The NSA, the CIA and the FBI have all found that the Russian government leadership, i.e., Vladimir Putin, was behind the hacking of emails from the DNC. Qualified analysts outside the government have verified the plausibility of the claims. News about various meetings with Russian officials have now been publicly reported and acknowledged by participants, some of whom have been dishonest or remarkably reticent to talk about those meetings with law enforcement. As Digby Parton writes, "Trump's behavior" - and that of his campaign - "certainly appears to show what prosecutors call a 'consciousness of guilt.'" (More signs of guilt: Trump’s campaign was warned about Russia, and said nothing Salon 12/19/2017)
But lying about those meetings or Michael Flynn or failing to report business dealings with Russians that were required to be disclosed don't in themselves prove collusion. Although some of the emails that have made it into the public record] sound remarkably similar to what someone would say who was colluding.
But obviously, there are reasons disclosure laws affecting financial holdings and foreign contacts are there, including to avoid officials with high security clearances or major governmental responsibilities being subjected to pressure by a foreign government to commit illegal acts. The familiar saying that presumably emerged during the Watergate scandal that it's not the crime that gets you, it's the coverup, is misleading insofar as it might be taken to mean that laws broken in the process of a coverup aren't all that important in themselves.
The reports from the intelligence agencies on Russian election interference are serious. And they still deserve today as they did a year ago to be competently investigated by Congressional committees or independent commissions that will be able to access classified information that can't safely be released to the public. If the intelligence agencies were lying or incompetent in those reports, that needs to be known, too. That need is there today just as it was a year ago. Unfortunately, the Republican-led Congressional investigations aren't proceeding with the seriousness they deserve.
The Russia investigation is also likely to provide a lot of inconvenient details about the Trump family's business dealings, some of which could well be illegal though unrelated to collusion with Russia on the 2016 election interference.
But I've always been worried that warhawks of different varieties were jumping on the Russia-Russia-Russia bandwagon for purposes of promoting bad foreign policy rather than securing American elections.
And there were also people who wanted to use a Russia smear against people to the left of corporate Democrats, both within the Democratic Party and outside.
Hillary Clinton is at her best in this interview with Rachel Maddow, Hillary Clinton: President Donald Trump Opened Door To More Misogyny MSNBC 09/14/2017:
But I did a real double-take at just after the 5:00 point, where she is talking about potential female candidates for President in 2020: "And now that some of the potential 2020 candidates are starting to get public attention, they're getting hit, from both the left and the right, and sometimes, when it comes from the left, you're not sure if it's a Russian pretending to be an American on the left or not." (my emphasis) Just a gratuitous dig at lefties as being Commies ... uh, Russians. Now, sure, the Russian government might want to stir up animosities of all sorts. But from what we know of the much-reported Russian attempts to muddle up Western elections, the bulk of the interventions are on the side of promoting rightwing nationalist parties and movements. But there's Hillary, talking about sexism from "the left and the right" and it's the left she suspects of being Rooskies. Corporate Democrats sometimes just can't help themselves.
Prior to 2000, we called this Red-baiting. But through the mysteries of language evolution, "red" in the United States now typically refers to Republicans, not to Communists or Socialists. Go figure.
But that kind of thing has always been a double-edged sword for the center-left, of which corporate Democrats are the most visible expression in American politics right now. In the first part of that interview (separate video), Hillary talks about the demands of some Republicans to open new investigations against her. Talk that seems to be getting louder. And Democrats have good reason to be very dubious about the investigation of Jill Stein of the Green Party for possible collusion with Russia in the 2016 election.
Jill Stein Denounces Probe over 'Collusion with Russians' The Real News 12/19/2017
This report features former Ambassador Michael McFaul on the Stein "collusion" issues, Senate Investigates 2016 Candidate Jill Stein's Campaign For Russian Ties Velshi & Ruhle/MSNBC 09/14/2017:
McFaul was US Ambassador to Russia 2012-14, so he has high-level experience diplomatic subtleties. But it's hard to imagine that he doesn't know he's really reaching in this interview to make Stein sound like a Russian colluder. His argument is that she has appeared voluntarily on RT and, while she was in Russia for the now-infamous RT celebration, she had some compliments for Russian foreign policy. Good grief! If the standard for "collusion" is expressing an opinion about US foreign policy while in a foreign country, at least half the tourists in other countries would be guilty of collusion. Unless I've missed Congress passing a law requiring US travelers abroad to clear every comment they make with political implications to be pre-screened by the State Department, this kind of criticism McFaul makes here is clearly off the tracks.
Cenk Uygur had a spot-on commentary about the Jill Stein collaboration accusation, including McFaul's version, in this Young Turks segment. He makes the very sensible point that the Democrats playing along with this is just the sort of thing that will help the Republicans undercut the Democrats' insistence that seriously investigating the Russian intervention in the 2016 election, including the role of Trump campaign staff who may have actively colluded with it. Jill Stein Targeted By Russia Investigation 12/21/2017:
The TYT team also followed up with this report, Jill Stein On Russia Inquiry 12/21/2017:
Michael Tracey reports on this in Jill Stein Staffer Undecided on Whether to Share Communications with Senate TYT Investigations 12/21/2017 and Jill Stein Says Senate Russia Inquiry Is “Full Of Crap,” But Urges Staff To Comply 12/21/2017:
Stein has discussed the circumstances of the dinner on numerous occasions, and even publicized the event herself at the time. “No names were exchanged, no eye contact, nada,” she reiterated. “Just a quick handshake—that’s it. There was nothing meaningful at that dinner.”
But Stein says transparency should trump any other concern, and she intends to comply to the fullest possible extent with the Senate committee—if only to highlight its inanity. “There’s plenty of room to critique what this investigation is about, and we will do that in parallel,” she said.
Stein characterized the Senate inquest as part of a political climate which has seen “a resurgence of McCarthyism,” and asserts that media coverage that portrays her as party to some sinister global conspiracy is wildly irresponsible. “The standards of journalism exercised in the discussion of Russia-gate are abysmal,” she said. “There are no consequences for the reporters who basically launched these extremely irresponsible and destructive stories that diminish the stature of the press and that legitimizes the charge of fake news. So yeah, it’s full of crap.”
No comments:
Post a Comment