By Jonathan S. Tobin
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
No matter how the White House tries to spin the testimony
of FBI director James Comey to the House Intelligence Committee on Monday, the
damage can’t be denied. Though it merely confirmed what everyone already knew,
Comey’s statement that an investigation into possible collusion between the Russians
and the Trump campaign has been going on since last summer provides ammunition
for the president’s critics. Even more than Comey’s willingness to add his
voice to those officials who have dismissed the president’s foolish tweets
about the alleged wiretapping of Trump Tower, the FBI inquiry gives a measure
of credence to the conspiracy theories about Russia that liberals have been
using to undermine the president.
The probe may find absolutely nothing that justifies the
suspicions. Indeed, given that the government sources that leaked the first
information about surveillance of Trump-campaign figures to the New York Times admitted they had found
no evidence to back up the charge of collusion, it is entirely likely that the
FBI effort will eventually come up empty. But the existence of the probe is
enough to cast a shadow over a presidency that is already floundering because
of the president’s self-inflicted wounds and the chaos engendered by the palace
intrigue that has engulfed the White House.
But despite the seriousness of the administration’s
predicament, it is still worthwhile pointing out that one key element of the
Democratic narrative about Trump and Russia is still utter nonsense. The notion
that Russian efforts succeeded in stealing the presidential election from
Hillary Clinton has no basis in fact.
As both Comey and Admiral Michael Rogers of the National
Security Agency affirmed, there is no doubt that the Russians undertook
activities designed to undermine faith in American democracy. It is equally
true that the Putin regime preferred to see Trump rather than Clinton elected
president of the United States. But the notion that these dots must somehow
connect in a plot between Trump and Putin to steal the election requires faith
in the sort of discredited claims (such as the Steele dossier) and conspiracy
theories that Democrats laughed at when they were put forward by the far Right
against Obama.
Yet Democrats are making progress toward achieving a more
realistic goal: casting doubt on the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency by
claiming, as almost all Democratic members asserted during the Comey hearing,
that it was Putin’s intervention that put him over the top.
As with the collusion scenarios, there is a certain
superficial logic to that assertion. Since Trump won a majority of Electoral
College votes by virtue of some close victories in swing states — a mere 80,000
votes flipped from Trump to Clinton in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin
would have handed her the presidency — it’s possible to claim that any one of a
number of factors proved decisive. But even if we concede that to be true, the
idea that the Russians were one such factor requires not merely a leap of
imagination but a case of amnesia about events that took place only a few
months ago.
When Democrats speak of Russian intervention working to
defeat Clinton, they are referring to only one thing: the WikiLeaks documents
dump. If the Russians did try to hack into the vote counts or to actively
sabotage Democratic campaign work, including the Clinton camp’s sophisticated
get-out-the-vote and micro-targeting efforts, they failed. But they were able
to purloin the e-mails of the Democratic National Committee and
Clinton-campaign chairman John Podesta.
The release of those e-mails was embarrassing, but
Democrats forget that there was very little in any of them that was directly
tied to Clinton. We learned that DNC chairwoman Representative Debbie Wasserman
Shultz did her best to help Clinton against the Bernie Sanders insurgency, a
revelation that cost the Florida congresswoman her job. We also found out a lot
about what Podesta thought about the rest of the Clinton-campaign staff, which,
no doubt, created a lot of ill feeling among the cast of thousands working at
Hillary’s lavish Brooklyn headquarters. But does anyone seriously believe this
changed any votes in November? Were the white working-class voters of the Rust
Belt states who unexpectedly tipped the election to Trump so disillusioned by
anything Podesta or Wasserman Schultz did that they abandoned the Democrats?
No.
The WikiLeaks documents that did impact Clinton directly
were those that revealed the transcripts of some of her Goldman Sachs speeches.
One such document made it clear that the Democratic candidate was friendlier to
Wall Street than she claimed to be when competing with Sanders for liberal
votes in the primaries. But even taking that into account, does anyone in the
Clinton camp really think voters didn’t already know that their candidate had
spent many years cultivating her Wall Street donors?
If voters didn’t trust Clinton, it was not because of
anything WikiLeaks revealed but was rather the result of the Democrat’s
unwillingness to tell the truth — or even keep her story straight — about her
e-mail scandal or claim that the terror attack on the American consulate in
Benghazi was the work of angry film critics. It was not WikiLeaks that gave her
a reputation for mendacity but rather the revelations in Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash and subsequent follow-ups
by the New York Times and Washington Post about the conflicts of
interest involving Clinton Foundation donors and her work at the State
Department.
More importantly, it must also be remembered that the
stories about WikiLeaks document dumps were repeatedly overshadowed by Trump’s
scandals. In particular, the publication of Podesta’s e-mails were almost
immediately overshadowed by the discovery days later of the Entertainment Tonight video in which
Trump was heard to boast of behavior that amounted to sexual assault. Nothing
that WikiLeaks put out got a fraction of the coverage during the campaign as
that video did. The same can be said for the way Trump’s insult of a Gold Star
family knocked earlier WikiLeaks dumps out of the news.
Why did Clinton lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Wisconsin when all three states were assumed to be in her column? Perhaps her
failure to prioritize campaign visits in these states was decisive? Or maybe it
was just her failure to put forward a coherent economic message? Or perhaps the
problem was the Democrats’ obsession with identity politics alienated part of
their old working-class base. Then there is the fact that Clinton was a
terrible candidate. And, though liberals and even many conservatives are loath
to admit it, Trump’s ability to energize his base in a way more-qualified
Republicans had failed to do in the previous two presidential cycles was a
factor that almost all pundits underestimated.
But of all the possible factors, the notion that Russian
hacking of John Podesta’s e-mails was the real reason for Trump’s astonishing
victory requires a suspension of disbelief that goes beyond blind partisanship.
Whatever the Russians did or didn’t do, Hillary Clinton
lost and Donald Trump won the 2016 election on their own. Congress and the FBI
do well to investigate what the Russians were up to last year. But claims that
they stole the election are the laments of sore losers, not the product of
rational analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment