I have been critical, in a number of essays, of this counterintuitive embrace of (other) libertarians with authoritarian wannabe, deficit-spending Trump. It has ranged from heavyweights like Walter Block to podcasters like GML's Nate Thurston and Chuck Thompson. Walter Block has defended his support principally on Trump's allegedly America First/less interventionist foreign policy grounds. (I will simply point out that Trump nominated neo-cons like Mattis and Bolton, procured record DoD budgets, out-bombed Obama in Afghanistan, used his veto authority to support Saudi Arabia's involvement in Yemen genocide, scrapped an Iranian treaty, assassinated an Iranian government official in Iraq, launched unprovoked missile attacks into Syria, and started a trade war with China.) I currently follow 3 libertarian audio podcasts (Amash, who hasn't posted in a while; Cato Institute; and "Good Morning, Liberty" (somewhat misleading since I think they publish in the afternoon), probably best known for its signature Friday "Dumb BLEEP of the Week" countdown. I've probably written up to half a dozen or more one-off posts refuting pro-Trumpkin takes on the impeachments, COVID-related topics, etc. There probably is at least one thing the co-hosts (usually Nate) say daily I disagree with, but I don't want to turn the blog into a version of Woods' Contra Krugman. I have flirted with the idea of introducing more of a short answer, multi-segment format post, somewhat analogous to the "Dumb BLEEP" concept, like a supersized tweet vs. a dedicated blog post like this one.
I have not really extensively covered the whole RussiaGate controversy in this blog, i.e., the purported link between Russa and the Trump campaign. I have consistently dismissed this on social media as a desperation ploy and sore loser excuse. We don't have to resort to crackpot conspiracies to explain Clinton's loss: Clinton had some of the highest polling negatives of any nominated candidate in recent history; she won a rough, divisive primary against Comrade Bernie Sanders, the preelection polls showed her under 50% with a narrow lead; it was a change election, and she was running against an unconventional, antiestablishment candidate without a public sector resume.
Let's be clear: I'm no Trumpkin, but this excuse that Russia "interfered" in our election is preposterous. Did Russia have preferences--e.g., did it find Clinton's interventionism objectionable and/or Trump's pushback on NATO preferable? Perhaps. But Russia had no access to our state/local election voting systems. Clinton had a huge money advantage over Trump's campaign, and probably most of the Big Tech elite backed her candidacy; the idea that a group of Russian hackers on a spartan budget could flip an election on social media is one of the most improbable conspiracy theories I've ever heard.
In fact, here is NYU analysis of the Russia election manipulation hypothesis:
We demonstrate, first, that exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.
The leftist talking point that Trump was Russia's puppet is wrong:
- Trump signed the: Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, imposing economic sanctions on Russia, and additional ones over behavior during the 2016 campaign
- When Russia responded to sanctions with expulsion of over 750 diplomates, the US responded by shuttering 3 Russian facilities in the US
- Trump signed an arms sale to Ukraine bill, which Russia opposed
- The Trump Administration rebuked Russia over alleged chemical attacks on dissidents abroad
- The Administration also criticized Russian actions in Syria, Georgia, etc.
Now did all this nonsense of a Trump/Russia link start? I'm not sure of other possible factors but Trump made a huge unforced error on Hillary Clinton's emails (Clinton was using a private email server/account for government emails; some emails contained (eventually) classified data) One point I've repeatedly made is that Trump tends to be impulsive and undisciplined. So publicly Trump calls for Russia's assistance in locating Clinton's "missing emails".
This was, without question, wildly inappropriate: ask a foreign adversary to release our national secrets. Trump would later disingenuously try to dismiss the incident as a "joke". This is enough for people to speculate: why would Putin do Trump a favor? What did Trump promise him? "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Then, to make things even worse, "Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer in July 2016 after learning she had damaging information about Hillary Clinton, the Democratic opponent of now-President Trump," So you have at least the appearance of a quid pro quo.
Now personally I don't think Trump had any nefarious dealings with Russia. I think he just wanted something he could use against Clinton, and he really didn't care it came from.
It doesn't justify the Clinton campaign corrupting the FBI with bogus evidence implicating Trump's Russia connection.
But then Trump makes an even worse, impeachable mistake: Trump is obsessing over RussiaGate and wants all relevant investigations shut down. THIS GOVERNMENT IS BY RULE OF LAW, NOT RULE OF MAN. Trump had a vested interest in the investigation; for Trump to intervene, to obstruct justice would have been an abuse of power, grossly unethical. I don't care if he thought the investigation was unfair. Of course, he doesn't want an investigation. Trump fired Comey, Sessions, etc. So, Mueller ends up concluding RussiaGate was basically a nothingburger but also concludes Trump's behavior during the investigation was improper and unacceptable.
So, I've set the table for Nate Thurston's idiotic statement which I paraphrase as follows. The Durham Report basically concludes the FBI investigation acted corruptly, violating internal controls. Thus, Nate reasons, Trump had every right to halt the investigation. WRONG! Trump was not his own judge and jury. It's one thing to modify procedures and/or replace management/bad agents based on evidence of procedural misconduct. Mueller's conclusion reflected the process works, despite Trump's attempts to sabotage it.
