Behind the collapse of the ‘Russia hacking’ narrative, is panic spreading in the Obama camp?
Make no mistake: the Saturday-morning tweet sent out by President Trump alleging tapping of phones in Trump Tower has changed the political calculus on both sides. The mainstream media obsessively call his charge "unsupported" by evidence and denigrate it as imprecise and incomplete. Yet, as Andrew McCarthy – a former assistant U.S. attorney – explains in National Review, "While You Weren't Looking, the Democrat-Media Election-Hacking Narrative Just Collapsed."
That narrative depends on:
... [a] third prong, without the support of which the stool would collapse: the impression that the FBI has been feverishly investigating what is said to be the Trump campaign's collusion in what is said to be the Russian hacking of the election. This reporting is designed to get you saying to yourself: "Why would there be such a zealous investigation by FBI agents – in addition to several other intelligence and law-enforcement agents – unless there really were grave reasons to believe the shocking election-hacking conspiracy narrative?"
Thus, details about investigative activity have been leaked to the media. The press and the Democrats then exploit the leaks to spin the "Trump complicity in Russian election-hacking" story. It seems not to matter how objectively ill-conceived the Russian election-hacking claim is, or how woefully insufficient the purported Trump–Russia ties are to support an inference of campaign collusion in the hacking. The specter of an investigation – breathless media reports of FISA court applications, wiretaps, surveillance of agents of a foreign power, and mysterious servers; painstaking analysis of shady financial transactions involving Russian banks and funding streams – seems to make the outlandish conspiracy impossible to dismiss out of hand.
By his tweet, President Trump forced the purveyors of this narrative to fiercely deny that any wiretapping took place at Trump Tower. It is a no-win situation for the president's enemies: either they repudiate their narrative of the last several months about Russia or they admit that under President Obama, a spying effort was launched against the candidate of the opposition party.
Once again, Donald Trump is playing Road Runner to the Dem-media establishment's Wile E. Coyote. His "rash" and "unsupported" tweet has decisively changed the game.
Reader David R. Zukerman calls our attention to an exchange on Fox News Sunday that may hint at panic spreading among the Obama insiders:
... attention [should] be given the following comment by Bob Woodward, chatting with Chris Wallace, on Fox News Sunday, March 5, in the belief that it helps explain the sheer desperation that afflicts the Obama camp – including its intelligence acolytes.
WOODWARD: Well, first of all, you've got to understand that as President Trump has this vast espionage establishment at his disposal, $50 billion a year plus, even in the CIA they call him the first customer. So he can get the information he wants. He's the only one in the government.
Is it more likely or less likely that former President Barack Obama knows full well that President Trump has, as Bob Woodward told Wallace, " this vast espionage establishment at his disposal" – including its files. Is it more likely or less likely that the former president would prefer that Mr. Trump not get his hands on those files? Is it more likely or less likely that the information in those files was artfully kept from the American people with the assistance of a compliant media, a media that employs the term "adversary" only when a Republican is president? Is it more likely or less likely that information in those files would prompt instant reappraisal of the Obama presidency and lead to further disillusionment with a media that is trusted by the American people rather less than they trust President Trump? Indeed, is it more likely or less likely that disclosure of the truth about the performance of the Obama administration and of its media palace guard would greatly enhance the credibility of Donald J. Trump over the former president and the likes of The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, et al?