Matthew Walther has a post over at The Week that begins this way—
Do you remember when the United States was about to have her constitutional order upended? If you printed out all the concern-trolling articles from the fall of 2016 about whether Donald Trump would “accept” the results of the presidential election and laid them end to end, they would stretch from China to Peru. As far as I recall, no one actually predicted that opioid-addicted out-of-work steelworkers in Carhartt jackets would roam the streets of Washington looting and burning and eventually installing an Alex Jones puppet government under the nominal leadership of the host of Celebrity Apprentice. The point, assuming there was one, was that the “credibility” of our election system would be undermined if one of the candidates and most of his supporters refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the next commander-in-chief.
Of course, one side did reject the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and they’ve been trying to do something about it. Hence, the “Russian collusion” investigation which, to date, has failed to turn up any solid evidence of collusion between any Russians and anyone associated with the Trump campaign.
At this point the most obvious fair-minded explanation of the Russia investigation is that it exists to paralyze the Trump administration. It certainly monopolizes the president’s attention. When he is abroad he broods over the latest media talking points from his suite. When he is in Washington, he fumes in front of the television and tweets his favorite tidbits from Fox News. The special counsel has taken his attention away from diplomacy and the other ordinary business of the presidency. Mueller has failed to deliver the goods not simply because there are no goods to deliver but because delivering them is not the point. The point is to hurt Trump.
Read the whole thing.
The author makes a claim that is simply wrong. There is a distinction that makes a difference between “fretting” about something and being paralyzed by it. In a classic example of the false alternative fallacy he claims that if Donald Trump has been distracted by the investigation it must have effected his actions as President. That is an extraordinary claim that requires an extraordinary level of proof.
There doesn’t seem to be any evidence, let along compelling evidence for this claim. Donald Trump set a very ambitious agenda including a number of controversial programs such as building the border wall, and, imposing tariffs on foreign, especially Chinese, imports. When he appointed Brett Kavanaugh he didn’t seem to be paralyzed, he seemed willing to fight. When the Left funded a caravan of illegal immigrants he denied them entry and fired tear gas. When the Chinese targeted Trump states to crassly influence our politics, Donald Trump stood firm. Whether one agrees with his policies, or not, one ought to give him credit for his resolve.
Donald Trump has been subject to a profound injustice. Donald Trump simply did not collude with Russian government to fix the election. In America, you don’t start with a name and find the crime. You start with the crime, and find the names. Donald Trump has every right to complain about the profound injustice foisted upon him by a corrupt Washington swamp, and, every American who believes in such niceties as due process and presumption of innocence ought to agree.