The upcoming ‘Russia Collusion’ reboot will be awful

“We’re all wondering this‌ question, ​Speaker Pelosi,​ what do you think Vladimir Putin has on‍ him?”

White House press secretary turned MSNBC White House spokesperson Jen Psaki asked the ‍former speaker ⁣of ⁢the House this week. “I mean, it sure seems like something, as⁣ you’ve said a few times, given⁤ that he refuses to criticize him, that he seems to be a⁤ fanboy of him. Are you worried?”

By “him,” of course, Psaki is referring to​ Donald Trump. He is virtually the ⁣only thing they talk about. Psaki can beg the​ questions because Trump recently went on a hyperbolic rant about our European allies failing to meet their North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) obligations—a decades-long problem.

“I don’t​ know what he has on him, but ⁤I think it’s probably financial,” Pelosi theorized. “Either something financial he has him​ on ⁣or‍ something on the come — something that he expects to get.”

If Democrats had common decency, they would cook up a fresh⁤ conspiracy theory for us in 2024, because, really, ‍the prospect of reliving the same hysterics over ​Russia for another ⁤year—or four—is just depressing. Yet Russia collusion fanfic is on the uptick as the 2024 presidential election approaches. The reboot features many ⁢of the same characters—Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and so on—who are already scaremongering about Putin’s influence on the GOP.

Now, I don’t care how much you detest Trump. Accusing him of being a foreign⁣ asset or a spy, or ​contending ⁣that he’s being blackmailed, are stupid smears. Only⁣ a sap or a liar could possibly believe them at this point.

Pelosi, cynically playing ‍on the ​credulous nature of her constituents, surely doesn’t. She knows ‍a nearly two-year special ​counsel investigation — largely prompted by a political⁢ oppo file paid for ‌by Democrats — failed ⁤to uncover a single act of “collusion” in 2016, much ⁤less kompromat on Trump. There were congressional ‍investigations. There were leaked tax returns. Every major media⁤ organization in the nation spent an ​inordinate ⁤amount of time and treasure trying to expose Trump’s alleged sedition.

This is why Pelosi is compelled to⁤ frame Trump’s alleged treachery as future quid pro quo. It’s certainly⁢ difficult to disprove future events.

Why does Putin have to “have something on‍ him,” anyway? Who⁣ knows, maybe Trump believes he can coax NATO nations⁤ into ponying up their fair share. Or maybe Trump believes a ‌“reset” with Russia is in the ‌best interests of the United States. (Psaki knows a thing or ⁤two about championing‍ better ​relations with Putin.) Or maybe Trump just admires Putin in the way Joe Biden admires the mullahs‍ of the Islamic State.‍

Did Biden ease sanctions against Iran, open avenues of funding ‌for the Revolutionary Guard, aid Hamas, ​and ⁤give the Houthis a reprieve because he was bribed? No.⁢ Biden is an unprincipled man with‌ a preternatural ⁣ability to cock up foreign policy and who has surrounded himself with⁤ Israel-hating ideologues. We don’t need a conspiracy theory to explain it.

Hannah Arendt once noted that Western intellectuals had adopted one of communism’s most effective tactics: ⁢making every debate about motive‍ rather than the⁤ merits of an argument. This is the modus operandi of the⁤ modern leftist.‍ ‍You might be paid off by “dark money” or ‍motivated by ‍race (even unconsciously), ‌but ‌your ​arguments never really matter. Now the tactic ⁢is mainstreamed. When was the last‍ time we had a real national debate ⁤on policy? ⁢

A‍ responsible political media would treat allegations of⁢ Russian ​collusion ⁤as⁤ one does ⁤conspiracies about the‌ moon landing or fluoride. Let’s ⁤face it, the biggest difference between​ Rachel Maddow and Alex Jones is aesthetics. Instead, no‌ matter how many investigations disprove the conspiracy theory,​ no matter how many⁢ times its architects are ​caught lying, ⁤they⁢ keep being treated as good-faith political actors. The only way ​the media holds anyone accountable for the ⁢Russia collusion hoax, it seems, ⁣is to promote him.

They do this because it worked. Tens of millions of Americans were convinced that the Russians had not only stolen “democracy” ​with a Facebook ad buy, but that Putin ⁤altered vote tallies. And the most pathetic part of it all is that tens of millions ⁣will probably fall for it again.

White House press⁢ secretary turned MSNBC White House spokesperson Jen Psaki asked former ​speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, what she thought Vladimir Putin has on Donald Trump. Psaki raised concerns about Trump’s refusal ‌to criticize Putin and his apparent admiration for him.⁢ The obsession with Trump continues,‌ as he becomes the main topic of discussion for the media.

While Psaki focuses on Trump’s recent criticism of European⁤ allies for failing to meet their NATO‌ obligations, Pelosi theorizes that there may be something financial⁢ or future-oriented that ‌Putin has on Trump. The⁣ speculation about Russia collusion and Putin’s influence on⁣ the GOP is on ⁣the rise as the ‍2024 presidential ​election approaches.

Regardless of one’s opinion of Trump, accusing him‍ of being⁢ a foreign ​asset, a spy, or blackmailed is baseless and a smear tactic. Pelosi, ‍aware of the lack ⁤of evidence supporting ⁢these claims, is cynically playing on the credulous ‌nature of ‍her constituents.

Multiple investigations, including a ‌two-year​ special ‌counsel investigation prompted largely by political opposition⁢ research ‍funded⁤ by Democrats, failed to uncover‌ any collusion or compromising material ‍on Trump. The media⁢ and congressional investigations also made every effort to expose any ​alleged wrongdoings by Trump.

Pelosi’s attempt to frame Trump’s alleged treachery as ⁣future quid pro quo is a strategic move, as it is difficult to ⁣disprove future events.⁢ However, there could be other reasons for Trump’s stance towards Putin, such as an ⁤effort ⁤to persuade NATO nations to​ contribute their fair share or a⁢ belief ‌that ​better relations⁢ with Russia are in the best interests of the ​United⁢ States.

Just as Pelosi suggests ​Putin may have something on Trump, ⁢it is unfair and ⁣unfounded to assume that Biden’s actions toward Iran, ​Hamas, ⁤and the Houthis are solely motivated ⁢by bribery. Speculating about political figures without concrete evidence​ diminishes the integrity ⁢of⁤ the discourse.