Some Interesting Points of Comparison Between Trump-Russian and Trump Insurrection

 

But her e-mails!

There is a certain similarity between the original Trump-Russia investigation and the recent Capitol Hill insurrection and impeachment.

In both cases, there was an illegal conspiracy (or conspiracies) to benefit Trump.  Trump himself had no advance knowledge of the conspiracy(ies) and did not participate, but openly welcomed, encouraged, and sought to benefit from illegal actions. In both cases, Republicans have sought to portray non-participation as exoneration, when a normal leader would have denounced and sought to discourage the whole thing.  And, I will confess it, in the Russia scandal our side became so obsessed with proving direct participation in the conspiracy that we saw mere encouragement and a let-down, or even as exonerating.  The latest insurrection has convinced me that absence of conspiracy is far from exoneration.

Consider:

In Trump-Russia, the Russian intelligence services hacked the DNC computer and handed the e-mails over to Wikileaks in a manner calculated to advance Trump's fortunes.  A separate set of Russians operated a troll farm that engaged in illegal identity theft, bank fraud and wire fraud, and illegal meddling in U.S. political activity.  The FBI, Special Counsel, and the Senate Intelligence Committee probed for a direct line of communication between the Trump campaign and Russia.  No such evidence was found, and much of the behavior of the Trump campaign was inconsistent with the existence of such a line of communication. Nonetheless, a patriotic candidate would have denounced the hacks and made clear that he wanted no help from any foreign power.  Trump did not.  Instead he quoted Russian propaganda in public tweets and speeches, built his campaign around Wikileaks revelations, and publicly called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton and find her missing e-mails.*  

Subsequent investigations have revealed more disturbing events taking place in secret.  Trump directed Michael Flynn to find Hillary's missing e-mails on the dark web, with no thought to the possibility that he might be dealing with Russian spies. No such e-mails were found because they were not, in fact, available on the dark web.  Paul Manafort was secretly selling campaign polling data to a presumed Russian spy.  Nothing suggests that Trump was aware of his campaign manager's activities, but he has never once spoke up to condemn what most people in his position would have seen as a shocking betrayal.

Now compare that to the recent insurrection.  The immediate appearance of the insurrection was a riot by an unplanned and unorganized mob.  And for most of the participants that was undoubtedly true.  But evidence is emerging of advance planning by some of the better organized and disciplined members of the insurrection.  In other words, a criminal conspiracy well before January 6.  It seems a safe assumption that Trump did not know about these conspiracies, much less take part in them.  But he did call on supporters to rally against the vote count on January 6.  He made quite clear that the purpose of the rally was not just to show support, but to pressure Congress into changing the certification.  He dropped broad hints before the rally that there might be violence.  And on January 6 he addressed the crowd, urging them to march on Congress, "fight like hell" and "show strength."  Given the total context, this does, indeed, sound like a call for violence.  It certainly incited violence.  And even if Trump did not intend violence, he appears to have enjoyed the spectacle and refused to take action to stop it.

A member of the Capitol Police was killed in the attack and others injured.  There is at least some evidence that some of the attackers would have killed Mike Pence or members of Congress if given the opportunity.  Do I think Trump intended anyone to be killed when the crowd marched on the Capitol to overturn the election?  I do not.  But he does not appear to have been much bothered by it.

Granted, there are differences.  I don't think the crowd would have attacked the Capitol if Trump has not incited them.  (And by incitement I mean not just the day of the attack, but the buildup for the preceding two months).  The Russians doubtless would have proceeding with their hack and leak regardless of what its intended beneficiary did.  On the other hand, the Mueller Report states that the Russians escalated their attempts to hack Hillary Clinton personally (as opposed to the DNC) when Trump urged them to do so.  Trump acted on his own initiative to overturn the election long before summoning crowds.  He also took an active part in organizing the rally that he almost certainly planned as an act of incitement.  The Russians acted on their own initiative with Trump as a generally passive beneficiary.  

But I do take the Capitol Hill insurrection as showing that one does not have to know of, or take direct part in, a conspiracy to be complicit for encouraging it and seeking to benefit.

______________________________________________

*In the clear light of hindsight, that itself is evidence that there was not a secret channel of communication, or he would have used the channel instead.