Giving Up Putin’s Ghost

It has been almost a year since Robert Mueller’s probe into Donald Trump’s election campaign started. The investigation has had comprehensive support from the highest echelons of governmental and media agencies, to the point of extensive bipartisan corruption, secretive meetings and nonstop drumming up of any scrap related to our neighbors in the east. 

A year into this laser-sharp focus on the President and Russia, there are exactly two serious leads. The first is the claim that a variety of incriminating emails on Hillary Clinton were released to WikiLeaks by a Russian source (contrary to WikiLeaks’ own claims). The second is that Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss incriminating information on Clinton (which, ironically, was specifically to discuss a few high-profile Russian political figures who were funding the Clinton campaign). Any figure in the Trump administration who is even remotely associated with Russia has been put under intense examination already. This led to the beneficial effect of removing a few generally corrupt individuals in the vein of Paul Manafort. But for the most part, this investigation has spent far more time and resources on connections that lead nowhere and trails that point to nothing. And despite all the furious rhetoric and expensive investigations, there’s not a single shred of conclusive evidence on the table. To hide something as extensive as an international conspiracy for political sabotage, under the campaign of someone as notoriously loudmouthed as Donald Trump, so well that a year-long investigation is still operating on hearsay and unfounded claims, is the stuff of conspiracy theories.

It’s frankly hard to see Donald Trump as a mastermind capable of concealing such a massive conspiracy for so long, particularly when cross-examined with the claims of DNC sabotage of the Sanders campaign in 2015-2016. Under the Democratic primaries of the last presidential election, the DNC, headed by Debbie Wasserman Schulz – Clinton’s campaign manager in 2008 – made a long string of undemocratic decisions in favor of Clinton, culminating with the decision to completely ban the Sanders campaign from access to democratic voter information after a database breach was accessed by a single campaign intern. The resulting lawsuit, which received almost no media coverage, was dismissed not on the grounds that the DNC had been impartial in any way, but rather that the DNC, as an organization, had no obligation to be impartial in its administration towards primary candidates. This incident paints a much clearer picture of what ‘top-level political sabotage’ looks like – and it’s certainly not the highly covert and organized cover-up that the Trump administration would have to be continually maintaining to have colluded with Russia.

In the light of the recent memo on the probe rejected by Trump, it seems the relentless hunt for a Russian specter has become more of a game of political agitation than any actual pursuit of truth. It’s become increasingly clear that the Russian investigation as a whole is a red herring. As we have become obsessed with this investigation, we have ignored the reality of an increasingly corrupt and unjust political system as a result. It’s easy to pretend that only one party or one candidate is corrupt in modern America; we, as a species, have a natural tendency to group things in black-and-white “good” and “bad.” But corruption is not and has never been a partisan issue, and focusing on conspiracy theories and dead ends means that the truly corrupt in modern politics get a free pass. Could Donald Trump, or key elements of his administration, be corrupt? Almost certainly. The entire foundation of republican democracy is the ability to lie with a smile, after all – nobody likes to hear the truth, and it’s harder to find an honest politician than a modern Jesus.  But the likelihood of there being a serious collaboration between the Russian government and the Trump campaign decreases with each day passed without a single solid piece of evidence. It’s time to refocus on reality.

Contact Max Goldenberg at [email protected].

Intelligence Isn't Partisan

In last week’s edition of The Colgate Maroon-News, the Commentary section elected to write about the release of the “Nunes Memo” and its broader implications on the ongoing Russia probe surrounding President Trump. The author of the “Being Right” column viewed the release of the memo in a positive light, applauding the decision to provide more information to the American public. Madalo wrote that, “It has become evident that the only way the truth behind the memo will be revealed is if more information concerning the investigation… is made public.” Seemingly heeding Madalo’s advice, the House Intelligence Committee voted on February 5 to release the “Democratic response” to the Nunes memo. The bipartisan vote reflected an effort to provide more information to the public. The only problem? President Trump is not interested in bipartisan transparency, and he is not interested in the truth.

What Trump is interested in, however, is politicizing the FBI and the intelligence community in a manner that he believes will be politically beneficial for him and his administration. The decision to reject the Democratic response memo after releasing the Nunes memo only days earlier reveals an astounding level of hypocrisy from the President. Concerns over national security or the release of potentially dangerous classified information can no longer be deemed a credible excuse. Instead, it is clear that Trump is willing to use the bureau as a political tool. This flagrant affront to the credibility of our intelligence community should be a cause of grave concern for all American citizens. 

Consider the optics. In the span of one week, the President of the United States used his executive authority to declassify selective intelligence that he claimed “vindicated” him. Then he turned around and refused to make public other intelligence information that supposedly suggests otherwise. To make matters worse, the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to release the response memo. By overriding this bipartisan support, Trump is signaling that he has a more personal reason for rejecting the memo’s release. In the day following Trump’s decision, CNN wrote that, “Democrats warn this does not just amount to a double standard, but also reflects a pattern of attempts by the President to frustrate the investigation because he has something to hide.” One must wonder why House Republicans were comfortable with the memo being released, but the President was not.

Now that the Nunes Memo has been released, it’s only right to release the response memo, which was composed by House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member and Democrat Adam Schiff (D-CA). If the Nunes memo is truly about transparency and providing information to the public, it is impossible to justify the rejection of the response memo. Republican Senator Justin Amash took to Twitter following Trump’s decision, writing, “The American people deserve the opportunity to read both memos.” He also added that he has already read both memos, and that, “neither one endangers national security.” For the President to pick and choose what intelligence information he releases to the public on the basis of partisan politics is a direct attack to our constitution and democracy. We must not allow the President to threaten the integrity and impartiality that has defined the FBI for decades. 

When asked about Trump’s decision to deny the release of the response memo, many Congressional Democrats voiced their displeasure. Regarding the decision, Representative Jim Himes (D-CT) said, “I’m not surprised,” in a public statement. “Those on the side of truth don’t fear transparency.” The Trump administration and Republicans must be consistent in their calls for transparency if they truly have nothing to hide. Trump’s decision to selectively release information is both an attack on our intelligence community and a gross display of partisan hypocrisy. Americans deserve the complete and unbiased truth – not a false narrative promoted through deception and distorted information.

Contact Eli Cousin at [email protected].