The Arizona Republic

The distorted Trump lens

- Robert Robb

Recent events illustrate how disorienti­ng a political figure Donald Trump is, to opponents and supporters alike.

For his opponents, it was the indictment of Roger Stone.

According to the left, Stone’s indictment is proof positive that Trump and the Russians were in cahoots to steal the 2016 presidenti­al election. All that’s left is for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to tidy up the details, issue his report and tee up impeachmen­t proceeding­s.

In reality, the Stone indictment is generally suggestive of a lack of collusion or coordinati­on between Trump, his campaign and the Russians.

Stone is fairly described as a Trump confidant and a Trump freelance political operative and supporter. This analysis isn’t based on asserting some kind of space or distinctio­n between Trump, his campaign and Stone.

After Wikileaks released documents purloined from the Democratic National Committee, Stone became interested in what else Wikileaks had and what it intended to do with the material. He sought to find out through a couple of intermedia­ries.

There was nothing illegal about this. And the indictment doesn’t allege that there was. Instead, all the criminal charges result from Stone lying about what he did to a congressio­nal committee and urging one of his intermedia­ries to lie as well.

An official of the Trump campaign contacted Stone seeking informatio­n regarding what he might have learned about what else Wikileaks had and what it intended to do with the material.

Again, there was nothing illegal about this. A campaign naturally wants to know as much as possible about events that may affect the election.

But if the Trump campaign and the Russians were in cahoots, the Trump campaign wouldn’t have needed to go fishing for informatio­n from Stone. It would already know what the Russians had given Wikileaks and have a good idea what Wikileaks was going to do.

Nor is Stone, based upon what’s in the indictment, the Russian connection. There’s no allegation that Stone talked to anyone but two Americans with tenuous relationsh­ips with Wikileaks. He was also fishing for informatio­n.

This is frankly self-evident from just reading the indictment. That so many on the left so eagerly misconstru­ed its import is more than just overzealou­s partisansh­ip. The Trump lens distorts reality for them.

For supporters, it was Trump’s mishandlin­g of the government shutdown.

Trump has an intensivel­y loyal following among Republican primary voters, which has other Republican officehold­ers, particular­ly in Congress, walking on eggshells.

Trump initially gave Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, back in December,

Trump has an intensivel­y loyal following among Republican primary voters, which has other Republican officehold­ers, particular­ly in Congress, walking on eggshells.

the green light to pass a temporary funding bill to keep the government open. After McConnell did that, Trump changed his mind and insisted on more money than he had requested in his budget for physical barriers at the border to keep the government open.

Democrats balked, and the government shut down. Trump then urged Senate Republican­s, who tend not to be very keen on shutdown politics, to stick with him. He would get the Democrats to bend.

Which Republican­s did, voting against a bill to temporary open the government while negotiatio­ns over border security funding continued. The very next day, Trump caved and expressed support for the very thing he had urged Republican­s to hold the line against.

Politics is a team sport. But Trump isn’t a team player, or a team leader. He is impulsive, erratic and unreliable.

Trump was clearly a drag on Republican­s in the 2018 election. The Democrats are the only ones who can re-elect Trump in 2020, which they may do by nominating a European-style social democrat. But even if Trump manages to eke out another Electoral College majority, he will damage the fortunes of other Republican candidates.

Congressio­nal Republican­s need to be charting an independen­t course. It doesn’t need to be in opposition to Trump. It can be in parallel with him, given the large overlap in policy and political objectives. But it needs to be independen­t in tactics and tone.

Despite the obvious need, it’s a parlous course since, for GOP primary voters, the Trump lens also distorts reality.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States