When the Washington Post’s David Ignatius uncovered Jan. 14 that President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn spoke with Russian Amb. Sergei Kislyak Dec. 29, 2016, the liberal press went wild. With swirling allegations by the U.S. intelligence community of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Flynn’s contacts looked more nefarious, despite speaking to Kislyak six weeks after the election. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) accused Trump of colluding with Russians to sink the campaign of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Waters said Jan. 18 that she and her Democratic colleagues were preparing articles of impeachment. Flynn spoke with the Russian ambassador the day former President Barack Obama evicted 35 Russian diplomats, starting new sanctions for Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.
Whatever Flynn discussed with Kislyak, including discouraging the Kremlin from retaliating in kind, it’s above board, since no U.S. citizen is forbidden from speaking to any foreign leader or government. Yet the liberal press sees fit to tie Flynn’s conversations with colluding or conspiring to sabotage Hillary’s campaign. Even if the FBI and CIA have proof that Putin engaged in a propaganda campaign to sabotage Hillary, it’s any leader’s right to lobby for candidates of their choice. CIA Director John Brennen and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Jan. 5 that Putin used propaganda, disinformation and fake news to get Trump elected. U.S. officials—and most foreign governments—use propaganda, disinformation and fake news to advance political agendas. Putting Flynn under the microscope for talking to Russian Amb. Kislyak goes over the top.
Whether or not Flynn discussed the sanctions or any other topic is of little consequence. As the incoming National Security Advisor, talking to the Russians was exactly the kind of diplomacy needed to start getting U.S.-Russian relations back on track. Flynn admitted to talking to Kislyak only about possible scheduling, going into no detail about other subjects. Flynn’s entitled to speak with the Russian ambassador on any subject, certainly Obama’s expulsions and new sanctions. “This building doesn’t see anything necessarily inappropriate about contact between members of the incoming administration and foreign officials,” said State Department spokesman Mark Toner. Democrats want to finger Flynn for violating the 1799 Logan Act, barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments or interfering with official U.S. government business.
Even if Flynn reassured Kislyak that Trump wanted to start a new day with Russia Jan. 20, it wouldn’t violate the Logan Act, since Flynn in no way tried to reinstate the 35 expelled diplomats or end new sanctions. Throwing Moscow for a loop Dec. 29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov wanted to retaliate in kind, expelling U.S. diplomats from the Moscow embassy. When Putin signaled Dec. 30 he’d take no action against the U.S., the media went wild with Trump’s transition interfering with U.S. foreign policy. “Great move to delay [by Putin]. I always knew he was smart!” tweeted then President-elect Trump. All the media hubbub about who and when Trump officials, during the campaign and transition, spoke with Russia amounts to pure smoke. Even if contacts were made, it’s not a crime for any American citizen to have contact with any foreign leader or government.
Clapper and Brennen talked about Russia’s propaganda, disinformation and fake news campaigns to influence U.S. voters. Whether that’s true or not, the U.S. engages in similar tactics in various places where they have a dog in the fight, including in Ukraine in 2014, where a concerted U.S. propaganda campaign encouraged Ukrainians to reject the Russian-backed government of Viktor Yanukovich. When the U.S. sought to overthrow the Soviet-controlled Afghan government in 1979, it encouraged Afghans to adopt Western-style democracy. No one from the Soviet government accused the U.S. of meddling or interfering with Soviet affairs. Only in the 2016 election did Russia’s alleged hacking or propaganda result upending Hillary’s campaign, according to U.S. officials. Pushing the media narrative, Trump’s campaign officials colluded with Russia to win the election.
Accusing Flynn of colluding with the Russians, the media continues to discredit the Trump presidency, suggesting Russian propaganda won Trump the election. Flynn’s contacts with Russian Amb. Sergei Kislyak attempted to defuse a potential crisis over Obama’s overreaction to questionable U.S. intelligence. Using propaganda, disinformation and fake news to push for your candidate of choice does not constitute interference in a U.S. election. Most, if not all, foreign leaders or governments have preference for U.S. presidential candidates—and Putin was no exception. It’s a big leap to suggest he helped Trump win the election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee or key Hillary staffers. It’s not a hacker’s fault for uncovering dirt in presidential campaigns: It’s the campaign’s fault for the dirty tricks found by unsuspecting hackers.
