Mr. Peak’s piece also conveniently ignores the history of American meddling in elections from modern Honduras (Obama/Clinton) to the installation of the Shah of Iran by President Eisenhower in 1953, although the overthrow was crafted by his predecessor, President Truman and W. Averell Harriman, Democrats. Meddling is U.S., Mr. Peak. Get over it!
Let’s assume Trump and Putin did conspire to rig the election. The Democrats are so inured to protecting all political elites from prosecutions, from both parties (I believe after Bill Clinton’s impeachment they have made a devils deal), that Nancy Pelosi repeatedly refuses to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President! “Now is not the time”. Remember if you will Ms.Pelosi famously refused to prosecute GWBush for war crimes when she rose to Speaker of the House in 2004.
But it is time to perhaps stop the ridiculous bitching about peripheral non issues like Russian meddling and look squarely at the policies that Trump inherited from Obama, and has continued, with little Democrat outcry: endless wars, Wall St. protectionism, corporate influence in our politics, inequality, lack of SinglePayer healthcare. After one year in office for D. Trump, my prediction rings true: nothing has changed. We occupy more and more sovereign nations with our military. We daily murder innocents with drones and special forces. Since Obama was guilty of these heinous crimes against Muslims as well, Dems are largely silent, but choose instead to rant about “Russian meddling”.
Extreme partisanship has paralyzed our nation and left U.S. with nothing but a bunch of privileged whiners, trained to ignore the real issues while blathering about corporate media driven drivel like the Russia election issue…
Russia Monitor Columnist Responds…
Thank you for your feedback. I apologize if the intent of the Russia Monitor has not been clear. I try to let the news tell the story. Your comments are a good occasion to consider intent.
I believe our democracy is at risk. For our government to work and serve us well we need checks and balances. One fundamental is our right to vote – one person, one vote. Our right to vote is structurally under attack through gerrymandering and various efforts to restrict persons from access to voting. Our vote may also be at risk based on many forms of Russian involvement. We are beyond any question of Russian involvement in our election – it happened in a number of ways.
But in addition to Russian involvement, was there a quid pro quo, a grand bargain between the Trump campaign and Russia? Maybe – and we should know this. If so, this could be more historic than Watergate. The focus is on current events – history is about the story after the fact. Pundits can then decide the ‘if/then’.
The focus of the Russia Monitor ends up being about Trump and associates. Not by design but based on evidence. So it’s not about Hillary Clinton though it is at times about President Obama. I actually agree with Trump, he’s not given enough credit for his campaign. Trump touched a visceral populist resentment that we’re not winning – the U.S., but also as individuals. You raise an excellent point, why not SinglePayer healthcare instead of our present system that poorly serves so many of us? Trump provided a canvas and a set of issues that energized many – I believe it is short-sighted to dismiss Trump solely as racist based on his issues while missing in turn the more pervasive disappointment, frustration and anger many of us feel. But almost all of that is beyond the scope of the Russia Monitor.
I admit to a personal failure with your logic. Hillary lost so the Russia Monitor must be about Hillary. If that simple inference is true, wouldn’t it then also be true that by rejecting the idea of Russian involvement in our election you must be a supporter of Trump? Neither of those inferences apply.
Hillary’s campaign, SinglePayer healthcare, feelings about Trump and Russian involvement in our election are not a collective either-or, I see multiple issues.
The Russia Monitor is about our form of democracy and a question of the influences on our 2016 election. But more so whether anyone in the U.S. condoned, encouraged, or facilitated influence from another country. If another country gave money to U.S. candidates or groups like the NRA this would be illegal and easily dealt with. But if someone struck a grand bargain for personal gain that’s an entirely different issue.
Our country is one or two steps away from a breakdown in the rule of law – an outcome that says power is most important and those with power can be above the rule of law. That’s authoritarianism. History aside, we have our own pivotal moment in time. History has less to do with expected results and more to do with the unexpected. As an example, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller is allowed to conclude his investigation and all is good, the minor note in history is likely to say “it worked”.
There is a real possibility that history will be about our moment of the unexpected. Maybe the unexpected is a break down in the rule of law and the resultant failure of our form of government. Maybe the unexpected will prove there was a grand bargain. And maybe Mueller finds nothing.
The Russia Monitor will see this thread of history through to a point where we know whether it’s the expected or the unexpected.
The Commoner Call
Hey, Dave: