by
John Stevenson
Dear reader: Do not expect to find here an advocacy
for either Presidential Candidate Donald Trump or Presidential Candidate
Hillary Clinton (well, you wouldn't have expected that anyway)---or an argument
against either one. I focus here on the
narrow issue of the hacking of the emails of the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and, more specifically, the handling of that issue by the DNC, the media,
the pundits, and the political operatives.
So this writing is rated "safe for all readers"---even for my
Democrat friends (yes, I think I still have some). But you'll have to pay attention because, as
they say, it's complicated.
Hopefully, unless you have been comatose since July
24 or hiking incommunicado in the Desolation Valley wilderness, you know the
background. Someone hacked into the
DNC's emails and released some of the contents to the public. What was released showed that the DNC had,
throughout the primary process, been tilting the playing field in favor of
Clinton and against her disheveled but apparently lovable opponent. Bad press---sure to make the Bernie faithful
madder than a swarm of killer bees.
The Democrats handled this crisis very well. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was
forced to resign pronto, sent packing before the convention was gaveled to
order and, as far as I know, has relocated to Tierra del Fuego. Then the Democrats skillfully diverted
attention away from the damning content of the emails by offering the opinion
that the Russians had done the hacking.
And furthermore, they had done it to help Trump! Obediently, the media, the pundits, and the political
operatives from both camps went right along with this change of
focus---opining, charging, or defending, depending on their political
allegiance.
Even Trump himself got caught up in the side show. He denied any involvement or knowledge of the
hack, who had done it, and whether the Russians were involved. Then, warming to the subject, Trump suggested
that the Russians take a crack at finding Clinton's missing 30 thousand
emails. Well, that immediately became
the focus of the story---totally gone from the headlines was the DNC's
undermining of the socialist candidate.
Those on the Left accused Trump of inviting the Russians
to meddle in a U.S. election. Clinton
campaign spokesman Robby Mook said Trump had encouraged a foreign power to
commit espionage to influence an election.
Rep. Joaquin Castro declared the situation a "digital
Watergate." Sen. Harry Reid said of
Trump "This guy, he's part of a foreign power." Reid also offered that intelligence officials
should "Fake it. Pretend you're doing a briefing, but you can't give this
guy any information." Among others, Rep. Debbie Dingell literally
accused Trump of treason.
Defenders on the Right said Trump was being
sarcastic. I saw Trump's statement on
live TV, before spinners from either side had managed to barge in. I laughed out loud; to me it was an obvious
joke---not an invitation to the Russians to do anything.
Now let's think about this for a moment. Even if Trump had been serious, there's no
foul. And here's why.
What Trump actually said was "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30 thousand emails that are missing." What 30 thousand emails are missing? Not the DNC's---but Clinton's. The emails that she and her attorneys
determined to be personal, non-work related, and never to be seen by either the
State Department's Inspector General or the FBI's investigators. Clinton has said they were of a personal nature, including
her "yoga routines" and her daughter Chelsea's wedding plans.
So stay with me,
here. Since the 30 thousand deleted
emails were, as Clinton and her supporters have claimed, not work-related but
personal, where is the digital Watergate, the attempt to involve a foreign
power in our election, the danger to national security, the treason? Of course it is all imaginary. A diversion to focus the public's attention
on Trump as the culprit rather than on the DNC's sabotage of Clinton's primary
election rival.
I watch a lot of news
on TV and I read a lot of punditry. But Charles
Krauthammer is the only voice I have heard point out that the missing 30
thousand have (according to Clinton) nothing whatever to do with either
national security or the election.
Everyone
else---media, pundits, politicos---seems to have bought into the
diversion. We are not well served by our
politicians or by those who report on them.
