The Russia Investigation: Looking Through a Wider Lens
Originally published in The Daily Comet on April 17, 2019 by Gwayne Gautreaux
One of the most contentious issues in American politics today has been that of the “Russia investigation”. Aside from sounding like the plot of a James Bond movie, the overriding concern has always been in determining whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to affect the outcome of the 2016 election, and, in all fairness, that was not proved. However, this case makes a clear distinction between proof and evidence, and anyone who followed the OJ Simpson trial decades back know all too well the difference between the two. Although it is true that the investigation yielded no details of ‘collusion’, we continue ignoring evidence available for anyone who wishes to examine the facts objectively. Unfortunately, until the report becomes public, (which at the time of this article is not), it seems that in the aftermath, there are just as many questions as there are answers. Although I am within the small circle of conservatives and libertarians who believe in the legitimacy of the investigation, there are issues that supersede party alliance. Likewise, there are a few concerns, regardless of political affiliation, that I think Americans should consider moving forward: (1) to what extent are foreign adversaries capable of further undermining western democracy and (2) to what extent can foreign policy toward Russia actually become compromised.
The main challenge of any ‘political’ investigation is to separate fact from fiction and to avoid being persuaded by extreme ideologues. Despite repeatedly being attacked, the special counsel maintained their integrity and in no way appeared to behave maliciously toward the president. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Trump administration. While it is a relief that the special counsel did not find conspiracy, the findings did highlight by-products of evidence and behavior undertaken by the Trump campaign compelling enough to re-examine.
The Intelligence Community
During the course of the investigation, the Trump administration maintained a narrative that the FBI was motivated to discredit the results of the presidential election by some last-ditch effort to promote Hilary Clinton. First off, there is absolutely no logical explanation why an intelligence community chock-full of lifelong Republicans would have decided to support someone as stanch a Democrat as Clinton. Furthermore, following this line of reasoning begs the question that if James Comey was so committed to the Clinton camp, why did he decide to announce his decision to reopen the email investigation just days before the election?
It is somewhat misleading and paradoxical in the way the Trump administration, on the one hand, perpetuates strong support for police, and yet with the other hand rebukes the very agency that epitomizes law enforcement. There are hosts of unintended consequences that materialize from attempting to demonize the nation’s premier intelligence agencies, especially if an investigation leads to favorable outcomes.
Even if by chance the plethora of collective evidence is somehow the fabrication of the intelligence community, it is hard to overlook the complicity of the Trump administration in bearing responsibility for both the magnitude and misdirection of the investigation. There is no one to blame but himself.
The Complicity of the Trump Campaign
In the first place, the president’s constant attack on members of the special counsel and the FBI seems altogether unjustified for very clear reasons.
The truth of the matter is, contrary to the president’s narrative, the birth of ‘Russia-collusion’ began, not from any dossier nor from a “corrupt FBI scheme”, but by one of the president’s own campaign advisers, who, by the ‘virtue’ of his irresponsible judgement, decided to tell a high-ranking diplomat about his back door contact with Russian operatives. This is important because it discredits the president’s counter-conspiracy claim. The Steele dossier came into existence after the FBI began investigating.
Furthermore, the whole reason for Robert Mueller’s appointment was a combination of the president’s firing of James Comey and the recusal of Jeff Sessions, who felt it necessary to withdraw only after he too lied about his contact with Russian ambassador, Sergey Kisliak, during the campaign.
Moreover, it could only be assumed the length and extent of the investigation may have been substantially reduced had the Trump campaign refrained from repeatedly lying about the hundreds of contacts they established with Russian agents throughout the election. It’s ironic that a staple part of the president’s rhetoric has been in condemning the media’s dishonestly and biasness, yet has used media platforms, at times, to perpetrate dishonestly and deception himself.
Look at the Evidence Collectively — Not Unilaterally
I will admit that any one component of evidence may appear insignificant when examined unilaterally, but collectively, it paints a more cohesive picture. Collusion aside, the evidence uncovered by the Mueller investigation nevertheless exposed some nefariously suspicious behavior by the Trump campaign, regardless of their opinion about the FBI or the special counsel.
The Inner Circle
Say what you will about the intelligence community, but the FBI didn’t force George Papadopoulos to lie about having back-door contacts with Russian operatives who claimed to have dirt on Hilary Clinton. They didn’t force Roger Stone to lie about communicating with Wiki-leaks in order to release emails stolen by Russian hackers either. The FBI and intelligence community didn’t push Mike Flynn to secretly discuss sanctions relief with Sergey Kisliak, and it wasn’t the FBI who drove Paul Manafort to provide polling data to Russian agents. The FBI didn’t plan secret meetings in the Seychelles Islands, nor did they force members of Trump’s family and Paul Manafort to secretly meet with Russian agents in Trump Tower.
Effectively, the only logical explanation that compelled the downward spiral of lying had been the ongoing attempt to shield the president himself from the effects of his own behavior.
Cohen
There is no better example of this than the case of Michael Cohen, who, only by the virtue of protecting the president, ended up being branded as a desperado and liar. It’s ironic that no one claimed him to be a liar while he was protecting the president’s interests in denying their pursuit of Trump Tower Moscow during the election.
Even in ignoring the repeated deceptiveness of the Trump campaign, is it not reasonable to at least question the conditions under which President Trump continues to surround himself with dishonest and deceitful constituents?
Closing
Finally, there is the other overriding concern of whether foreign policy with Russia has been undermined in such a way as to appeal to the interest of the few at the expense of the many. This is quite indicative of decisions undertaken and changes made to traditional foreign policy components of the Republican Party’s platform during and after the election, specifically changes that softened America’s stance on Russia — (which is an entirely different issue limited by the scope of this article).
In the end, we can continue trying to turn away from some of the questions uncovered throughout the investigation, but eventually there are no other directions to turn. Either way, even in the absence of collusion, we should all agree: this was no witch-hunt.
