James Freeman at Best Of The Web on the WSJ discusses the issue of how much trouble the previous administration should be in over its investigation into The Donald’s campaign and administration. He is taking issue with the NYT over their recent reporting:
The NYT lays out a dossier-free explanation of the genesis of the federal investigation of the opposition political party [NYT follows]:
During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton. [Emphasis added]
You should read it all if you are a subscriber. We would like to take a different issue with the NYT: the words startling and revelation. This is not startling. It is not a revelation. If you picked the Patriots to win the AFC East [either 2016 or 2017] at the same time you were not nearly as safe as George. Is there any sentient being that thinks that Russia and several other countries do not have political dirt on Hillary and The Donald? Even if you are not certain that Russia hacked Hillary’s email you know that Russia is serious about spying and Hillary is careless. Of course Russia has dirt on Hillary and The Donald. The difference is that Hillary knows that the press will keep her dirt under the rug unless somebody like Russia forces the issue. The Donald doesn’t seem to care about the dirt. The leverage that the dirt on Hillary would give Russia might matter.
What we can’t understand is why a top diplomat from Australia would be surprised about this. Was it George’s certainty? Australia’s diplomats don’t seem very up on world events. Or perhaps it is the NYT that isn’t up on world events.