By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, July 14, 2017
Well, I jinxed it.
On Tuesday morning, I posted this mini-screed about how
nobody knows anything about the Russia-collusion story, so the best course of
action is to just wait for the facts to come in.
“Trust Nothing, Defend Nothing” was my advice.
(I wanted to turn this into a Latin slogan, but when I
typed “Trust Nothing, Defend Nothing” into Google’s Latin translation
thingamabob I got “Nihil confido, nihil pupillo defendite viduam.” This looked
fishy to me so I translated that back into English and got: “I trust there is
nothing, there is nothing, for the fatherless, plead for the widow.” This seems
either like World War II code for “We’re invading Belgium on Wednesday” or the
sign-language subtitles from Charlie Rose’s interview of Paco, the chain-smoking
existentialist gorilla).
Anyway, where was I? Right: “Trust Nothing, Defend
Nothing.”
This was bipartisan advice. On the one hand, the media
get lots of stuff wrong and get way ahead of the facts. So, we should give
Donald Trump some benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, the Trump White
House lies like a randy sailor with eight hours of shore leave and not enough
money for a professional “date.”
But the lying really isn’t the problem. Sometimes the
Trump team tells the truth. Sometimes it buries the kernels of truth in the
larger nougat of B.S. The problem is that Trump and his people can’t stay on
message, whether it’s true or false. President Trump just doesn’t care if he
makes his surrogates, including members of his cabinet and family, look like
chumps. Allow myself to repeat myself:
If there is one thing we’ve learned
from this president, it’s that going too far out on a limb brings out the saw.
Poor Steve Mnuchin. He went out on Sunday and heaped praise on this joint
US-Russia Cyber Fox Force Five idea that the president blurted out on Twitter.
Within a few hours, Trump left Mnuchin out to dry. It happens again and again.
And again, and again, and again.
Shortly after I said, “wait and see because we don’t know
anything yet,” we suddenly got some new information. Donald Trump Jr. released
his e-mail chain about a meeting with a Russian lawyer. In this exchange, Rob
Goldstone, who looks like he could land a great role in a Guy Ritchie remake of
Boogie Nights, says:
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met
with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the
Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to
your father.
This is obviously very high level
and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support
for Mr. Trump — helped along by Aras and Emin.
I know everyone knows this stuff already. But I really
want to make a few interrelated points.
Coerced
Transparency
First, according to Team Trump, this was a bold and
laudable act of “transparency.”
Um. No. This transparency “argument” is like a dye-marker
to see who is intellectually serious and who is part of the great Trump
Aqueduct, carrying water for the president wherever and whenever he needs it.
Junior released his e-mail chain minutes before the New York Times could publish it. This is like “bravely” admitting
to your wife that you cheated on her seconds before she opens the blackmailer’s
envelope containing the 8×10 glossies of you at the Motel 6 with a troupe of
dwarf “acrobats” using you like a pommel horse.
Heading off the Times
was smarter than the alternative, just as telling your wife about your time
with the cast of Le Petite Cirque du
Solei before the blackmailers get to her is better than the alternative.
But after spending the better part of a year denying any contact whatsoever with the Russians and lying so baldly about
this meeting, it takes a Costco pallet full of chutzpah to claim the mantle of
transparency.
This, of course, is all the more true now that it’s being
reported that Junior wasn’t being transparent while he was bragging about his
transparency. This morning, news came out that some sketchy former Soviet
counter-intelligence officer was also in the room. (What are the odds he
recorded the conversation, by the way? I’d say they’re pretty high.)
The Room Where It
Happened
Second, this underscores a point I’ve been shouting at
the TV all week: Why the Hell are people taking the word of anyone in that meeting
as proof of anything? Before this morning’s revelation, even members of the
Trump-hostile press repeated that “nothing came of the meeting” or that “no
information was given.” On the Trump Aqueduct, this was translated into the
whole story being a “nothingburger.”
Where did the proof of this come from? From the people in the room! Jiminy
Cricket, that’s stupid.
It may be true that nothing came of the meeting. Heck, I
think it probably is true (more on that in a moment). Junior seems plausible
when he says as much. But every single person who was in that room has a very
strong incentive to say nothing nefarious happened in the room. Well, when the
Soprano crew is jointing a corpse in the backroom of Satriale’s, everyone there
has a vested interest in sticking to the story that they were just playing
cards.
Who in that room do you think is above lying about what
transpired there? Paul Manafort? Forget his deep Russian connections. The guy
was a lobbyist for Mobutu Seske Seko. When he worked for the Pakistani
intelligence service, he pretended to be a CNN reporter for a propaganda
documentary he was making for them. The only way you could say “that man’s word
is oak” is if Jell-O came out with a new oak-flavored pudding. (“Now with real
bark!”)
