NY Times Op-Ed: We Don't Need To Read The Mueller Report To Know That 'Something Unethical And Likely Illegal Went On In 2016'

U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, shake hand at the beginning of a meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, Monday, July 16, 2018. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)



Ironically, the woman who penned this frustrating editorial, Caroline Fredrickson, is the president of the American Constitution Society. She has also written a book which will be released soon entitled “The Democracy Fix: How to Win the Fight for Fair Rules, Fair Courts and Fair Elections.”

I wonder what she considers unfair about Trump’s election.

Fredrickson begins her piece by denying the results of Robert Mueller’s 22 month-long investigation. Does she really believe Mueller’s team of 17 “angry Democrats” might have somehow “missed” something? She writes:

The truth is actually already out there, hidden in plain sight.

Mr. Mueller’s report may never go public, but we don’t need a peek at the recommendations he delivered on Friday to Attorney General William Barr to credibly assess that something unethical and likely illegal went on in 2016. The repeated lies told by Trump campaign staff members — lies about their connections to Russian figures — already spin a grand tale of conspiracy and deceit. And it’s a tale so suspect and sordid that President Trump and his associates felt the need to lie to hide it from law enforcement.

This is not conjecture; some of Mr. Trump’s people are already in jail, having been convicted in federal court for lying to investigators about their connections to and interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.


Fredrickson lists each Trump associate from Manafort through Cohen and describes their crimes. All the while, she is oblivious to the fact that none of these crimes are related to the Russian collusion narrative Democrats conceived in the spring of 2016 when Trump’s unlikely rise first began to be seen as a threat.

She continues:

Remember, Richard Nixon was not indicted, and there was no commensurate special counsel report in the Watergate scandal. There doesn’t need to be one here to right wrongs so egregious they were apparently worth lying about.

This is perhaps her most ridiculous argument. For two reasons.

The first is obvious. If Nixon had not resigned, he would have been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Watergate involved actions taken by the President to cover up a minor, but embarrassing crime.

The second is that Russiagate is the opposite of Watergate. A crime was perpetrated against the President.

Russiagate involved the collective action of a group of Deep State officials willing to do whatever was necessary to first prevent Trump from winning the presidency and once elected, to remove him from office.

I’m sure there are essays similar to hers in every liberal media outlet this morning. The end of the Mueller investigation will be completely ignored by Democrats who have so much invested in it. It’s been like a security blanket for them, a way for them to deal with the fact that he is the President.


We can’t argue with them by presenting the facts. They are too far gone for that.

They’ve experienced a great shock. The more sane among them will reluctantly raise the white flag, especially once Trump declassifies the relevant documents. Some may require extra time to come around. But others, like Ms. Fredrickson, will remain untethered to reality and will continue to dwell in their denial.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos