Opposites Detract

The subjects of two of our February posts, Russian Meddling & Peering Beyond the Bubble, have recently resurfaced together with a new twist. The President’s claim that he was “wiretapped” as well as his critics’ continued claims of Russian “meddling” in the election have now fused in most news stories that cover either topic. Depending on which accounts you read, there are two entirely opposite storylines being developed on these allegations. It continues to amaze how such divergent interpretations of the same facts can make it all the way through the editing processes to become the front page content of mainstream news outlets. Here are the contradictory storylines as we see them:

1) The Russians clearly influenced the outcome of the US election last November. Further, the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in their effort to assure the defeat of Hillary Clinton. Suspicion of this collusion was reason enough to investigate any ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians. As part of this investigation, eavesdropping on the Russians may have resulted in “incidental” collection of Trump campaign persons, which was perfectly legal. Wider dissemination than usual of the “raw” intercept of this eavesdropping, to include the names of those incidentally swept up, was justified to protect this “evidence” from being destroyed or hidden by the new administration. The President’s suggestion of being “wiretapped” is absolutely baseless.

2) The Russians had no influence whatsoever in the outcome of the US election last November, directly or indirectly. All claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to defeat Mrs. Clinton are entirely false. To this day there is no “evidence” to even remotely support the claim. The false narrative of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians was created solely for the purpose of providing legal “cover” for the indirect eavesdropping on Trump campaign staff for political purposes. After the election was over, the Russian collusion narrative was continued to keep up the pretense of legality should the true intent of the eavesdropping be discovered. The assumption of Russian connections would also serve as a continuing political weapon for opponents of the President to undermine his administration. The President’s suggestion of being “wiretapped” was obviously not to be taken literally, but rather with the colloquial meaning of “surveilled”. In that context, his claims are at least partially true.

Daily, each news outlet entrenches themselves further into their version of the story. This was highlighted in dramatic fashion last week with the public statements by Dr. Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama administration official. She not only admitted that “intelligence” had been collected on the Trump team, but that she herself advised her colleagues to spread it around, including to Congress. She further stated she was worried about the “sources and methods” used to collect the intelligence on the Trump team being discovered by the Trump team. Amazingly, she said all this while completely enveloped within storyline #1, having no apparent awareness that she was actually confirming portions of storyline #2! This is a great example of the peril inherent in never peering beyond your own “bubble” in order to see the larger picture.

Which story will turn out to be correct? Common sense moves us towards #2 unless some genuine evidence is finally brought forth to support #1. We believe that if hard evidence of the Trump team colluding with the Russians for political gain really existed, it would have been leaked to the public long before now. It’s difficult to believe that in an era where leaks are de rigueur, such information would remain secret. Here are some questions for those who believe #1 – What did the Russians actually do to influence the election? Despite endless reports that assume Russian meddling, not a single news outlet has explained how such meddling occurred, only that it did. Our prior post on Russian Meddling describes the three most likely ways to alter the election results and what makes the possibility of Russian interference so vanishingly small. Also, if evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians actually existed, why wasn’t it brought to light by the Obama administration before the election when it could have made a difference?

Once again, the truth behind what has actually occurred in this case is clearly being intentionally obscured with misdirection, irrelevant details, and high emotion. This obfuscation is only worsening as more real facts are slowly emerging. Each side is going to extraordinary lengths to pervert new evidence into supporting elements of their own storyline. It really seems like there are two parallel universes in action. Ideologies collide and American journalism is again the casualty.