The Leftist mainstream simply cannot help itself from hysteria surrounding the fabled “Russian connection.” In doing so, journalists turning the gears of the New York/Washington media machine feed their fellow fanatics and misdirect and desensitize those who seek truth.
I look back on my childhood, and among my fondest memories remain the nights where my mother would read me bedtime stories. I habitually anticipated that majestically fantastical phrase…once upon a time. Of the many stories we read, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” seems, by today’s standards, to remain the most paramount. It serves as a valuable lesson on fibs for five-year-old primary school students and fifty-year-old journalists alike.
This week, it seems that we have reached a peak in hysteria surrounding the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials at the most elevated levels of the Kremlin. This farce of credible evidence comes as the White House confirmed that Donald Trump Jr., met with a “Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer,” in order to obtain information that would incriminate Hillary Clinton.
The New York Times, Politico, CNN, MSNBC, and a barrage of other Left-skewed mainstream journalistic outlets are to blame for fanning the flames of public outrage at this story, which is seemingly unworthy of coverage. Do I say this because I am a Republican? No. I say this because I am genuinely uninterested, and I would argue that much of the rest of country feels the same way, with the exception of the unarguably liberal New York media machine. Are we now so desperate for a story, that we believe that indicating that the meeting’s arrangement took place over email is worthy of front page news? Most meetings are scheduled over email. Do we harbor so much disdain for our President (I can’t say it enough – he is your President), that we will breathlessly cover a story rooted in falsities throughout most of the day, coming forth with “breaking developments” in what seems like every half hour?
I have worked on campaigns before and will be the first to say that opposition research is not an uncommon practice. Campaign staff members promulgate information and traffic scandals in the name of the game, and when the subject is a woman who seems to be wrapped up in continuous scandal, I am genuinely interested in any information that comes forth.
When a private individual like Donald Trump Jr. takes a meeting seeking information about an opponent, it is not necessarily the smoking gun that the Left needs in order to prove their claims that Trump colluded. Let me be clear – Donald Trump Jr. did not work for his father’s campaign. Did he occasionally speak out in support of his father? Yes. Did he endorse his father at rallies? Absolutely. The bottom line is that he had no official role or title within the campaign, and therefore, his private meetings should not yet reflect upon his father’s integrity, nor should his private communications be worthy of exhaustive media coverage. If sitting down to discuss information regarding a political opponent is somehow a crime, then thousands should be incriminated – including myself.
Am I saying that Trump Jr.’s decision to participate in such a meeting is ethical? Not at all. No candidate, or a family member, for that matter, should follow through with such a meeting. The meeting request should have been handed off to another staff member, an intern, or any individual outside of the realm of characters affected by this scandal, the flames of which are being fanned by the same party that believes that there are 57 genders and that coloring books should be an integral part in fostering intellectual autonomy in our public universities. Is this bad judgment on Trump Jr.’s part? Yes. Is this collusion with the Russian government? Unless there is a massive missing piece to the puzzle—one that likely would already have been leaked given recent norms—absolutely not.
As far as the email is concerned, Donald Trump Jr., a prominent businessman, received an email – from a known music producer – and their meeting is now somehow linked to the “highest throws of the Russian crown” – whatever that is. Any attorney that would argue that this is in any way illegal is guilty of “over-lawyering,” and has failed to recognize that simply listening to someone’s ideas in no way violates the law. Accepting or rejecting ideas, which are simply “things of value,” does not constitute legal action. One of the Left’s most admired legal pundits, Jeffrey Toobin, agrees that the evidence found in the emails does not satisfy the hunger for criminal indictments (The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, 2017), much less treason, as Senator Tim Kaine suggested.
Instead of doing what any sensible group of individuals would do, assessing their recent political failures, the Democratic Party has devoted their time and resources to advancing this fable that Russia colluded with Donald Trump. Regaining popularity in 2018 and 2020 will be difficult without touching issues that matter, and changing party leadership. The Democratic Party is no longer the party “of the people,” but the people of bathroom designations and, now, Russian fables.
There is an unlikely hope on the Left that this scandal would build the foundation for President Trump’s impeachment, and anyone who questions their evidence or exaggerations are somehow finding themselves subjected to the same accusations that were so easily flung around during McCarthy-era America.
At the end of the day, Donald Trump Jr. gave the people what they wanted. He released the email chain, in its entirety, and admitted his fault in taking the meeting. The double standard that we have failed to recall, however, is that Trump Jr. is being victimized for his cooperation in releasing one single email, while Hillary Clinton still walks free after deleting 33,000 of her own.
— Andrew Logan Lawrence is a junior studying Political Science. He has previously served as Chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, works actively in campus reform, and is a former columnist with the Savannah Morning News. He is a new contributor to The Arch Conservative.