Sunday Political Brunch: What is the Real Russian Connection?—July 16, 2017
Sunday, July 16, 2017
“Trump Jr.’s Journeys” – The President’s son, Donald Trump, Jr., confirms he and others met with a Russian attorney, who - we are told - was going to offer some damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Trump says that no such information was given, but there was a brief conversation about a different issue in Russia, and the meeting ended. He says the Russian attorney offered nothing of substance; nor was she offered anything in return. For the sake of our discussion, let’s assume those basic claims are true.
“Opposition Research” – This is one of the most crucial, but rarely discussed, practices in the world of political strategy. It's critical to any campaign. A candidate who does little if any opposition research is – to put it bluntly – a fool and usually loses. Research to uncover the mistakes and “sins” of the opposition is often not pretty, but it’s a necessary evil of the business. Campaigns search for information on the opponent, but often they are offered unsolicited information by an interested third party. The fact that Trump Jr. was contacted should not surprise anyone. His response is a whole different animal.
“Leave No Fingerprints” – As mentioned, campaigns often receive tips and rumors about dirt on opponents. It goes back as far as the long-standing feud between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in American politics, and a lot further in older countries. The big mistake in the Trump campaign was to let the candidate’s son attend the meeting. It goes to show how politically naïve they were. One can’t image someone in the Bush or Kennedy families making such an egregious faux pas. If you have the same last name as the candidate, run for the hills, and send in a trusted lieutenant instead.
“Was the Law Broken?” – Well I’m not a lawyer, and it depends upon whom you ask. The hyperbole is off the charts, with some shouting that Trump Jr. should be charged with treason. I don’t see that coming. I want to paraphrase some analysis I heard from famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who is hardly a conservative. His assessment is that if Trump Jr. initiated the discussion and solicited information or a deal from the Russian government, then he might be in legal hot water. But if Trump was merely offered information, went to listen, but made no requests, and took no action, there is no violation.
“It’s About the Optics” – I confess I am tired of hearing the old political cliché about “bad optics;” but in this case, I believe it fits. Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russians just looks bad; and the fact that it was never disclosed until now, makes it look even worse. Democrats used to use such legal heavyweights as Vernon Jordon, to go to these types of meetings. For Republicans, it was lawyer James Baker. These guys are pros. They know the legal parameters, and they know the political boundaries. How a family with Trump’s assets and allies could make such a rookie political mistake is unfathomable.
“The Faucet is Dripping” -- If a waterpipe breaks and water gushes onto the floor, we know we have an emergency. But if it makes one drip per minute, it may take days or weeks before we notice the flood rising in the basement. I use this analogy because the first National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, was fired for undisclosed dealings with Russians. Then Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to disclose meetings with a Russian Ambassador (although Sessions' role as a U.S. Senator may have made the meetings perfectly legit.) Then former campaign manager Paul Manafort also had Russian dealings (although that may have been legit in his role as a lobbyist.) And, of course, there is President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey over the Russia investigation. Now there’s the Trump Jr. meeting. None of this may lead to proof of collusion, but to Trump critics it’s beginning to form a critical mass.
“So, What’s the Chatter?” – People I’ve spoken with in D.C. this week say the Trump Jr. email chain on the Russian meeting is the talk of the town and, in fact, is the main topic of political chatter and hallway whispers. That’s the way Washington works. But what’s the buzz outside the beltway? In watching a local TV newscast tonight, I found almost all the commercials targeted Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia), who is a key swing vote on the Senate’s efforts to repeal Obamacare. Right now, she’s a “no” vote, but could flip to “yes” if the right changes are made. The country is having two distinct, if not totally disconnected conversations.
“Senate Hearings” – Both Democrats and Republicans want Donald Trump, Jr., to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the Russian meeting. He should. Sunshine on the whole matter is the best way to clear the air. President Trump praised his son’s “transparency” for releasing the email chain, but it’s important to note his candor came after the story broke in the press. I don’t know if Trump Jr. violated the law, but his naïve meeting just further fans the flames of mistrust and suspicion.
“Why All of This Matters” – I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record, because I say this almost every week. The more time Washington, D.C., spends on controversy or suspected scandal, the less work it gets done on public policy. I listen to a wide variety of media daily, and thought on Wednesday that conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh had a valid point. If I may paraphrase his theory, it is that none of this will ever warrant or lead to impeachment, but that Trump’s critics will keep fanning the flames so that none of his political agenda ever gets accomplished. Pardon the pun, but Limbaugh may be right!
What are your thoughts on the behavior of Donald Trump, Jr? Just click the comment button at www.MarkCurtisMedia.com.
Mark Curtis, Ed.D., is Chief Political Reporter for five Nexstar Media TV stations in West Virginia, and a commentator on ‘The Brian Copeland Show” on KGO Radio San Francisco.
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—March 12, 2017
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—March 5, 2017
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—March 19, 2017
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—March 26, 2017
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—April 2, 2017
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—February 26, 2017
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—February 19, 2017
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—January 22, 2017
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—January 29, 2017
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—February 5, 2017
- “The Sunday Political Brunch”—February 12, 2017
- Sunday Political Brunch - April 9, 2017: Choose Your Battles Carefully
- Sunday Political Brunch—April 16, 2017: Trump Changing His Tune
- Sunday Political Brunch: How Critical is Comey?—June 11 2017
- Sunday Political Brunch - June 4, 2017: Is Impeachment Really an Option?
- Sunday Political Brunch: Is the Press Too Depressing?—June 18, 2017
- Sunday Political Brunch: A Political Potluck – June 25, 2017
- Sunday Political Brunch - July 4th Trivia
- Sunday Political Brunch: What a Week It Was—May 28, 2017
- “Sunday Political Brunch: Will This Ever End?” – May 21, 2017
- Sunday Political Brunch: Political Odds and Ends
- Sunday Political Brunch: The 100 Day Myth—April 30, 2017
- Sunday Political Brunch - May 7, 2017: Sorting Out Winners and Losers
- Sunday Political Brunch: Political Crazy Talk - May 14, 2017
- Sunday Political Brunch: To Tweet or Not to Tweet?—July 9, 2017