Trump Wants to Install a Reliable Mouthpiece on Russia at the CIA

Tom Cotton, whom Trump reportedly aims to put in charge of the agency, has taken the president’s line in denying the Russia scandal.

America - United States President President J. Donald Trump makes an announcement with Senator Tom Cotton on August 2, 2017.Zach Gibson/CNP via Zuma Wire

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The White House is considering replacing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with Central Intelligence Agency Director Mike Pompeo and giving Pompeo’s job to Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, the New York Times reports. In Cotton, who reportedly wants the CIA job, President Donald Trump would install at the intelligence agency one of the most vocal supporters of his efforts to dismiss the Trump campaign’s suspected collaboration with the Kremlin in an effort to interfere in the 2016 election.

Trump has frequently clashed with the intelligence community, which concluded that Russia was behind various efforts to meddle in the election. The president has dismissed these findings and continually cast doubt on Russian involvement. Cotton has repeatedly leapt to defend Trump administration officials over their contacts with Russians.

After the Washington Post reported in March that Attorney General Sessions had made false statements under oath in testifying that he had had no contacts with Russian officials during the presidential campaign, Cotton took aim at Democrats who criticized Sessions. He pretended that Democrats had faulted Sessions for holding the meetings rather than for offering inaccurate testimony. ā€œThereā€™s no scandal in a senator meeting an ambassador, which happens all the time,ā€ Cotton said. “I’m disappointed the Democrats are distorting the facts to impugn Attorney General Sessions’s character.”

When news emerged that Trumpā€™s son-in-law and senior aide Jared Kushner had met secretly with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition and attempted to set up a backchannel to communicate with the Kremlin, Cotton defended Kushner. ā€œThat is a very normal activity during any kind of transition,” Cotton told CNN in April, ignoring Kushnerā€™s failure to disclose the meeting and other contacts with Russian officials in his application for a security clearance. ā€œAmbassadors and foreign ministers and heads of states from across the world, of course, are reaching out to try to a contact a president-elect and his close advisers.”

Cotton broadened his defense to cover undisclosed meetings involving other Trump aides, such as former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was fired for lying about his contacts with Kislyak. ā€œThe simple fact that Trump advisers were meeting with foreign officials during the transition does not to me raise any concern whatsoever, whether they’re Russian or Chinese or from any other country,ā€ Cotton said.

Russians emissaries who communicated with the Trump campaign and transition officials consistently advocated for the repeal of sanctions imposed by President Barack Obama. Trump has unsuccessfully pushed to roll back those sanctions on Russia and has frequently called for improving relations with Moscow.

But Cotton has pushed the notion that Trump is tougher on Russia than Obama was. ā€œPresident Trump has appointed members to his Cabinet, and they’ve made deliberate statements that have been tougher on Russia than anything President Obama ever did,ā€ Cotton said in March on Fox News. Cotton argued that Obamaā€™s efforts to curtail growth in defense spending, his nuclear deal with Iran, and his administration’s regulation of oil and gas development amounted to a ā€œpro-Russiaā€ policy. ā€œThatā€™s not Donald Trumpā€™s policy,ā€ Cotton said.

In the same interview, Cotton disputed a New York Times report that Trump associates were being investigated for repeated and extensive contacts with Russian intelligence officials. ā€œYou should not trust media sources or media reports based on anonymous sources,ā€ Cotton said. The Times report has been largely validated by subsequent developments, including the guilty plea of Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos, congressional testimony of campaign adviser Carter Page, and revelations that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had maintained communications with a Russian oligarch close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Cotton has also disputed evidence of Trumpā€™s efforts to derail the FBIā€™s investigation into his aides. Cotton dismissed memos by fired FBI Director James Comey, which described Trumpā€™s pressure on Comey to stop investigating Flynn, as unreliable. ā€œThe accounts of these memos he allegedly wrote would be at least triple hearsay: what Donald Trump said, according to Jim Comey, according to someone who saw the memo, according to the New York Times reporter who had it read to him, didnā€™t even read it,ā€ Cotton said on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

Cotton has even suggested that the so-called Steele dossier, a set of memos by a former British intelligence agent detailing Russian efforts to obtain influence over Trump and his associates, could have been funded by “Russian intelligence.” Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele to research Trump’s Russia ties, was paid by a conservative publication and later by Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the research. The company had previously worked for a law firm that represented a holding company owned by a Russian billionaire. Cotton’s conflation of the firm’s clients was part of an effort by Trump backers to confuse the origin of Steele’s findings, which the FBI and former Obama administration officials reportedly found mostly credible.

Rejection of the intelligence community’s conclusions might be standard operating procedure for Trump partisans. It would take on a different significance coming from the head of the CIA.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate