The Evolution of What Constitutes ‘Collusion’
Democrats, media shift goal posts on what qualifies as Trump-Russia wrongdoing
The notion of what actually constitutes collusion with Russians to sway the 2016 election in President Donald Trump’s favor has dramatically shifted from the first unverified accusations made against Trump in the so-called “dossier.”
The accusations in that dossier, a list of unsubstantiated claims about Trump created by a Democratic-leaning research firm, were hurled at the president and his confidants before he took office.
What began as baseless speculation over hand-in-hand efforts to invade Democratic systems, steal emails, and then coordinate the release of those documents has now become a multi-pronged hunt for any evidence of any contact with any Russian individuals to discuss the campaign in any capacity. It's the Democrats' latest characterization of collusion, a nebulous theory whose definition tends to be based on the holder's belief system regarding Donald Trump.
The Democrats' collusion delusion has taken on many shapes and forms over the past year. It's gone from suggesting Trump himself was a puppet of a master Kremlin plot to steal the 2016 election, to smearing associates such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions for simply attending an event with numerous ambassadors — including one who was Russian — at the Republican National Convention last July, an event co-organized by President Obama's State Department.
The idea of collusion has broadened dramatically since Democrats first floated it as a theory. Any contact with the Russians — or a Russian private citizen — is enough to damage the presidency of Donald Trump.
And undermining the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory is the entire objective. To keep the narrative of a "stolen" or "unfair" election going, the Democrats and media allies must keep going a narrative of "collusion."
"Liberal Democrats do not lose graciously," said Robert Kaufman, a professor of public policy at Pepperdine University. "On the contrary, liberals have contested the legitimacy of virtually every presidential election the Republicans won fair and square, except for President Reagan's landslide in 1984 — too overwhelming to deny."
Indeed, in 1988, it was Willie Horton. In 2000, it was the recount.
But collusion is a tricky case for the Democrats to make when they themselves participated in questionable conduct during the presidential race. Democratic National Committee operatives reportedly went to the Ukrainian embassy in Georgetown last summer to dig up dirt on Trump associates. On Sunday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the leading Trump critic in Congress, was pressed about the meeting on ABC News. He admitted it would not have been appropriate for the DNC, although it was not illegal.
The Left's strategy now is to cling tightly to the theory of collusion, which legal experts rightly note has no real meaning in the eyes of the law, except in antitrust law. Still, it would be a potent political problem for Trump if evidence of real collusion between his campaign and Russian state actors — not simply Russian nationals — comes out at some point in the future.
It's therefore important to examine what forms of collusion theory exist, and how those theories have evolved in the minds of the Left, from the summer of 2016 to today.
The Original Collusion Theory
The original collusion theory was that Trump associates, possibly within the campaign, guided the Russian government into a coordinated release of the stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee and the gmail account of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
This happened after the alleged theft of the emails by Russian hackers who congressional investigators claim worked for Russian state intelligence forces. When Podesta's emails began surfacing on WikiLeaks on Oct. 7, the Democrats immediately suggested the Russians were helping Trump. They have never changed that tune, and have always suggested Trump associates may have helped guide the release.
This would be damaging for Trump if it ever emerged that he signed off on such guidance, but it wouldn't be illegal. Frustrated pundits, including CNN's Andrew Kaczynski and HBO's Bill Maher, have of late been highlighting Trump defenders' shift toward an "it's not illegal" defense.
Last Feb. 28, speaking on CNN, Michael Mukasey, President George W. Bush's attorney general, told Erin Burnett that collusion, or after-the-fact discussions about releasing hacked emails through WikiLeaks, is not a crime. (Newspapers, it should be noted, coordinate such releases all the time.)
"Saying you ought to get stuff on Hillary Clinton, believe it or not, is not a crime," said Mukasey. "Even if you are saying it to the Russians." (go to page 2 to continue reading)