How the GOP Fabricated a Conspiracy Theory to Counter an Actual Conspiracy
“Foreign electoral interventions are attempts by governments, covertly or overtly, to influence elections in another country. There are many ways that nations have accomplished regime change abroad, and electoral intervention is only one of those methods.”
This is the definition given by Wikipedia to define what constitutes election interference. Notice the wording: “covertly or overtly.” This would suggest such interference would likely be performed via clandestine means, and/or cause a measurable influence in swaying an election toward one candidate. So where, I wonder, between the words covert and overt would we measure the devastating and devious effects of writing a simple op-ed?
In July of 2016, the FBI covertly began to investigate suspicious ties between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian operatives. This was code named Crossfire Hurricane. (A catchy title if I’ve ever heard one.) Shortly after this was revealed to the public, President Donald Trump promptly dismissed FBI Director James Comey, allegedly for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her infamous emails.
The response to Comey’s dismissal, as well as the reason given by President Trump, was prompt and reasonably critical. It appeared to be a pretty incredible coincidence that a president would fire a man who he had always claimed to admire, only after finding out about such an investigation into Donald Trump and his suspicious ties to Russia. Eight days after Comey’s unceremonious dismissal, Democratic lawmakers, as well as numerous revelations from Comey, even including allegations of obstruction of justice, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller, a very esteemed former FBI director, as Special Counsel to take over the FBI’s investigation into allegations of links and coordination between the Russian Government and associates and members of the Trump campaign.
Nearly two years, thirty-four individual indictments, three corporate indictments, eight guilty pleas and convictions (and a few more since then), the Mueller Report into Russian interference into the 2016 elections was released to the public. A report that showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia had interfered in our election, had infiltrated US lobby groups, hacked Democratic campaign servers, colluded with Wikileaks to release emails, and that there had been multiple cases of campaign finance crimes. Though, very few among the GOP will admit to collusion, despite President Trump literally asking Russia for help on live television on several occasions, the evidence is far too overwhelming to deny Russian interference alone.
This brings us to our current impeachment inquiry, and drafting of articles of impeachment, though I must note, the impeachment itself is unrelated to the Russia probe. Our current impeachment proceedings involves President Trump committing the very same crime again, however, which is requesting a foreign government to dig up dirt on a rival. Yes, apparently President Trump thought he could get away with the same crime twice after his Justice Department gave him the notion that he was above the law.
This time, however, it is not Russia who Trump is imploring, but it is Ukraine. I’m sure you are all familiar with the story by now. President Trump withheld promised foreign military aid until Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky announced an investigation into Hunter Biden and his association with Burisma Holdings, which is a major Ukrainian natural gas company. While this is based on a pure conspiracy theory, this is not the conspiracy theory today’s GOP are using to counter the Russia probe findings.
No, there is a new conspiracy theory afoot. The following quote is from the December 8, 2019 edition of meet the press.
“Because Russia interfered, the media pretends nobody else did. Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election. The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump during the election season. … It’s hysterical two years ago there was article after article after article in the mainstream media about Ukrainian interference in the elections, but now, the Democrats have no evidence of a crime. No evidence of violating the law. And so suddenly Ukraine interference is treated as the media clutches their pearls, oh my goodness, you can’t say that! Last week, Chuck, you called Sen. John Kennedy basically a stooge for Putin.”
—Ted Cruz to Chuck Todd
“Meet the Press,” December 8, 2019, NBC News
The “interference” Ted Cruz is talking about is based on an op-ed written in The Hill by Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. Valeriy Chaly. An op-ed apparently falls into the definition at the top of this article regarding election interference. Here’s the backstory.
In 2014, Russia invaded, occupied, and annexed Crimea from Ukraine. As a result of Russia’s military actions, the United States, and most NATO countries denounced the military action of Russian president Vladimir Putin, and also refused to recognize Russia’s annexation of the peninsula. While most of the world stood in agreement in denouncing Russia, then candidate Donald Trump had a different view of the situation altogether. He said he would consider recognizing Crimea as a Russian territory. This was only one of many public statements from then candidate Trump in support of Russia and president Vladimir Putin.
This led to an op-ed being written in The Hill where Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, where she criticized then candidate Trump for his unwavering support of Russia, as well as Russia’s initiatives across the world. An op-ed that would profoundly prophetic in light of President Trump’s actions since taking the oath of office.
This brings us up to date. This past October White House acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, said in defense of President Trump’s withholding of promised and approved Ukrainian military support, that President Trump was actually withholding the financial support until Ukraine investigated its own election interference in the 2016 election. Mulvaney, of course, later walked that statement back, but unfortunately it stuck as a talking point for the GOP.
During the November impeachment inquiries, multiple GOP members of the House Intelligence Committee continued bringing up the Ukrainian election interference, all the while their only example is the op-ed spoken about above. Apparently, when grasping at straws, you grab whatever tiny one you can and just keep repeating and repeating until people believe this op-ed probably only read by political junkies, (not a whole lot of kids walking around quoting articles from The Hill) somehow swayed an entire election. Even though the candidate the op-ed criticized still obtained the office, even after losing by three million votes, but that’s a whole different piece altogether.
This has led to several other conspiracy theories on the Alex Jones tinfoil hat level, being touted by elected officials, such as the accusation that Ukraine is hiding all of Hillary’s “missing emails” or that they are conspiring to rig the 2020 elections in Biden’s favor, as if they have the same resources as Russia. Or even that one of the most respected and celebrated anti-corruption ambassadors in history was removed from her post because of massive corruption and political collusion. An ambassador conveniently removed not long after President Trump took office. It’s almost as if she would’ve stood in the way of something.
In the end, I suppose Ambassador Chaly should feel honored that her op-ed critical of candidate Trump could’ve been such a literary masterpiece it nearly swayed an entire election. She should feel very proud that merely criticizing a candidate’s support for a hostile foreign leader (not just to the Ukraine, but the U.S. as well) could’ve made such a vast dent in candidate Trump’s electoral victory However, I can think of very few ways to describe such a notion that could be said in a piece I’d like to keep PG. In fact, the article was very well-written and well-devised, and I wish I could piece together pros in any of my secondary languages the way that she does. However, it wasn’t going to inspire a revolution against a candidate who was already unpopular, even according to Fox News polls. So, I think it’s safe to refer to this defense as, well, I guess we’ll just go ahead and call it Malarkey.
The Seventh Floor 