Fire And Fury Contradicts Claims From Democrats Of A Trump/Putin Conspiracy To Alter The 2016 Election

Last week I noted how pre-publication excerpts from Michael Wolff”s new book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, cast further doubt on claims from Hillary Clinton and many Democrats that a conspiracy between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump caused Donald Trump to beat Clinton. Excerpts showed that Wolff believes (as I have also argued, and as the evidence to date also indicates) that the relationships between Trump and Russia involved money laundering, not anything concerning the election.

I also noted excerpts from Fire and Fury which showed that Vladimir Putin had no interest in Trump, and that Trump did not want to win–contradicting the Democratic conspiracy theories that the two were working together to get Trump elected.

Now that the book is out, additional portions could also be reviewed, which similarly cast doubt on the Democrats’ conspiracy theories. Wolff noted how the Democrats were using Congressional investigations to push their argument and had this comment:

The congressional Democrats had everything to gain by insisting, Benghazi-like, that where there was smoke (even if they were desperately working the bellows) there was fire, and by using investigations as a forum to promote their minority opinion (and for members to promote themselves).

Wolff also talked about the assessment from the intelligence community regarding Russian involvement. The claims of seventeen agencies agreeing have already been retracted, and the remaining intelligence report suggesting Russian involvement provided no evidence. (Jackson Lears, Professor of History at Rutgers University, as also debunked these arguments recently). In the following passage, Wolff both debunked the argument based upon citing the intelligence agencies, and again noted that what Trump has to fear is not collusion regarding the election, but the other crimes he is likely guilty of:

Still, this could yet be seen as highly wishful thinking by Trump opponents. “The underlying premise of the case is that spies tell the truth,” said the veteran intelligence community journalist Edward Jay Epstein. “Who knew?” And, indeed, the worry in the White House was not about collusion—which seemed implausible if not farcical—but what, if the unraveling began, would likely lead to the messy Trump (and Kushner) business dealings. On this subject every member of the senior staff shrugged helplessly, covering eyes, ears, and mouth. This was the peculiar and haunting consensus—not that Trump was guilty of all that he was accused of, but that he was guilty of so much else. It was all too possible that the hardly plausible would lead to the totally credible.

At present Democrats seem to love Wolff’s book. Will establishment Democrats continue to be so enamored over Fire and Fury when they realize that it frequently contradicts their conspiracy theories about Trump and Putin conspiring to deny Hillary Clinton the presidency? Will they ever concede that Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate who represented the worst in American politics in a year when the voters were demanding change?

Related Posts:

Vox Provides Further Evidence That The Actual Trump/Russia Scandal Is About Money Laundering

Washington Post Columnist Debunks Claims Of Russia Affecting Election Result Despite Many Other Misleading Articles At The Post On Russia

Donald Trump’s Tweets Are Like Richard Nixon Talking To The Pictures On The White House Walls In His Final Days

Update:

Michael Wolf Again Says It Was Money Laundering, Not Collusion Regarding 2016 Election

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Comments

  1. 1
    SocraticGadfly says:

    The only real error I saw wasn't about domestic politics at all. At start of Ch. 14, Wolff claims that Assad "did it" at Khan Sheikhoun, when likes of Consortium News et al say that Assad's conventional weapons hit a stock of rebel sarin, in all likelihood. It's a throwaway, but an indicator that Wolff colors within the MSM lines.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    I certainly didn’t pick up the book expecting Wolff to be right on everything. He isn’t the greatest journalist around, but he is the one who had the access to the White House around the time Trump took office, and therefore has interviews and observations which others do not. If he got Syria wrong, that isn’t even related to the inside information he got poking around the White House. Even if he followed the mainstream here, he did vary in essentially making fun of Democrats for pushing their conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. He also gets points for noting that spies lie, casting doubt on any assessment from the intelligence community.

  3. 3
    SocraticGadfly says:

    Oh, neither did I, Ron. I totally agree in general.

    Oh, and I got my copy for free! Somebody Tweeted a link to a Google Doc …. a scanned PDF was already up by Sunday morning if not earlier.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    I ordered a copy through Amazon. I figure that anyone who spent all that time in the Trump White House deserves his money. However, they are way behind on shipping and still are not giving a firm delivery date, so I have had to resort to pirated copies until I get my own. Not only did I see the Google Doc version over the weekend, but I got an epub on Friday. Supposedly Wikileaks is behind the Google Doc copy (unless there are is more than one copy on Google Doc). 

  5. 5
    SocraticGadfly says:

    Interesting on Wikileaks. I know in recent months Assange has had to face a lot of charges of bias; could be his self-polishing.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    It was a way to get out something anti-Trump after all the anti-Clinton material during the election.

Leave a comment