As the legal team, communications team and damage limitation teams cluster around Donald Trump Junior (and Senior), trying to defend the indefensible meeting between Trump Junior and Russians allegedly bearing dirt on Hilary Clinton; Ukraine has been dragged into the fray.
The idea that there was a Ukrainian campaign of influence around the U.S. presidential elections is one that is being actively pushed as a credible excuse for the behavior of the Trump family by their legal talking heads and various spokespeople like Sebastian Gorka and Kellyanne Conway. The “they (the Democrats) were doing it too” counter claims seem to be anchored to a shred of reality, but after that shred of reality the argument being presented falls apart, for several reasons.
Whataboutism
At the heart of the defense of the events of June 9, 2016, the meeting, and the e-mail chain that preceded that meeting, is a common Russian diversionary tactic called “whataboutism,” which basically boils down to an attempt to change the topic. Presented with an argument on one thing, a whatabouter will try to get off topic and try to inject, instead, something into the conversation to start a whole new line of discussion.
The biggest problem with the whataboutism defence is that, essentially, it’s usually based on an expectation that two wrongs cancel each other out. Accused of wrongdoing, the whatabouter waives another alleged or possibly real transgression, and expect that we draw a conclusion that the wrongdoing originally in question is basically OK. There’s a precedent. The implication of this tactic is that we are all as bad as each other, but that’s a race to the bottom we should be wary of.
It’s interesting, of course, that Trump apologists are using a common Russian diversionary tactic – make of that what you will.
The argument against Ukraine has been presented by members of Team Trump as clear cut collusion, the argument against Russia is dismissed as inconclusive, not illegal, or simply a “nothingburger.” There’s a logical hole in this simple thinking that a truck could drive through, if anybody is outraged about anything that Ukraine has supposed to have done, they cannot at the same time be dismissive of what the available evidence indicates Russia has done. It cannot logically hold that, at the same time Ukraine did something bad but Russia did not. But that’s not the only issue here where these stories differ substantially.
Are the cases equal?
In a nutshell, no. The Ukraine story centers on one individual, a Ukrainian-American called Alexandra Chalupa. Chalupa was consulting for the Democratic National Convention, coordinating outreach programs designed to engage Ukrainian-American voters. She was also privately researching Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort’s role in Ukraine. This, of course, is a topic of interest to anybody who has ties to Ukraine, and one I have also written about. Anybody who knows anything about what Manafort did in Ukraine knew that his appointment on Team Trump was a sign of trouble on the horizon.
Chalupa taking an interest in Manafort is not newsworthy. Her conversations on this topic with people she knew inside the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington D.C. are also not anything of a surprise. The collusion story then takes a massive leap over a canyon-wide essential to make the whole story seem even remotely real. In real life, personal research into Manafort and private conversations with acquaintances at the Ukrainian embassy is where this ends.
The impression created by those who are desperately hanging on to this story is that the simple and innocuous actions of Chalupa amount to more than the events of and leading up to the meeting with Trump Campaign officials and people representing the Russian government.
To see how the stories stack up, side by side, let’s place Chalupa on the same level in these stories as Rob Goldstone; let’s assume both are persons with access and contacts to make things happen, to connect people, to set up meetings.
We know that Goldstone represents the son of a Russian oligarch, and we know that the Trump family have been associating with the oligarch’s family for several years. Chalupa has never been accused of having any ties to any oligarchs.
We know that Goldstone initiated a dialogue with Donald Trump Junior, offering (on June 3) “very high level and sensitive information” that was “part of Russia and its government support for Mr Trump” and we also know that Goldstone stated that this information had come up at a meeting between the oligarch father of his client and the Prosecutor General of Russia.
There is absolutely no suggestion that Chalupa ever tried to offer information from any Ukrainian government sources to Chelsea Clinton.
Less than 20 minutes after the initial e-mail from Goldstone, Trump Jr replied “if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
Obviously, as no offer of help came from Chalupa, there’s nothing on the table for the Clinton campaign to have responded to.
Look at the phone call
We also know from the e-mail chain released by Trump Junior on July 11, 2017 (one year, one month after the exchange had taken place, and countless denials that any such meeting ever took place later) that on June 6 a phone call was arranged by Goldstone between Trump Junior and Emin Agalarov, the oligarch’s musical son. E-mails time stamped at 12:40, 15:03, 15:37, 15:38 (he seems keen, doesn’t he?) and 15:43 confirm this. That final e-mail says that Emin Agalarov would be offstage in 20 minutes. The next Email, where Trump Junior expresses his gratitude (consisting entirely of “Rob thanks for the help. D”) comes at 16:38, in that 55 minute period it is clear (from what follows next) that Trump spoke with Agalarov, got a flavor of what was being offered, and was then keen to move swiftly forward.
In the Ukrainian “collusion” fable all of this is missing, every single part of it.
On June 7, the day after the Trump / Agalarov phone call, the first e-mail continuing this conversation is to establish a meeting in person. Goldstone writes to Trump at 16:20 with regard to setting up a meeting with a person who is described there as “The Russian government attorney” and also says (again, confirming what we can assume about the conversation the previous evening), “I believe you are aware of the meeting”
Manafort and Kushner
It is logical that the contents of the phone call of the previous evening were of sufficient interest to the Trump campaign because in this next e-mail (17:16) Trump says “Thanks rob appreciate you setting this up.” After scheduling logistics are settled, Trump Junior writes (18:14), for the first time, “It will likely be Paul Manafort (campaign boss) my brother in law and me.”
Chalupa didn’t offer any information from Ukrainian oligarchs or government sources to the Clinton campaign, so we already have massively different situations, but, for the sake of argument, let’s imagine….
Let’s imagine Alexandra Chalupa had offered to arrange a meeting with Chelsea Clinton, on the basis of having discussed by e-mail and phone the efforts of a foreign government to interfere with the U.S. presidential election campaign, and if Chelsea had brought into the meeting Campaign Manager Robby Mook and Candidate Clinton’s son in law Marc Mezvinsky in order to trawl over foreign intel on their rival. If that had happened no sane person, or no person who wanted to be taken seriously ever again, could defend it. But, those things didn’t happen, at least, these things didn’t happen between the Clinton campaign and Ukraine.
That people have tried to present these two cases as equivalent is absurd, on many levels, not least because Ukraine is an ally of the United States. What is happening in Ukraine right now is a process of unprecedented reform in the post-Soviet space, and the willingness of many Trump apologists to throw Ukraine under a bus, is dragging already complicated geopolitical sensitivities into an area where they do not belong.
That the Trump Administration faces problems of such magnitude is a problem entirely of their own making, Ukraine should not be used as a whipping boy as they continue their dirty and deceitful shenanigans.
If Chalupa had acted as Rob Goldstone has, and been the conduit for collusion between a U.S. presidential candidate and an adversarial foreign power, she would be deserving of condemnation along with everyone else involved in the plot.
She wasn’t.
