Kellyanne Conway: 'We didn't need WikiLeaks' to win. 'We had Wisconsin'
One of the reasons the Russian collusion narrative appears to have more lives than a cat with Democrats is that there is still, two and a half years after the 2016 election, the denial of reality by Dems that Hillary Clinton lost, not because the Russians helped Trump but because she was the worst major party candidate for president in modern history.
Appearing on ABC's The Week, Conway got to the fundamental truth of the 2016 election.
"For two years people denied the electability of Donald Trump and then for two years people denied the election of Donald Trump," she added. "They wanted to be able to say I never saw his election coming because they cheated and they stole the election and they were colluding with Russia."
"But at the heart of this investigation was Russia's role in the 2016 election," Raddatz said. "You were campaign chair, do you accept that Russia worked to help elect Donald Trump?"
"I think they tried to sow disinformation, discord in our democracy, and we should never allow that from any foreign government — foreign actor. They were also unsuccessful," Conway said, adding the WikiLeaks contacted her, but she didn't respond. "Donald Trump won. We didn't need WikiLeaks. We had Wisconsin. He won because he was a better candidate with the better message."
It isn't that the Democrats are sore losers. That would suggest rational thought processes. There is nothing rational about the collusion narrative. At bottom, it represents the inability to accept that the assumptions upon which they based their explanations for why the election swung the way it did are catastrophically wrong.
Conway also predicted a Trump re-election:
"He's staying in the White House for five and a half more years. Why? Because ... they found no crime, no conspiracy. That was the central premise," she added.
"So you think this [report] totally exonerates him ... from obstruction of justice?" co-anchor Martha Raddatz asked Conway.
"Yes, and the word exoneration was unnecessary in the Mueller report and I would say inappropriate," she responded. "You either prosecute or you don't. You either bring an indictment or your (sic) don't."
That pretty much takes care of the obstruction narrative as well. To believe that Mueller thought Trump guilty of obstruction, you have to believe he was reluctant for some reason to prosecute the president. That's nonsense. If Mueller wanted Trump's scalp, he would have recommended prosecution. Instead, he punted and let the attorney general decide.
Democrats will cut and paste from the Mueller report and come up with articles of impeachment. That will satisfy their base, but anger the rest of America. In the end, it is not likely that any of this will play a role in the 2020 election. It will be forgotten, as the idea that Russians won the election for Donald Trump has been forgotten.