This past week’s events have well illustrated the calumny implicit in the mainstream media’s coverage of the Vast Russian Conspiracy Narrative with which they smear President Donald J. Trump, his administration, and now his family.
For months we’ve been subjected to story after story alleging coordination between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government to ensure a Trump win, all the way up to President Vladimir Putin. The media presented no evidence whatsoever, and their reports were always conveniently based upon the word of anonymous sources.
No evidence. All former Obama minions who testified said as much, and under oath. Of course, the media and Obama minions are always careful to add the caveat that there’s no evidence “yet.”
After coordination fell by the wayside, the new meme became collusion. Collusion sounds so much more menacing, doesn’t it? Ooooh. Collusion:
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy …
a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement …
There’s no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, either; but the media this week were handed a scoop, courtesy of an illegal leak, that made them believe that they have found the proverbial smoking gun. Except it wasn’t.
Jared Kushner had amended his background check information, reporting to the FBI a meeting he remembered having in June 2016 with a Russian-based lawyer. He had been included in the meeting by his brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr., who agreed to the meeting based upon a tip that the lawyer had information that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was accepting illegal contributions from Russian sources (a crime). Somehow, the media learned about the meeting and somehow they also then obtained the actual emails that went between Trump Jr. and the friend who asked for the meeting. Now who would have, and then leak, such information? The FBI? The NSA? Former government officials like James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper? Robert Mueller? Here’s an interesting theory courtesy of our friend Papoose.
As it turned out, the lawyer had no real information about Hillary Clinton. Instead, she seemed to have run a “bait and switch,” in order to get the meeting with Trump Jr. to lobby him about a law that she wants repealed.
Trump Jr.’s friend had told him, falsely, that the lawyer worked for the Russian government and that her (nonexistent) dirt on Hillary was part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
Democrats and the media went berserk, believing this to be the smoking gun that would prove their months-long conspiracy theory about Trump and Russia.
The Russian lawyer with whom Trump Jr. met doesn’t work for the Russian government and, according to the woman herself, she had no information about Hillary Clinton to share with Trump.
Nevertheless, the media, once again and reliably, moved the goalpost. From collusion, they quickly shifted to a new meme: Even if Trump Jr. received no dirt on Hillary, the media claimed, his emails still showed a
willingness to collude, or
a desire and intent to collude.
Mind you, there’s no law against collusion, except in business law, according to most legal experts who are talking to the media. Of course not! The First Amendment protects not only free speech but also freedom of association, especially with regard to political speech and association.
If collusion isn’t a crime in this situation, then how can willingness to collude, or desire or intent to collude, be a crime?
After clearing Hillary Clinton for numerous probable felonies, based upon a presumed lack of intent (not an exonerating element of the crimes) and based upon her alleged naivete about how to legally handle classified information (despite serving decades in political offices ranging from First Lady to Senator to Secretary of State), the Obama administration, the Democrats and the media suddenly consider willingness, desire, or intent to commit a non-crime to be a criminal offense that justifies impeachment of the father of the alleged perpetrator!
When they talk about treason, as Clinton’s V.P. choice recently did, they’re also saying that mere willingness to collude deserves the death penalty!
Treason. Is Hillary Clinton, a former member of the government, synonymous with the United States of America? Talk about delusions of grandeur! Is she so sacrosanct that trying to learn the truth about whether or not her campaign broke the law is treason?
Trump Jr. wrote “I love it” when informed that evidence potentially exists that proves Clinton’s campaign received illegal foreign contributions. That, according to the media and Democrats, is evidence of his willingness to collude. Similarly, Trump Jr. took the meeting to hear more about the allegation, so that also proves his intent to collude. Guilty as charged!
Mind you, Trump Jr. didn’t solicit this information. He didn’t know the woman or even her name before he met with her. She had him solicited to receive the information, if you believe the man who contacted Trump Jr. to ask for the meeting. In the end, there was no information to receive anyway.
Trump Jr. didn’t hide the meeting–he met openly in offices at Trump Tower, which at the time the Secret Service was securing. The parties to the meeting didn’t sneak in the back door, but came through security and identified themselves.
After the uproar in the media, Trump supporters understandably and immediately pointed out the double standard when it comes to allegations of colluding with foreign governments, something that Hillary Clinton’s campaign allegedly did, in spades:
It is common for foreign governments to withhold or take actions to influence elections in other countries. Information is often shared through various channels during elections from lobbyists, non-government organizations, and government officials. This includes former Clinton aide Alexandra Chalupa, who allegedly worked with Ukrainian government officials and journalists to come up with dirt on Trump and Manafort.
Consider the implications of such an unprecedented extension of the criminal code. The sharing of information — even possible criminal conduct by a leading political figure — would be treated the same as accepting cash. It would constitute a major threat to free speech, the free press and the right of association. It would also expose a broad spectrum of political speech to possible criminal prosecution.
Oh, but not in the minds of the media or (other) Democrats. In their minds–based upon the evidence of their actions, speech, and logic–they believe that laws exist only to catch and punish conservatives, Republicans, or anyone else who disagrees with them. If necessary, laws should be stretched to the breaking point in order to find, convict, and punish right-wing scofflaws. The penumbra, you see.
However, the laws don’t apply to people like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. If anyone suggests they do, then the laws are stretched in the other direction to ensure that they get off. No need to investigate them. No need to report on their misdeeds. No need to even suspect them of wrongdoing. It’s impossible for them to commit crimes. If they do it, then it’s not a crime. See how they think?
The Clinton campaign’s alleged collusion with foreign governments is not nefarious, nor is Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, nor her destruction of government records.
On the other hand, for the son of President Trump to even be willing to collude with a foreign government is nefarious and potentially even punishable by the death penalty.
Why the double standard? Because progressives (including the media) religiously believe that anyone who opposes the agenda of the progressives is, by definition, evil, while they also religiously believe that anyone who supports the progressive agenda is on the right side, virtually a saint.
No need to even suspect a saint of wrongdoing. It’s impossible.
When the Clinton/Ukraine collusion is (rarely) discussed in the mainstream media or by Democrats, it’s not called coordination or collusion. It’s simply “problematic.”