Mattis quits, says his views aren’t ‘aligned’ with Trump’s
By Jeremy Diamond and Barbara Starr, CNN
Updated 6:22 PM EST, Thu December 20, 2018
article video
Washington (CNN) Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned Thursday on the heels of President Donald Trump’s plans to withdraw troops from Syria, citing irreconcilable policy differences in a move that took Washington by surprise.
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position,” Mattis wrote in his letter to the President.
Mattis’ resignation letter amounts to a rebuke of several of Trump’s foreign policy views, with the outgoing defense secretary touting the importance of US alliances and of being “unambiguous” in approaching adversaries like Russia and China. It is devoid of any praise for the President.
In Syria withdrawal, Trump discards advice from allies and officials
In Syria withdrawal, Trump discards advice from allies and officials
The news emerged at a chaotic moment in Trump’s presidency: The US government is teetering on the edge of a government shutdown, the Trump administration is about to face the hot light of Democratic investigations and the President is grappling with the fallout of a series of firings and resignations. Trump, seeking to downplay the news, stepped out in front of the resignation, spinning Mattis’ resignation as a retirement.
Mattis did not explicitly cite his opposition to the President’s planned withdrawal of US troops in Syria – which caught US allies off guard – but the retired four-star general was privately adamant in urging Trump against the pullback.
It was just the latest issue on which Mattis has sought to position himself as a bulwark against some of the President’s rashest decisions, but his relationship with the President has grown increasingly fractured in recent months and Mattis’ efforts to deter Trump on key issues less influential.
In his letter, Mattis pointedly stated that the strength of the US depends in part on the strength of its alliances around the globe, many of which have become notably frayed under Trump.
“One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies,” he added.
How it happened
Mattis met with Trump one-on-one in the Oval Office, a senior White House official told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. Mattis told Trump he was going to be leaving and offered his resignation letter.
“They had differences on some issues,” the official said, but couldn’t say if it was over Syria. “Just over the course of the last couple of months,” this person added.
Trump first announced Mattis’ departure in a tweet.
“General Jim Mattis will be retiring, with distinction, at the end of February, after having served my Administration as Secretary of Defense for the past two years,” Trump tweeted.
Trump touted the “tremendous progress” that has been made during Mattis’ tenure at the helm of the Defense Department and thanked Mattis for his service.
Trump said a successor “will be named shortly.”
Mattis and the President’s other top national security advisers opposed Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria.
View on CNN
© 2018 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
And reactions, including bipartisan republicans:
Shaken, saddened, scared: Washington erupts over Mattis resignation
By Nicole Gaouette, CNN
Updated 11:34 PM EST, Thu December 20, 2018
Washington (CNN) Shaken, disappointed, saddened and scared – those were just some of the reactions in a bipartisan outpouring of shock and concern as lawmakers reacted Thursday to the news that Defense Secretary James Mattis had resigned over President Donald Trump’s policy decisions.
“Just read Gen. Mattis resignation letter,” Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida tweeted. “It makes it abundantly clear that we are headed towards a series of grave policy errors which will endanger our nation, damage our alliances & empower our adversaries.”
“This chaos,” Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich said on Twitter, “both foreign and domestic, is putting America in danger and must stop immediately.”
RELATED: Mattis quits, says his views aren’t ‘aligned’ with Trump’s
At the Pentagon, military officers and civilian officials expressed dismay at the news, but the overriding sentiment was shock. “People are stunned,” CNN’s Ryan Browne reported.
‘The wheels may be coming off’
“This is scary,” tweeted Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Secretary Mattis has been an island of stability amidst the chaos of the Trump administration.”
News of Mattis’ resignation broke as Trump faced an imminent government shutdown, the Dow had plunged more than 1,200 points since Monday and the President was being blasted for foreign policy decisions. On Wednesday, Trump had announced that the US will pull its troops from Syria because “we have defeated ISIS,” and earlier Thursday, CNN’s Jake Tapper reported that officials throughout the administration were bracing themselves for Trump to make an announcement about the US presence in Afghanistan.
US military ordered to begin planning to withdraw about half the troops in Afghanistan
“The wheels may be coming off,” said a conservative House Republican who supports Trump, commenting on the news about Mattis’ departure at the end of February.
Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal said that “the kind of leadership that causes a dedicated patriot like Jim Mattis to leave should give pause to every American.”
Former CIA Director Leon Panetta simply sounded furious. “The last damn thing we need is more chaos and crisis,” Panetta told CNN’s Erin Burnett.
“This is a President who operates somehow by his gut instinct and how he reads the politics of the moment,” Panetta said.
“He enjoys chaos” because he believes it brings him more attention, “but a steady diet of chaos creates hell for the American people,” Panetta continued. “We need a president who is going to make the right decisions and provide stability for this country.”
‘Straw that broke the camel’s back’
Mattis said in his resignation letter to Trump that “because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.”
The letter capped months of tension over policy disagreements and amounted to a rebuke of several of Trump’s foreign policy views. The defense secretary stressed the importance of US alliances and of being “unambiguous” in approaching adversaries like Russia and China. It did not contain a whiff of praise for the President.
Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat who’s the incoming chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he believes the President’s decision on Syria was “the straw that broke the camel’s back” for Mattis.
“He couldn’t just go along with it,” Engel said. “How can you continue to work for an administration whose foreign policy is not something that you believe? … How can you keep working for a boss whose policies you don’t believe in?”
Others called, directly and indirectly, for oversight and possibly intervention.
Warner tweeted that “as we’ve seen with the President’s haphazard approach to Syria, our national defense is too important to be subjected to the President’s erratic whims.”
Rubio tweeted, “I hope we who have supported this administrations initiatives over the last two years can persuade the President to choose a different direction. But we must also fulfill our constitutional duty to conduct oversight over the policies of the executive branch.”
Sen. Ben Sasse said it was a “sad day” for America.
“General Mattis was giving advice the President needs to hear,” the Nebraska Republican said in a statement. “Mattis rightly believes that Russia and China are clear adversaries and that we are at war with jihadists across the globe who plot to kill Americans at home. Isolationism is a weak strategy that will harm Americans and America’s allies. Radical Islamic jihadists are still at war with us, and no ISIS is not gone.”
House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry said he was “disappointed” that Mattis is leaving, though he said he wants to write out his thoughts before elaborating.
Asked if he has any interest in the job, the Texas Republican jumped into an elevator and said he “scoffed” at the notion.
Thornberry’s replacement, the incoming chairman of Armed Services, Rep. Adam Smith, said the news of Mattis’ resignation is “very disappointing.”
“He will be missed,” the Washington state Democrat said.
‘There is chaos now’
“I’m sad. I’m shaken by it. I had so much respect for him,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told CNN. Like many, the California Democrat expressed discomfort at Trump’s erratic and impulsive leadership style. Mattis had been a “comfort to many of us as a voice of stability in the Trump administration,” Pelosi told reporters later.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called Mattis “one of the few symbols” of “strength and stability” in the administration. “There is chaos now,” he said.
“This week was one of the most chaotic weeks we’ve ever seen in American government,” the New York Democrat added.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, headlining a town hall in Iowa on Thursday, responded to the news by suggesting that it is now only Trump and his adviser Stephen Miller making decisions together.
“I at least had some peace in knowing there were adults in the room, and now (chief of staff John) Kelly and Mattis are gone,” the California Democrat said, calling the prospect of decisions by Miller and Trump “terrifying.”
He added: “Some of the best hope for order at the White House, those people are leaving.”
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, sometimes seen as a possible candidate for defense secretary, tweeted that he’d learned of the news “with great sadness.”
Graham, a strong Trump supporter who nonetheless opposes the President’s decision to pull out of Syria, continued: “Mattis is a combination of intellect and integrity. He has been in the fight against radical Islam for decades and provided sound and ethical military advice to President Trump.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said late Thursday, in strong comments by his standards: “I believe it’s essential that the United States maintain and strengthen the post-World War II alliances that have been carefully built by leaders in both parties. We must also maintain a clear-eyed understanding of our friends and foes, and recognize that nations like Russia are among the latter. So I was sorry to learn that Secretary Mattis, who shares those clear principles, will soon depart the administration.”
“But I am particularly distressed that he is resigning due to sharp differences with the president on these and other key aspects of America’s global leadership,” the Kentucky Republican said in a statement, “It is regrettable that the president must now choose a new Secretary of Defense. But I urge him to select a leader who shares Secretary Mattis’s understanding of these vital principles and his total commitment to America’s servicemembers.”
CNN’s Manu Raju, Kaitlan Collins, Jim Acosta, Jim Sciutto, Jeremy Herb, Dan Merica and Phil Mattingly contributed to this report
View on CNN
© 2018 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Can anyone feel a strange drift, that’s beginning to show above and beyond politics? If not, then there really is something about the state of mass . denial . The undertow is getting more violent. Lets see how this theatre turns completely absurd.
Example:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican of Kentucky, issued a strong statement following the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis, saying he is “particularly distressed that he is resigning due to sharp differences with the president on these and other key aspects of America’s global leadership.”
Trump lashes out at Whittaker:
Trump lashed out at Whitaker after explosive Cohen revelations
By Laura Jarrett and Pamela Brown, CNN
Updated 8:38 PM EST, Fri December 21, 2018
Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump has at least twice in the past few weeks vented to his acting attorney general, angered by federal prosecutors who referenced the President’s actions in crimes his former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.
Trump was frustrated, the sources said, that prosecutors Matt Whitaker oversees filed charges that made Trump look bad. None of the sources suggested that the President directed Whitaker to stop the investigation, but rather lashed out at what he felt was an unfair situation.
The first known instance took place when Trump made his displeasure clear to acting attorney general Matt Whitaker after Cohen pleaded guilty November 29 to lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower project in Moscow. Whitaker had only been on the job a few weeks following Trump’s firing of Jeff Sessions.
Over a week later, Trump again voiced his anger at Whitaker after prosecutors in Manhattan officially implicated the President in a hush-money scheme to buy the silence of women around the 2016 campaign – something Trump fiercely maintains isn’t an illegal campaign contribution. Pointing to articles he said supported his position, Trump pressed Whitaker on why more wasn’t being done to control prosecutors in New York who brought the charges in the first place, suggesting they were going rogue.
The previously unreported discussions between Trump and Whitaker described by multiple sources familiar with the matter underscore the extent to which the President firmly believes the attorney general of the United States should serve as his personal protector. The episodes also offer a glimpse into the unsettling dynamic of a sitting president talking to his attorney general about investigations he’s potentially implicated in.
Whitaker and William “Bill” Barr, Trump’s nominee to replace Sessions, are facing increased scrutiny this week for their criticisms of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election meddling. Whitaker refused to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller probe. And a memo from Barr came to light in which he wrote that Trump’s decision to fire former FBI director James Comey did not amount to obstruction.
Trump has already shown a willingness to use the Justice Department to settle political scores. As CNN previously reported, the President questioned Whitaker about the progression of the investigation against Hillary Clinton when Whitaker was Jeff Sessions’ chief of staff.
“It seems very clear that the only reason that Matt Whitaker was ever appointed to this role was specifically to oversee the Mueller investigation,” Mueller biographer Garrett Graff said on Friday in an interview on CNN’s Newsroom.
With Sessions, Trump ranted publicly about how he did nothing to curtail the Mueller investigation. Sessions had recused himself from oversight because of his role on the Trump campaign.
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now,” the President tweeted in August.
The Justice Department declined to comment on any discussions between Whitaker and the President.
The President’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, could not confirm the conversations with Whitaker but said the President views the SDNY prosecutors as out of control. “The president and his lawyers are upset about the professional prosecutors in the Southern District of New York going after a non-crime and the innuendo the president was involved,” Giuliani said in a statement to CNN Friday.
One source close to Whitaker pushed back on the notion that the Cohen situation caused tension between the two, emphasizing that Whitaker and the President have a “great relationship.”
View on CNN
© 2018 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Now here is a pitch toward the right:
Fox News
☰
OPINIONPublished December 22, 2018 Last Update 13 hrs ago
Andrew C. McCarthy: What you need to know about the Barr memo and Mueller’s obstruction investigation
Andrew McCarthy By Andrew McCarthy | Fox News
Continue Reading Below
In his capacity as a former U.S. attorney general, William P. Barr, President Bush’s nominee to resume that position, wrote an unsolicited memorandum to top Justice Department officials expressing concerns about the obstruction aspect of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. As I’ve explained at National Review, the Barr memo is a brilliant piece of legal craftsmanship, thoughtfully outlining the damage Mueller’s theory of obstruction – to the extent it is publicly known – could do to the administration of justice and the institution of the presidency.
Barr’s memo was addressed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel, who heads up DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel.
In it, Barr acknowledges that he is not privy to the non-public facts of Mueller’s probe has uncovered. He does not prejudge Mueller’s conclusions or question the legitimacy of his investigation. Indeed, he posits that what Mueller finds on the issue of suspected (but unproven) Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia could be critical to the question whether there could be a legitimate obstruction.
Moreover, Barr does not doubt that a president theoretically could be guilty of obstruction. Citing the Nixon and Clinton precedents, Barr observes that a president who engaged in obstructive conduct as that term has always been understood in American jurisprudence and Justice Department practice – corrupt actions to tamper with witnesses and physical evidence – could certainly be cited for obstruction.
The issue addressed in the memo is Mueller’s expansive theory of obstruction. As Barr understands it, based on public reporting, the special counsel assumes the president’s lawful exercise of his constitutional prerogatives – e.g., to fire subordinate executive officials, to issue pardons, or to weigh in on the merits of an investigation – could be grounds for an obstruction charge if a prosecutor assessed the action to be improperly motivated.
Continue Reading Below
As Barr correctly points out, this interpretation of the law would not only impair the president’s capacity to carry out his Article II duties. It would apply to every subordinate executive official, including Justice Department prosecutors. They would face potential prosecution based on charging decisions they make, the strategic manner in which they guide investigations, the tactics they choose to use or forbear from using, as well as personnel and management decisions.
Moreover, Barr makes an incisive point about cohesion in a free, self-determining society. If a Justice Department investigation is going to be responsible for removing a democratically-elected president, then it must be over a clear, egregious crime. A prosecution based on an aggressive, dubious theory of obstruction, particularly if no underlying “collusion” crime can be proved, would leave much of the nation believing the political class was arbitrarily seeking to oust a president not to its liking.
Coverage of the memo is likely to reignite public debate over Special Counsel Mueller’s request that President Trump submit to an interview. In the memo, which is dated June 8, 2018, Barr argued that “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.” Of course, in the months since the memo was sent to the Justice Department, the president’s lawyers negotiated an agreement with Mueller’s prosecutors, pursuant to which the president provided written answers to various questions, mainly about the “collusion” aspect of the investigation.
Barr’s position on this point is entirely correct. As I’ve contended for months (based on nearly 20 years’ experience as a Justice Department prosecutor), a prosecutor does not get to subpoena the president just because it might be interesting. The president’s duties are unparalleled in their centrality to American governance. Consequently, the Justice Department normally would not permit a prosecutor to divert the president from those duties and attempt to compel him to answer questions in the absence of: (a) a serious crime in which the president is clearly implicated, and (b) the existence of critical evidence or testimony that the prosecutor can only get from the president – i.e., no other source is available.
To argue, as some do, that this puts the president above the law is nonsense. What it means is that a prosecutor does have the power to issue a grand jury subpoena to the president, but only after we’ve balanced competing public interests: the vital interest in enabling the president to tend to his responsibilities, and the important interest in providing essential evidence in the investigation of a serious crime. We do not spare the president, but we heed his weighty duties. The same reasoning undergirds the Justice Department’s long-held guidance that a sitting president may not be indicted – no one is saying a president can never be indicted; we simply do not want the president dealing with criminal process while he is responsible for national security and the execution of the laws.
This is obvious to people when an issue arises about whether a journalist or an attorney should be subpoenaed. Unlike the president, journalists do not have a legally recognized privilege to withhold information; attorneys do have such a privilege, but like executive privilege, it is not absolute – there are important exceptions. In the Justice Department, a prosecutor may not issue a subpoena to a journalist or lawyer as if he or she were just like any other potentially relevant witness. Main Justice instead enforces a rigorous process in which the prosecutor must demonstrate that the evidence is critical to an investigation and there is no other viable source for it. And even upon that showing, the Justice Department would not permit a subpoena to issue if it appeared, under the circumstances, that the constitutional and public interests at stake were not adequately protected.
The presidency is entitled to no less deference. Again, this is not to say that the president should never be subpoenaed in an obstruction investigation – we know from our history that this is not the case. It is to say that the existence of a clear, serious crime in which the president is implicated must be a prerequisite.
Former Attorney General Barr’s memo is an impressive piece of legal craftsmanship. It is not an attack on the Mueller investigation. It is a plea that the Mueller investigation be conducted within the bounds of constitutional law, congressional intent, and venerable Justice Department guidance.
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review. @andrewcmccarthy
Latest resignation :
BBC News
menu
US envoy Brett McGurk quits over Trump Syria pullout
22 December 2018 US & Canada
Share this with Email Share this with Facebook Share this with Twitter Share this with Whatsapp
Image copyright AFP Brett McGurk in Syria in 2017
Image caption Mr McGurk (L) had previously said the US should retain a presence in Syria
A top US official in the fight against the Islamic State group has quit over President Trump’s decision to pull troops from Syria, reports say.
Brett McGurk, the US special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat IS, brought his departure forward from February.
Before Mr Trump’s announcement he had insisted that the US would continue working against IS in Syria.
It follows the resignation of Defence Secretary Jim Mattis on Thursday.
Gen Mattis had also opposed withdrawing troops from Syria as well as reducing the US presence in Afghanistan.
Trump rewrites US Syria policy
After the caliphate: Has IS been defeated?
Who are the Kurds?
Mr McGurk is an experienced diplomat who was appointed to his current role in 2015 under the Obama administration.
In early December he told reporters: “We want to stay on the ground and make sure that stability can be maintained in these areas.”
He went on to say: “It would be reckless if we were just to say, well, the physical caliphate is defeated, so we can just leave now. I think anyone who’s looked at a conflict like this would agree with that.”
What did McGurk say about his resignation?
In his resignation letter, seen by AP news agency, Mr McGurk said that IS militants in Syria were on the run but not yet defeated . He said that withdrawing US forces from Syria would create the conditions that gave rise to IS.
In an email to staff quoted by the New York Times, he said Mr Trump’s decision to pull out troops “came as a shock and was a complete reversal of policy”. It “left our coalition partners confused and our fighting partners bewildered”, he said.
“I ultimately concluded I could not carry out these new instructions and maintain my integrity ,” he went on to say.
What does Trump say?
Mr Trump announced his decision to withdraw some 2,000 US troops from Syria on Wednesday, asserting that IS had been defeated.
He has not yet reacted to Mr McGurk’s resignation.
But on Saturday he continued to insist that the decision to pull out was the right one and that, now that IS was defeated on the ground, other players could take care of the situation.
However, important allies including senior Republicans and foreign powers have disputed the claim and say the move could lead to a resurgence of IS.
A Kurdish-led alliance, the Syria Democratic Forces (SDF) has also warned that IS could recover.
US troops have helped rid much of Syria’s north-east of the jihadist group, but pockets of fighters remain.
A recent US report said there were still as many as 14,000 IS militants in Syria and even more in neighbouring Iraq.
What is the US presence in Syria?
US ground troops first became involved in Syria in Autumn 2015 when then President Barack Obama sent in a small number of special forces to train and advise local Kurdish fighters who were fighting IS.
The US did this reluctantly after several attempts at arming anti-IS groups had descended into chaos.
Over the intervening years the numbers of US troops in Syria increased, standing today at some 2,000, though some estimates place the number perhaps even higher.
A network of bases and airstrips has been established in an arc across the north-eastern part of the country.
The US has also been part of an international coalition conducting air strikes against IS and other militants.
Copyright © 2018 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.