Jared? The guy who initially “forgot” that meeting
happened at all?
Don Jr.? We already know he’s capable of lying about the
meeting because he’s already lied about the meeting.
Oh, maybe you’re taking the word of the sketchy Russian
lawyer. That’s a great idea. It’s also kind of hilarious. Many of the people
pushing back on this story are doing so by questioning Natalia Veselnitskaya’s
credibility. But we should take her word that nothing happened? Cults of
personality are a helluva drug.
[While I was editing the galley of this “news”letter, the
Associated Press reported that the sketchy former Soviet counter-intelligence
guy, Rinat Akhmetshin, who was in the room claims that Veselnitskaya did indeed
hand over a file of incriminating info. I guess this is just a smudge on the
window of Junior’s transparency.]
Admission as
Exoneration
Which brings me to point No. 3. It doesn’t frick’n matter
if — note the “if” — nothing came of the meeting. Junior can’t claim he,
Manafort, and Kushner never sought to collude with the Russian government when
he admits that he, Manafort, and Kushner eagerly took a meeting for the express
purpose of colluding with Russia. This is like one of those episodes of Dateline’s “To Catch a Predator” where
some sleazebag is catfished into having a “date” with a 13-year-old girl only
to show up and find Chris Hansen waiting in the kitchen with a transcript of
their conversations. At least those scumbags had the “integrity” to lie and say
it was all a misunderstanding and that they were just there because they really
like hanging out and watching MTV and eating ice cream. “We had a lot in
common! I thought we could be friends!”
I don’t recall any of them saying, “Hey, I didn’t do
anything wrong because I didn’t actually get a chance to rape her.”
If you break into a bank, you can’t claim you did nothing
wrong if the safe turns out to be empty any more than a terrorist can plead
innocence if his bomb didn’t go off.
The Corruption of
Whataboutism
Which brings me back to my first point of the week. Why
on God’s good Earth would you defend any of this? Since I’ve been having this
ridiculous argument all week, let me skip ahead. Yes, “Crooked Hillary,” Ted
Kennedy, and a host of other liberals did bad things. Whether those bad things
were analogous to this is highly debatable. But let’s just concede the point
for argument’s sake. Let’s also accept the president’s grotesquely cynical and
false claim that pretty much anyone in politics would have done the same thing
and taken the meeting. (I for one am perfectly happy to concede that Sidney
Blumenthal would happily have done equally sleazy things for his Queen-master.
But I have every confidence that if some shady Russian cutouts approached, say,
James Baker with a similar scheme to “incriminate” Michael Dukakis, he would
become a helicopter of fists.)
But here’s the thing: Who gives a dirty rat’s ass? If you
spent years — like I did, by the way — insisting that the Clintons were a
corrupt affront to political decency, invoking their venal actions as a moral justification for Team Trump’s
actions is the rhetorical equivalent of a remake of Waterworld set entirely in the main vat of a sewage-treatment
plant, i.e., the intellectual Mother of Sh*t Shows. This is a point Ben Shapiro
made well earlier this week (and which I’ve been writing about for two years
now). If you want to make the case that Democrats or the media are hypocrites,
whataboutism is perfectly valid (and quite fun). But if you want to say that
it’s fine for Trump to do things you considered legally and morally outrageous
when Hillary Clinton did them, you should either concede that you believe two
wrongs make a right or you should apologize for being angry about what Clinton
did. And you should be prepared to have no right to complain when the next
Democrat gets into power and does the same thing.
What Next?
All of this said, I don’t think we are anywhere near
impeachment. The cries of “treason” are ridiculous. But I for one no longer
believe that the collusion thing is mostly hype. We already know that Trump
openly implored the Russians to dig up Clinton’s e-mails. We now know that
Junior, Kushner, and then-campaign
manager Manafort had no problem meeting with a person they believed to be
an emissary of the Russian government. Moreover, not only am I unconvinced
nothing damning happened in that room, I think there’s merit to Chris Hayes’s
analysis that there was an important phone call before the meeting.
… does don jr’s email thread reveal
he might have had a phone conversation before the meeting? @chrislhayes walks
us through it. #inners pic.twitter.com/ppluP5Vtp3
— fake nick ramsey (@nick_ramsey)
July 13, 2017
I also think there are many shoes to drop with regard to
Cambridge Analytica and the Mercers.
Erick Erickson may be right that this meeting was a
setup. Trump’s more-credible defenders certainly may be right that this is all
the result of ineptitude and amateurishness. These guys are like a mix between
Ron Jeremy and a yoga master in their ability to step on their own johnsons.
But my wait-and-see approach was grounded in the fact
that other than Trump’s public obsession with the Russia story — including his
firing of James Comey — there was no concrete evidence that the Trump campaign
had any dealings with the Russians. That benefit of the doubt is gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment