A world of difference

In quivering, almost apoplectic rage, Adam Serwer writes in Atlantic:

That Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Adam, cool down, bud! Don't burst a vein. There is a world of difference between the claim that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf and the claim that Trump colluded with Russia to improperly influence the 2016 election. The second claim remains unproven. The first claim should surprise no one: Russia attempts to influence outcomes in American politics on a daily basis; just as America attempts to influence outcomes in the politics of other nations on a daily basis. Anyone who needed the massive efforts of a Special Prosecutor's investigation and a year of national trauma to realize that Russia engages in cyber activities to destabilize the United States is naive in the extreme. What's more, the charge that Russia attempted to help Trump is no worse than the charge that Russia attempted to help Bernie Sanders, this second charge also being contained in Mueller's indictments. Neither man is tainted in any way by such charges.

With each new set of indictments by the Mueller investigation, the case against Trump grows weaker. The first set of indictments simply pointed out that Michael Flynn lied to the FBI (as did Christopher Steele, obviously, and Steele has yet to be indicted) and that Paul Manafort is a crook. But no collusion. This second set of indictments proves that Russians engage in cyber attacks against the US. But, again, no collusion. And, in the meantime, we have discovered that a paid operative of the Clinton campaign cobbled together rumors from Russian sources into a "dossier", peddled it to Obama's FBI and Justice Department, which then used it to obtain from the FISA Court a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. Thus, the case against Trump grows progressively weaker, while the case against Clinton and Obama grows progressively stronger.

But the mainstream media believe that, if they respond with white hot rage and resistance to every new revelation of the Mueller investigation, they will persuade the American people that Trump is the ogre that they sincerely hope he is, even when the revelations do not incriminate Trump in the least. This is a losing strategy. With each new "nothing-burger" revelation from Mueller, and the ensuing "hair on fire" response from the media, Trump's poll numbers just rise. It was looking for a while like 2018 might be a very good year for Democrats. The chances of that happening seem now to be diminishing.