.
The commission persisted, albeit with some stiffer rules enforcement. And Trump was on something mostly resembling his best behavior Thursday night. Was it the mute button? Was the president chastened? Perhaps Kristen Welker was simply a more effective moderator? Who can tell? But the change was good for viewers, at the very least.
The notion of civility has taken a big hit the last few years. Partisans on both sides increasingly seem to believe their opponents aren't worthy of the courtesy. But civility — even if it is enforced rather than freely practiced — certainly has its uses in some contexts. A presidential debate is one of them.
Oh, President Trump lied just about as much as he ever does. One hopes that viewers didn't just accept either candidate's assertions on Thursday, but that they'll consult reputable fact-checkers and news organizations to get a sense of the truth. The calmer tone, though, gave viewers a chance to actually hear from each candidate and get a better sense of their priorities and policies. That's not nothing.
It's still reasonable to question whether debates are the best way to help voters weigh their choices. But if we're going to have them, it's much better when everybody takes their turn and lets others speak. Joel Mathis