My ears feel a little battered. I’m hearing some really creative contentions to explain away the Trumpian predilection for working with Russians.
“The story isn’t important because the American people are more concerned with jobs and employment.”
Whether the Russian assault on American democracy is important or not isn’t a popularity contest. For example, just because Gallup polling indicates that only 1% of US respondents cite income inequality as a major issue in the United States this doesn’t mean the issue isn’t important or that it doesn’t have economic ramifications far beyond the current ‘click level’of interest.
The story isn’t important because it’s just about opposition research and everyone does that.
Please. The rejoinder to this should be what Mom said when we tried to explain why we engaged in some ridiculous junior high prank that went south immediately: “Just because they did it doesn’t make it right for you to do it.” Additionally, campaigns DO NOT enlist the support of foreign nations, much less adversarial foreign nations, to assist with opposition research. But, but, but, sputter the surrogates, what about Clinton and Ukraine!? That’s been debunked. One of my favorite surrogate sputters is to enunciate a list of Presidents who have “colluded” without offering any explanation or specifics whatsoever. It’s meaningless drivel of the first water.
Yes, everyone’s campaign does opposition research, and if the campaign is run professionally the first order of business is to do opposition research on your own candidate on the theory that it’s always better to know what’s out there before the charges come flying at the campaign. Secondly, opposition research requires careful screening for toxic plants (stories which if repeated by the candidate will turn out to be false and the candidate looks like a dupe) and Tin Foil Hat Territory Residents (I saw candidate X’s campaign person at the airport feeding the geese so they would fly into jet engines and kill people.) These need to be screened out immediately.
So, if candidate Y says, “I don’t see anything wrong with taking opposition research from a foreign adversary, everyone does it,” then what that person is saying is “I have NO scruples about accepting help from absolutely anyone if it will help me get elected.” Michael Gerson’s point is on target: “faith that makes losing a sin will make cheating a sacrament.” I’d prefer to vote for a candidate who at least professes to have a few scruples.
“There was no collusion.” Or, There was a meeting but it wasnt’ collusion. Or, there was collusion but there was no conspiracy. Or, there was a meeting but nothing came of it.”
Spare me the moving goal posts. I’m waiting for the day when some surrogate states with all due profundity that while there might have been a series of meetings and assistance was offered and received, it didn’t meet the elements of 18 US Code 1030 on fraud and related activities in connection with computers.
“I don’t know why the media is spending so much time on this when we have issues like tax reform, infrastructure investments, and…. which are of greater importance.”
The last time I looked the American public was perfectly capable of multi-tasking. Not only can we “walk and chew gum,” I have seen professional basketball players making some noteworthy plays on the court while chewing on their mouth guards. Besides which, is there some story of more significance than that of a foreign adversary attacking the very foundations of our democratic processes? Maybe we aren’t spending enough time talking about whether or not our state and local election officials have the technology and personnel they need to ward off such nefarious assaults in our next elections? Do we have enough public knowledge of exactly how many states and localities were “hacked” in some way, and how they have reacted to the assaults? Do we have enough information about “disinformation” campaigns and how social media might have been used to target groups of voters? The focus of this story will need to expand to incorporate not only how a particular campaign may have utilized foreign incursions, but also the nature and elements of election interference which may have taken place, and how disinformation and misinformation were ‘weaponized.’ In short, we actually need more information about this topic, and definitely not less.
We all just need to wait until the Mueller investigation report is made public.
No, we can talk about the general subject well before the investigation is completed, especially as it concerns the last two subtopics mentioned above. The Mueller probe is focused retrospectively — what happened in 2016? However, as noted previously there are some policy decisions to be considered, and the sooner the better. (1) How and with what technology will we conduct our elections? (2) How and with what level of scrutiny will we analyze and evaluate the use of media, and social media, in our political processes?
What’s all the fuss about? There are important things we should do in conjunction with Russia?
Like fighting “terrorism?” What’s “un-terroristic” about one nation attacking the political institutions of another? One of the more blatant semantic blunders from the Surrogati came in the suggestion that there are ways we can “collaborate” with the Russians. There’s nothing quite like revisiting a term closely associated with the ill-fated British government under Neville Chamberlain in the context of this topic. No, the Nazis weren’t going to be happy with just the Sudetenland any more than the Russians will be satisfied with initial poking around in our lists of registered voters?
Meanwhile, we should be demanding MORE information not less, and more discussion of policy related matters not merely the explication of singular strands of Russian assaults on our politics and institutions.