WaPo Website: Trump's Defeated Left on Russia Collusion Allegations
For Democrats in the Trump years, desperation is getting to be part of daily life.
Since November 2016, they’ve believed rumors about Russian prostitutes, embellishments about the Constitution’s “emoluments clause” and, of course, that the mighty Robert Mueller would somehow bring about the end of an administration they despise.
But a Republican writer on The Washington Post’s website is making the case that the left should finally admit defeat on the “Russian collusion” story.
In a piece published Monday on the “PostPartisan” blog, a roundup of opinions from across the political spectrum, Republican political consultant Ed Rogers is calling out the national media’s latest attempt to damage President Donald Trump by reviving the collusion narrative.
Last week, The New York Times published the “news” that Natalia Veselnitskaya, one of the Russian who participated in a controversial meeting in June 2016 with the president’s son, Don Jr., was also associated with Russian government authorities.
The headline was ominous: “Lawyer Who Was Said to Have Dirt on Clinton Had Closer Ties to Kremlin Than She Let On.”
And the story’s nut graph sounded nefarious enough:
“But newly released emails show that in at least one instance two years earlier, the lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, worked hand in glove with Russia’s chief legal office to thwart a Justice Department civil fraud case against a well-connected Russian firm.”
But the reality was a lot more prosaic. As Rogers pointed out, The Wall Street Journal had reported the “news” about Veselnitskaya more than nine months ago — on July 14, 2017.
So, while The Times story did provide some new information about the details of Veselnitskaya’s work with Russian authorities — “informant” was a word she used herself — it didn’t really break any new ground, Rogers wrote. What it did do was give the media another reason to breathe life into a narrative that’s on life support.
And that, Roger said is the only point of media coverage anymore when it comes to matters affecting the “Russia collusion” investigation.
“Democrats and their media allies tried to seize on the word ‘informant’ to breathe some life into the fading collusion story,” Rogers wrote. “But the defibrillator paddles failed to resuscitate. Veselnitskaya had already admitted in a July 2017 Wall Street Journal interview to sharing information with the Russian prosecutor general while developing her client’s legal defense. It wasn’t an ‘aha’ moment after all.”
But hope springs eternal for the fevered #Resistance.
They have stalwarts like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi trying to advance the cause on Capitol Hill. They have the allied might of The New York Times and most of the American liberal media on their side.
And they have Mueller’s special investigation, which despite almost a year of work has produced not a shred of public evidence of any “collusion” the investigation was originally appointed to probe.
That probe isn’t finished (and might never be as long as Trump is president). However, according to Business Insider and other news outlets, Mueller is preparing an interim report on the question of whether Trump engaged in obstruction of justice regarding the “collusion” investigation.
No matter what that report says, Democrats are likely to claim it meets their standard for impeaching Trump.
If that’s the case, Rogers wrote, the midterm elections are likely to pivot on it.
“The result could be a nationalized election that largely comes down to impeachment vs. a good economy,” he wrote.
If the economy keeps going strong, and the “collusion” probe keeps coming up empty, that kind of matchup should suit Republicans just fine.
Trump has already defeated the left in every meaningful sense when it comes to the Russian “collusion” allegations.
If Republicans can hold the line on the November midterms too, this will be all over but the shouting.
And Democrats will really have to get used to desperation.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
