subscribe: Posts | Comments      Facebook      Email Steve

Electiongate casts a pall of illegitimacy over Trump’s election



When it comes to criminal investigations, there are two kinds of Republicans. The first kind is ALL Republicans when the alleged criminal offense concerns a Democrat, namely, Hillary Clinton and her private email server. The second kind is VERY FEW Republicans when the crime concerns a Republican, namely, the Trump campaign’s use of Russia interfering with an American Presidential election.

In both cases, there was the possibility of criminal activity: Hillary endangering national security through her use of a private email server, and the far more serious case of Putin’s Russia deliberately swinging the recent election to Trump. In Hillary’s case, even though there was not the slightest shred of evidence that she committed a crime—and the FBI exonerated her twice—every single Republican in Congress demanded that she be jailed, or investigated, hounded out of town, denounced. Now, of course, much to the chagrin of these Republicans, she’s been 100 percent, absolutely, totally exonerated, but have we heard a single Republican anywhere who’s come out and said, “I guess we were wrong about Hillary. Sorry, Ms. Clinton!” Nope. And there never will be, for Republicans never own up to their lies.

Now we have another instance in which there seems to be a crime, and a far more serious one, than the accidental use of a private server, and that is Electiongate. You’d think a supposedly reputable American newspaper, regardless of its political orientation, would want to get to the bottom of this unprecedented situation. But no, you’d be wrong. The Wall Street Journal thinks it’s all a “Democratic attempt to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election,” or so says their lead editorial from yesterday.

Which makes the Wall Street Journal the best and latest example of the second kind of Republican, the kind who doesn’t want an investigation if its target is a Republican. This is the same rightwing newspaper that was obsessed with jailing Hillary Clinton, whose editorial page ranted every chance they got about national security and coverups and how unfit for office Hillary was. When it all proved to be a big yawner (which most of us knew all along it was), did the WSJ apologize for their witch hunt? As if!

Now we have, as I say, a far more chilling scenario: Electiongate. And yet here’s the WSJ sucking up to Trump. They even have the nerve to portray Electiongate as “fake news” (!!!!), and they try to dismiss McConnell’s calling for hearings as a “non-story.”

Why not just call Electiongate a “third-rate burglary,” as Nixon did about Watergate, a scant 1-1/2 years before he was impeached? The Wall Street Journal has said some pretty awful things on their editorial page, but to attempt to sweep Electiongate under the rug is the worst ever. Nor will it succeed.

Look: there can’t be a single reasonable person in this country who doesn’t understand that we should at least expend the slightest effort to find out if, in fact, Putin’s Russia interfered with the recent election by hacking Democratic emails and leaking them to Wikileaks. Why would anyone be against hearings to get to the bottom of the matter? If there’s no there there, as Trump and the Wall Street Journal insist, fine. We’ll all be able to say, Well, we looked into it, there’s nothing there, so sorry, Mr. Putin, sorry, Mr. Trump. (Democrats, you see, do apologize when we’re wrong.)

But how are we supposed to know what really happened unless we investigate?  Because the truth is, until we know the truth, there IS a giant question mark hanging over the results of this election. There IS an air of illegitimacy, and there always will be, no matter how much the Wall Street Journal denies it.

  1. Some folks do stand up and do/say the right thing.

    Robert Gates called out Trump as being unsuitable to serve as Commander in Chief.

    Colin Powell accepted blamed for his false testimony before the United Nations.

    [Preface from Wikipedia:

    “The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2001 by former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and philanthropist Ted Turner in the United States, that works to prevent catastrophic attacks and accidents with weapons of mass destruction and disruption– nuclear, biological, radiological, chemical, and cyber.”]

    From NTI
    (May 25, 2012):

    “Powell Blames Himself, Others For Specious Iraq WMD Claims to U.N.”

    Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in a new book said he blames himself for not trusting his instinct and making what proved to be false assertions to the United Nations about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, Bloomberg reported earlier this month (see GSN, Feb. 17, 2011).

    Powell’s high-profile February 2003 prewar presentation to the U.N. Security Council included now-discredited claims that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had movable biological weapons facilities and was involved in a “sinister nexus” with al-Qaeda.

    No evidence of active WMD production facilities or usable stockpiles have been found in Iraq following the U.S.-led March 2003 invasion.

    “A failure will always be attached to me and my U.N. presentation,” Powell writes in “It Worked For Me,” a book that provides leadership advice. “I am mad mostly at myself for not having smelled the problem. My instincts failed me.”

    In his recently published book, Powell asserts “there would have been no war” in Iraq had then-President George W. Bush and his councilors understood that Hussein did not possess any functioning unconventional weapons. However, he lauded the fact that under Bush “we got rid of the horrific Hussein” government and toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

    The retired general also faulted U.S. intelligence officers for lacking the “courage” to alert him that he was receiving bad data on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction ahead of his U.N. appearance.

    “Why did no one stand up and speak out during the intense hours we worked on the speech?” the ex-secretary said. “Some of these same analysts later wrote books claiming they were shocked that I have relied on such deeply flawed evidence.”

    Powell said he relied on the CIA to help develop his U.N. presentation but that he was not aware at the time that “much of the evidence was wrong” (Capaccio/Tiron, Bloomberg, May 4).

  2. As I have stated before, one has to separate the ideology of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board and “Opinion” page columnists from that of its rank-and-file reporters.

    The reporters don’t espouse a doctrinaire political or economic theory point of view. They are journalists without an agenda who operate no differently in ferreting out facts (and wrongdoing) than writers who work at (say) The New York Times or the Washington Post or the Chicago Tribune or the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

    There are plenty of examples of Journal reporters conspicuously accusing Trump on the presidential campaign trail of making transparently false statements. (The biggest whopper: The Obama was not born in the United States.

Leave a Reply


Recent Comments

Recent Posts