Below are two articles in rather liberal outlets that, in their own ways, demonstrate the fallacy of so much anti-Trump smoke-stirring, especially alleged incapacitating connections to Russia. These analyses hold a certain credibility for two reasons: 1. Liberals tend to be better at this sort of thing than conservatives; and 2. They are coming from liberal outlets! (See above and reread if you already forgot how that connects.)
The first is an article at Medium.com, associated with the VERY liberal TYT ("The Young Turks") Network, entitled, The Basic Formula For Every Shocking Russia/Trump Revelation. In it, the writer lays out in 13 steps and using the case yesterday of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' testimony answering a question by literally a comedian of a Senator as a model, "[t]he basic formula for every breaking Trump/Russia story." In short (I urge you to read the article) and translated from liberal into patriotic American, they are:
- 1. Original Fake News report appears.
- 2. Anti-Trumpers jump on it.
- 3. Clinton operatives jump in on the politics.
- 4. Legal "experts" jump in on the legal aspects.
- 5. "The Resistance" (those Soros-linked agitators) jump in and yell.
- 6. Pushback against the story branded as defensive (you know, "racist," "sexist," "bigoted," "homophobic," "Islamophobic," etc.).
- 7. The more level-headed of the anti-Trumpers simmer down and question the meaning and scale of the story.
- 8. Hypocrisy and weak analysis makes anti-Trumpers look foolish.
- 9. "Russophobia" (my term)--a condition exactly the opposite of the Democrat/liberal position during the Cold War--rises closer to conspiracy-theory levels in some minds. (NOTE: The writer of the second article [below] attributes this phenomenon to confirmation bias, comparing it [remember, he's a liberal] to concerns about Obama's religious and political heritage and, yes, that time Obama promised Medvedev to be "more flexible" after the 2012 election. It's at least in part an attempt to drive people like me off from doing exactly what I'm doing here--using his article against his side. Fail.)
- 10. "Political ineptitude and clumsiness" on the part of the scandal target in the Trump camp--i.e., Teabrainery--blows up the problem. In Sessions case, he "tried to lawyer himself out of trouble." (This, of course, is common for the conservative/Right. See my one-day-long-in-the-future book, "Teabrainery--Foxworthy Redneckism in the Political Arena." One day, I'm gonna write that thing!)
- 11. A liberal political point: "A Trump official’s least egregious quality ends up being portrayed as his most egregious quality." This means that substantive issues liberals may genuinely have with the target are deprecated in favor of the near-conspiracy-theory-type focus on some alleged connection which may or may not exist, and which if it does exist is legal and probably benign. (This would contribute to the "witch hunt" sense of all of this.)
- 12. "The overall political climate gets further degraded and warped without any commensurate upside."
- 13. "Repeat."
The benefit for pro-Trumpers in that is that when you see the pattern, you know better how to predict it and respond to it. Whether the next scandal--and there will be a next one, and a next one, and a next one...--is a concocted work of collusion or simply an odd, concerning-raising report, the pattern will likely hold in basic terms. Take heart.
---------
The second article is from liberal Vanity Fair, and entitled, The Dirty Secret Behind the Jeff Sessions Mess--It may not be a sinister as it seems. The writer starts out showing he wants to short-circuit what the cycle in the first article lays out:
At first blush, the news about U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions looked bad. At second blush, it looked worse. At third blush, I got tired of blushing and ran outside to cool my face with fresh snow. But then things started to settle. With most Russia-related stories these days, especially ones in The New York Times and The Washington Post, the best initial reaction is heavy skepticism. That way you aren’t surprised when embarrassing editorial disclaimers appear above stories that Russia hacked a Vermont utility or spread “fake news” via dozens of U.S. websites from Drudge to Truthdig, and you read past the headline of stories like “Trump Aides Had Contact With Russian Intelligence.”
(Links in original text removed because I don't want to contribute to web traffic on Fake News sites.)
He then goes on to analyze the perjury claim and the truth behind Sessions' unclear statement:
Originally, when writing this story, I intended to offer three hypotheses for what could have happened: (1) Sessions was colluding with Moscow and trying to hide it. (2) Sessions wasn’t colluding with Moscow, but he forgot about his meetings with Kislyak. (3) Sessions wasn’t colluding with Moscow, but decided to lie about contacts with Russians.
...
And then I reviewed the tape. And now I dismiss all three.
The writer then analyzes the context of the statement by Sessions in sight, putting his intent in a clearer light, concluding that most thinking people "would be hard-pressed to miss that that 'communications with the Russians' is shorthand for 'communications of the sort that CNN is alleging,' not 'any sort of communication with any Russian official ever.'"
He then closes that section of the article with an astute point that should stick with readers, even if everything else slips from the memory:
As things clear up, we may be seeing a collapsing soufflé. And as with so many soufflés served up by the press in recent months, it emerged from the oven to oohs and ahs—this time, with me among the oohers and ahers—only to sink, first slowly, then quickly. Next, it will go into the trash, and we’ll bake another. It’s tiring. It’s boring. And above all it’s supremely damaging to the press. If you want people to believe you, then develop a reputation for believability. Might work better than just blaming your loss of credibility on Trump.
He closes with some advice to anti-Trumpers about "stopping to breathe." I won't repeat it here, because I want them to hyperventilate.
Donald J. Trump accomplished the seemingly impossible by getting elected President, is pushing forward with the agenda he laid out as a candidate, and is taking more incoming political fire than probably any other politician in world history. These attacks will continue, and--prayerfully said--they will fail. But for them to fail, his supporters and all who love our country must stand, and stand with him. Reread this article, recognize the pattern (and the outcome each time), and take heart. We will make history on our side.
