This morning NPR again alerted the nation to the manufactured Russian threat, still very much a work in process. They devoted the major segment of their Morning Edition to “reviewing” Russia’s impact on last year’s election by interviewing two ‘experts’ who turned out to be another pair of pot boiling reporters.
We were again breezily informed of the “general agreement” that Russia was the hacker even though “no direct evidence” has yet surfaced to support that. But the general conclusion spoonfed the listener was that there is indeed something to the “allegation of collusion” between the Trump campaign and whatever nefarious acts by the Russians that NPR was busily constructing in your imagination. Again, the “no evidence yet” from “ongoing investigations” was the quick codicil wedged into the spray of incidental and immaterial “what we know” items.
The whole affair was another professional hit job that concluded with the Flynn-Sessions ‘double tap’, as if those immaterial conversations really did serve to enable and coordinate the now popularly acknowledged Russian attack on our democratic system. Here we glossed over the fact that no evidence whatsoever exists to condemn AG Sessions in any wrongdoing during his very routine contacts with the Russian ambassador (lamestream’s “spy master”), or mention that the tapped Flynn telecons contained nothing that could be considered culpable.
The only way that the Trump administration can be convicted in this continental kangaroo court is if the rules of evidence can been reduced to the requirement for a preponderance of allegations, innuendo, and emotions. However, to date that appears to be more than sufficient, given the agenda of the leftwing lamestream and their Democrat handlers in the federal government. But here’s what everyone continues to miss.
There can be no reasonable discussion, let alone accusations, of Russia impacting America’s election until some plausible means are at least identified by which they could have accomplished anything to materially affect the election’s outcome. And this is what no one (apparently including RR readers) in the land seems to grasp. Without plausible means the whole affair is moot.
As an example, consider Bugsy Jones paroled from prison with the proviso that he not wander more than a mile from his designated residence without permission. Bugsy’s longtime protagonist Mugsy wants him back in prison and concocts a story of how Bugsy violated his parole – he accuses Bugsy of having circumnavigated the moon last Wednesday night, a trip taking him more than a mile from home. As evidence Mugsy points to the science fiction paperbacks that Bugsy has been seen reading and from which he must have gotten the idea. In this case we can be fairly certain that the parole board will dismiss Mugsy’s allegations on their face for the obvious reason that Bugsy had no plausible means by which he could have accomplished the forbidden circumnavigation.
And yet, no one seems to be able to either identify, let alone connect the same dots in the ongoing Russian imbroglio. I know why the Left does not want to bring up the question of ‘plausible means’, but I have no idea why no one on the Right (save possibly Limbaugh) has introduced this overwhelmingly important factor into the national debate about Trump’s supposed love of Russia and Hillary’s disastrous defeat at the polls.
Postscript: To really understand this baseless and fraudulent attack on Trump we need to recall the national yawn that China’s bought and paid for love affair with President Clinton elicited in 1996. All governments do their best to influence the internal affairs of other governments when the opportunity exists and it serves their national interests. The educated know it was ever thus. Holman Jenkins reprises President Clinton’s role (here) in how the Democrats accepted more than $2M from China to support his and fellow Democrats’ re-elections.