By Count Friedrich von Olsen
Bear in mind as you read this, that I am a U.S. citizen by choice rather than by birth. Remember, too, that I am an old cold warrior, one who knew too well the shortcomings in the Soviet system, and someone who had a part in the long twilight struggle to see that system taken down…
I find troubling this “investigation” into “alleged” ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. If I have this much right, and I think I do, the issue is “foreign” influence with regard to the American political process or, put another way, so-called “meddling” in an American election. This is problematic for two reasons. The first reason is that influencing “foreign” elections and “meddling” in politics beyond our own shores has long been a staple of American policy. That “foreign” influence and “meddling” goes both ways would seem to me to be a simple fact that is hardly remarkable enough of an issue for an investigation. The second reason is that we now live in – actually for generations have lived in – an internationalist context. Does anyone really expect the Donald Trump campaign, or any campaign, to cut itself off from information about its opponents simply because that information originated oversees or resides with foreigners?
Just a short list of American involvement in foreign elections: In 1949, the American legation in Syria in league with the CIA assisted the Syrian Army chief of staff, Husni al-Za’im, overthrow the democratically elected government of Syria. In 1953, Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt Jr., a grandson of U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt and a CIA operative, undertook and succeeded with Operation Ajax, which overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh. In 1954, the CIA deposed the democratically elected Guatemalan president, Jacobo Árbenz. In 1961, the CIA found itself involved in the nasty little business of deposing, that is to say in this case assassinating, Patrice Émery Lumumba, a Congolese politician and the first democratically elected prime minister of Congo, who had been instrumental in gaining for the Congo its independence from Belgium. In 1973, Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, a physician and a Marxist, was driven from power, that is, he found himself under siege as the result of a coup attempt by the Chilean military, which was aided by the United States and the CIA, and he either took his own life or was killed just before or as the plotters stormed the Presidential Palace. In 1975, Gough Whitlam, who had been elected to a second term as Australian prime minister in 1974, was dismissed as prime minister by the governor-general of Australia, Sir John Kerr, who took that action at the insistence of the CIA…
That other countries might take something of an interest in American elections might not be all that surprising. That the United States criminalizes, or is attempting to criminalize, that participation might be interpreted as hypocritical…
It seems the focus of special counsel Robert Mueller, who has been tasked with looking into this Russian-meddling-in-the-2016 Presidential election matter, is that the Trump campaign was offered, and apparently sought to receive, information pertaining to “dirt on Hillary Clinton” that was to be furnished by a Russian lawyer. Need I remind everyone that before she was a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton was the U.S. Secretary of State? She was dealing in international affairs. There is a degree of secrecy, in many respects, about the way the U.S. State Department operates. The ostensible reason for that is there are legitimate state secrets which are, in theory at least, in the best interest of all Americans to keep under wraps. The problem is, however, that many times, those secrets are secret in large measure only from the American public. That is, the State Department engages in action in foreign lands that is perfectly apparent to the residents and citizens of those countries, while back at home, the U.S. citizenry remains entirely in the dark as to what is going on and what policy is being perpetrated using their tax dollars and in their name. Sometimes, at least, that secrecy serves no other purpose than to prevent the American people from knowing about activity by its own government officials that was ill-advised, ill-executed, ill-timed, plain wrongheaded, ineffective, counterproductive, self-serving or outright mendacious…
Another consideration in this context is that Hillary Clinton is intimately associated with the Clinton Foundation, an organization that is supposedly involved in all kinds of charitable do-gooding, at home and abroad. All kinds of money is flowing into the Clinton Foundation, from domestic donors and foreign ones. But there are indications that some of that do-gooding, at least by some people’s interpretation, isn’t all that good, and that the foundation in fact has been misused to, essentially, promote the political career of Hillary Clinton. And there are questions about where the foundation has gotten its money, accompanied by persistent reports that the foundation has ties with all sorts of questionable individuals. And reports have drifted in that the foundation has been used as a laundering vehicle for money that has originated from some very questionable activities…
I am personally unaware of any U.S. law that makes it illegal to traffic in information. Indeed, the exchange of information in all walks of life is crucial. Information is a major factor in successful commerce. It is a huge component of politics. The American people have a direct interest in knowing as much as they can about their political leaders and their prospective political leaders. A traditional element of American political campaigns – and political campaigns beyond the American shores – is for rival candidates to disclose to the voters what they can about their opponents. So, given all these factors, when this Russian lawyer contacted functionaries in the Donald Trump campaign – which if I am not mistaken included Donald Trump, Jr. – to let them know he had some “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, it does not bother me, really, that the Donald Trump campaign expressed interest in finding out what that information was. Actually, I would find more disturbing if the campaign had neglected to look into what was being offered. That the information either originated with or was being passed through by someone that was not an American is in no way a problem for me. And I can’t imagine that I am wrong in assuming that it is completely legal to accept information from anyone, be he/she a U.S. citizen or a foreign citizen. Indeed, I find the opposite proposition one that borders on the absurd, for it would have us remain willingly ignorant with regard to a whole host of things simply because that knowledge is in the possession of or must be unlocked by someone who is not an American…
I recognize, of course, that there is always a danger in accepting, too believingly, information being freely offered by others whose motivations are either not known, not entirely clear, or outright suspect. The danger of being taken in by disinformation is ever present. And I would have been woefully disappointed in Donald Trump if as a candidate for president he had propounded out and out falsehoods about his opponent, Ms. Clinton, on the basis of some whopper or whoppers the Russians, or anyone else for that matter, had fed to him. But that is not what happened. I am not aware that he used any information provided by the Russians during his campaign. If he did, I am relatively certain his campaign people checked into its accuracy and authenticity lest he be shown to be engaging in at least a part of what his political opponents are insinuating, which is that he was a vehicle for Russian disinformation…
Recently we have been informed that the Democrats, in the run-up to the election, had engaged the services of – that is, paid for – a former British intelligence officer to look into whether Donald Trump or his associates or his campaign were engaged with the Russians in some untoward way. My understanding is that this British intelligence officer was unable to unearth any smoking gun in this regard. To be fair about it, I am not bothered, particularly, that Ms. Clinton and the Democrats got in league with this agent of a foreign government to try to “dig up dirt” on Donald Trump. Indeed, if it had turned out that this former British intelligence officer found out, for example, that Donald Trump was plotting with the Russians to sell Alaska back to them, I think we would all be grateful for being so informed and this would clearly vindicate the Democrats and Hillary Clinton in their undertaking. But, let us not forget, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were engaged in nothing different than what Donald Trump, or his campaign, is accused of, which is plotting with a foreigner who has ties to a foreign government to obtain information that might not have otherwise been available…
The thing that gets me in all of this is it looks like people are trying to demonize and crucify Donald Trump for one of the things he is doing right. Remember I am an old cold warrior who distrusted, implicitly and explicitly, the Soviet Union. But we need to be clear in our thinking. The Soviet Union ceased to exist a quarter of a century ago. Russia was a component and indeed a major component of the Soviet Union. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union. It seems to me, Donald Trump, a huge capitalist, recognizes this. He recognizes it better than just about anyone else, having gotten into a few business deals there. He is looking past the Soviet boogeyman. He recognizes that in the brave new world we now live in, one of our most natural allies, the most logical trading partner we have and the key to our continued prosperity is none other than Russia. I think that informed Americans are beginning to recognize this and I think it is even dawning on many Democrats. But the Democrats also recognize that Americans are conditioned to distrust the Russians and they sense that Donald Trump, in his open door policy to Russia, has given them the opportunity to engage in a mendacious and underhanded attack on him that entirely lacks substance but which might just succeed, based on the reflexive reaction of a large cross section of the American public…
What I am saying, I think, is reflected in the reality that Mr. Mueller’s success in getting a conviction against George Papadopoulos, a low-level campaign adviser, is based on Mr. Papadopoulos having made misstatements to the FBI when its agents began poking around on this matter, and that the indictments of Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign’s top manager, and Manafort’s campaign deputy Richard Gates, are based on alleged money laundering activity and possible tax evasion activity that took place long ago and had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign. I do not want to use the term witch hunt, and I won’t. But it sure does not look like the ostensible purpose for carrying out the investigation has been justified by the facts churned up…
I hope Mr. Mueller will thoroughly do what he was chartered to do. I hope he bedevils everyone and gets to the bottom of this. I want him to leave no stone unturned. If he finds any wrongdoing along the way, let him indict others. My guess is that whatever that wrongdoing is has nothing to do with our President plotting with the Russians to destroy America. But let’s allow Mr. Mueller to proceed with that theory so we can get this charade over with so our president can take us forward into the rest of the 21st Century…