“The [Mueller] investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” (From the Attorney General’s letter to Congress, 24.03.2019)
This statement has caused consternation, confusion, anger, and denial in some people. I, for one, am very confused. The first thing that confuses me in the sentence above is the word “establish.” Does that mean that Mueller couldn’t prove conspiracy or coordination beyond a reasonable doubt—the standard for a criminal prosecution? Or does it mean that there was actually no conspiracy or coordination at all---that all the help from Russia was all one-way? I don’t know. What I do know, is that I need to resolve my confusion and am turning to an Aesop’s fable and the theory of cognitive dissonance for some help.
In this Aesop’s Fable, a hungry fox sees some grapes hanging on a trellis just out of reach. He tries repeatedly to grasp them but fails. Finally he gives up and walks away, telling himself that he didn’t really want the grapes anyway because they were sour.
The theory
of cognitive dissonance explains the fox’s rationalization in psychological
terms. From Wiki:
In
the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort
(psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more
contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.
When confronted with facts that contradict beliefs, ideas, and values,
people will find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.
So the
belief that Trump conspired or coordinated with Russia to win the election (the
fox’s desire to reach the bunch of grapes) now uncomfortably shares my
consciousness with the conclusion of the Mueller report (the fox’s inability to
reach the grapes). How am I going to
deal with my psychological stress? Not by
harrumphing and walking away, saying, “Sour grapes.” No, I want to see if I can resolve the contradiction
and reduce my discomfort. Here’s what
I’m dealing with.
Russia Just Threw the Election to Us.
Michael Flynn’s deputy, referring to sanctions, wrote in an email, “If
there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving
relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him.” If this statement and Mueller’s conclusion
are both true, then it must mean that either Russia threw the election without
coordinating with Trump, or Mueller couldn’t prove the coordination.
Gift of Polling Data.
The Manafort indictment states that he gave polling data to a Russian
intelligence agent. If this statement
and Mueller’s conclusion are both true, then
it must mean either that Manafort was acting on his own behalf for his own personal
benefit, or that Mueller couldn’t prove that giving over the polling data was
intended to help the campaign.
Trump Tower Meeting.
Donald Jr. took the Trump Tower June 2016 meeting with Russian agents to
get dirt on Hillary. If this fact and
Mueller’s conclusion are both true, then it must mean either that the meeting
really was inconsequential or Mueller couldn’t prove conspiracy among these
meeting attendees.
Roger Stone and Wikileaks.
The Stone indictment says a senior campaign officer was directed to
reach out to Stone to get more information on the Wikileaks release of hacked
emails. If this fact and Mueller’s
conclusion are both true, then it must mean either that the Campaign did not
aid and abet a computer crime, or that Mueller couldn’t prove it.
Everybody Lied.
Quite a few people connected with the campaign lied to Congress, the
FBI, and/or the Special Counsel about contacts between the campaign and Russia. If this fact and Mueller’s conclusion are
both true, then it must mean either that none of the contacts had anything to
do with conspiracy or coordination between the Campaign and Russia, or that Mueller
couldn’t prove it.
Some
commentators, notably Matt Taibbi of Rolling
Stone, are blaming the Main Stream Media for creating our cognitive dissonance. https://taibbi.substack.com/ What Taibbi means is that the main
stream media hyped the Trump-Russia conspiracy to the same degree the Bush
Administration hyped weapons of mass destruction. In other words, fake news. While I do feel a little gaslit by the
reporting, I don’t feel angry so much as concerned about the “universal”
distrust of the press Taibbi foresees:
For
years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped every new Russia
headline like the Watergate break-in. Nothing Trump is accused of from now on
by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that
(perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base.
I can’t
claim to have resolved in my own mind what actually happened during the 2016
election. I don’t know if it was all a
big Nothingburger, or if Mueller just couldn’t prove conspiracy beyond a
reasonable doubt. But I have resolved the
contradictions between the facts and the report and thereby reduced my cognitive
dissonance anxiety. Unfortunately, I’ve
replaced it with anxiety over fake news.
Keep it
real!
Marilyn
Comments
Post a Comment