Democrats Go All In

There was some bit of sadness after the election in 2016. That election was serious business. Absolutely. But also, it was FUN. No greater entertainment has ever existed. The inane billionaire superhero fighting a corrupt establishment, the good vs evil battle against an ideology of hatred and lies, and then Hillary, wonderfully playing the part of the arch villain, surrounded by all sorts of contemptible cronies. The entertainment value cannot be understated. The conservatives won the social media wars because their memes were funny. (Can you imagine uttering such a sentence even a few years ago?) On November 9th we were like the hobbits returning to the Shire. Evil had been defeated, but the great adventure was over. It was time to return to mundane normalcy.

Fortunately (in some sense) that hasn't happened. The entertainment value remains off the charts. If you aren't following along with Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse, you're really missing out. It's like the greatest criminal investigation show of all time, and every day there is a new episode. Not to be outdone, the Democrats have decided to show us a good time by going all in on the Russian collusion conspiracy theory and suing....almost everyone. {link to lawsuit}

Here are the defendants named.

1. The Russian Federation
2. General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation ("GRU")
3. GRU operative using the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0
4. Aras Iskenerovich Agalarov
5. Emin Araz Agalarov
6. Joseph Mifsud
7. Wikileaks
8. Julian Assange
9. Donald J Trump for President, Inc
10. Donald Trump Jr
11. Paul Manafort
12. Roger Stone
13. Jared Kushner
14. George Papadopoulos
15. Richard Gates
16. John Does 1-10

Twenty-five defendants in all. The first defendant named is all of Russia. Wonderful. Very bold move. Followed by the generals of the Russian military. They'd probably sue God for creating the soil on which Russia sits if they didn't pander so hard to Christian haters. Other major defendants are Wikileaks, the Trump campaign (and a number of associated individuals), and some unspecified defendants. Wikileaks is the only defendant to which there is a plausible case based on publicly available evidence. After all, they did publicize Democrat documents that had been stolen in one way or another. But that is the entirety of what Wikileaks does, and they've never lost a court case. Wikileaks aren't being sued for document publication, but on the assertion that they collaborated with the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officers.

However the lawsuit goes - it may just get thrown out - the mere filing marks a significant political development. The Democratic platform seems to survive on two requirements: it's control of propaganda & indoctrination institutions (the media and academia), and maintaining plausible deniability. Because it is an ideology often at odds with reality, they must distance themselves with the inevitable contradictions that arise. Take, as a prime example, Trump's tax returns. We know that the Democrats were absolutely obsessed with them for a number of months. The mantra of the left was, "What about his tax returns?" Every political debate on social would soon settle on the pervasive theme. They were certain that the returns would show the Trump didn't pay his fair share and would prove financial crimes, particularly improper dealings with Russia. The likely reason Trump didn't show his returns was because of carried losses, which the media would pounce on as a scandal of Trump enriching himself with unfair tax code skewed to favor the wealthy, without explaining the reasoning behind such practices, and certainly without mentioning that his Democratic opponent had done the same. Eventually, they did manage to obtain a copy of Trump's taxes returns. In one of the most bizarre events of the whole election (perhaps second to Comey's exoneration press conference), Rachel Maddow hyped the unveiling on what would become the most highly watched episode in her show's history, and then proceeded - with all the usual smugness - to broadcast to the entire world that Trump had paid a tax rate far higher than the prominent Democratic politicians crying foul. Perhaps the returns were selectively chosen and leaked by Trump himself, amounting to the greatest trolling of the liberal media ever seen. The tax return mania was savagely routed.

While there were some clingers to the tax obsession for a spell, it has been entirely forgotten. Today, what happens if you try to remind a liberal about that whole fiasco? Suddenly the tax returns were never that big a deal, it was just a few pundits making noise but in no way a reflection of most Democrats, etc. They carry on as if you're just creating a tax-return obsession that didn't really exist, and they believe it.

The presumption with the Russia obsession has been the same. Once the Democrats are defeated in that endeavor, they will just carry on as if it never happened, playing down the fiasco as belonging to a marginal segment of the party. But that can no longer be the case. Thanks to the lawsuit, the Russian collusion conspiracy theory is now the official legal opinion of the Democratic National Committee. They've backed themselves into a corner where the only exit is a reality in which Trump and Wikileaks truly did collaborate with Russia to steal documents and steer the election. Previously, I would have said no chance that happened, but the lawsuit is so specific - and so incredibly brazen - that it would be fair to allow a 10% chance that there was collusion. I'll even give 20%, since my information comes mostly from right-leaning sources. It's still possible, of course. The heavy cause for doubt is not a blind faith in Mr Trump's unwavering integrity (I wouldn't put it past him), but can be deduced from the behaviors of the Democrats and federal investigators, and the evidence that is publicly available. The Democrats are throwing all their chips in on the bet that the collusion occurred. The upside is enormous, but so is the downside, for a few reasons.

First, the Democratic Party is formally staking its reputation on this. Now, maybe that doesn't matter as much as it should. Reputation doesn't seem to matter to their voters that much. After all, Rachel Maddow is still on the air, with strong ratings. Second, the lawsuit opens both sides open to a discovery phase. That means the defendants (all dozens of them) may be empowered to subpoena documents from the DNC, the federal investigators, Fusion GPS, and government officials who authorized the activities - which appears to go all the way up to Obama himself. (Thank you Susan Rice for that last-minute exculpatory email to self.) The lawsuit gives the defendants subpoena power, but also the plaintiff, which is okay. If you love the truth, you'll love this lawsuit. One side must be guilty of wrongdoing: either Trump for abetting a crime, or the Democrats for seditious conspiracy. We want to know which. Third, this has the potential to really blow up on them in time for the midterms. Isn't the timing a little interesting? It does seem strange for them to file suit before the criminal process has concluded. I'm no legal expert, but a web search turns up information like this:

If the state decides to prosecute a defendant for [a crime], the defendant cannot be sued in civil court for the same [crime] until the criminal case has concluded. If a civil case is already under way when a criminal case starts, the civil case is typically “stayed” (i.e. put on pause) until the criminal case has concluded.

So the convention is that the civil suit must follow the criminal case. In this case, the civil suit has been filed before the criminal case has begun. If a prosecution develops, the civil suit will be stayed. What happens if the two-year federal investigation returns no evidence of collusion? There goes your preponderance of evidence. My take is that the Democrats sense that the Mueller probe is drawing to a conclusion, and are probably terrified of the OIG report due in May. They really really really need this whole thing to stretch into the midterm elections so they can take Congress and shut down all the ongoing investigations. It's do or die, at this point. This is the hail mary play. The lawsuit is to try to draw things out, to give something to keep their people roped in. Yeah, the federal investigation was a sham by the Republican Mueller, but the proof will come out in the civil suit that we control. The Democrats are going to be under serious scrutiny if the Mueller probe returns nothing but Manafort's failing to properly register during previous dealings with the Podesta Group, and the OIG shows that the Trump investigation was a veritable witch hunt. They don't want to file a reactionary suit in that kind of environment. They want to file now and get ahead of it. It seems like a bad idea to file for civil injuries before a criminal case has even been opened...unless it's your only option.

The lawsuit finally gives what has been missing from the whole fiasco: a theory of a crime. Before, all my interactions with liberals have gone something like this:

Liberal: We need to investigate Trump for his crimes.

Me: What crime was committed?

Liberal: We need to investigate to find out.

Roughly that. They'd say collusion with Russia to rig an election, but never could elucidate what is being accused. It's like a murder investigation where no one is missing and there is no body. Finally, there is a theory of a crime, thoroughly sourced and documented, which is why I'm now willing to give more than negligible odds of their validity. A crime theory has been produced, with the DNC's name stamped directly on it. Grab some popcorn and get ready. I suspect Act IV of the dramatic performance of the Trump Collusion Mystery is about to commence, and it is going to be very captivating.

ACT I - The Shadow Government Conspires

ACT II - Hillary Accuses

ACT III - Mueller Draws Up for Battle

ACT IV - On Their Heels

ACT V - ?? Heads On Pikes ??