Friday, June 2, 2023
59.2 F

    Latest Posts

    Goodbye Constitution Freedom America by Don Jans

    Opposition Research: It’s Not Trump’s Fault That Politics is a “Dirty” Game


    By Thomas L. Knapp

    In a June 12 interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, President Donald Trump freely admitted that he would listen to foreigners offering him “dirt” on his political opponents: “I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening …. Somebody comes up and says, ‘hey, I have information on your opponent,’ do you call the FBI?”

    Unsurprisingly, critics from both major parties pounced on Trump’s statement, condemning it on grounds of morality, patriotism, and law. Equally unsurprisingly, those critics are wrong in (at least) their first two reasons. Some are also hypocrites who should stop clutching their pearls for long enough to wash the “dirt” off them.

    A quick timeline:

    In 2015, the Washington Free Beacon, a (then anti-Trump) Republican newspaper, hired a company called Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on several Republican presidential primary candidates, including Trump. Once it became clear that Trump would be the GOP’s nominee, that project ended.

    In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee used a cut-out (law firm Perkins Coie) to hire — again — Fusion GPS, which in turn hired a foreigner, former British Spy Christopher Steele, to work foreign sources (especially Russian sources) for opposition research on Trump. Steele’s output was a still-controversial “dossier” full of alleged “dirt.”

    Also in 2016, three members of Trump’s campaign — Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort — met with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, in hopes of getting “dirt” on Clinton.

    Every serious political campaign conducts opposition research and views the information it gathers with two questions in mind:

    First, is the information true (or at least plausible)?

    Second, is the information useful?

    Where or from whom the information comes from is only relevant in light of those two questions.

    And that’s exactly how it SHOULD work.

    Campaign opposition research is a primary source of public knowledge about the candidates who are seeking our votes.

    If that information is true, it’s true whether it originated in Minneapolis or in Moscow.

    If that true information is pertinent to our voting decisions, it’s neither moral nor patriotic to ignore or denounce it solely on the basis of where it came from.

    With respect to the law, the Trump Tower meeting mentioned above was extensively (and expensively) investigated by the US Department of Justice. After two years of probing alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, Special Counsel Robert Mueller reported that his investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    While Trump still faces congressional investigations on the question of whether he committed crimes by obstructing Mueller’s investigation, and while DOJ is now inquiring as to possible misuse of the “Steele dossier” to justify the FBI’s spy operation on his campaign, he’s been exonerated on the matter of seeking foreign “dirt.” And it’s unlikely that the DNC or the Clinton campaign will be found legally culpable for their use of foreign information sources, either.

    That, again, is as it should be.

    Thomas Knapp -- Photo Credit Avens O'Brien

    Photo by Avens O’Brien

    Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism ( He lives and works in north central Florida.

    Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE


    - Advertisement -


    0 0 votes
    Article Rating
    Notify of

    1 Comment
    Oldest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    c e voigtsberger
    c e voigtsberger
    3 years ago

    I defy any politician to say under oath that he would never, under any circumstances, listen to dirt dished in private from some source regarding an opponent in an election.

    I would believe the moon is made of green cheese before I would believe such a statement.

    As the author of this column states, it doesn’t matter if the info came from the Russians, some dictator in some African nation or from the pope, the pol would listen to it and discuss it with his election committee to see if there was any way they could use it. Any politician saying otherwise should have their nose grow like Pinocchio’s.

    Even George Washington would listen. He wouldn’t use it judging by his personal moral code, but he would listen. And we don’t have any George Washigtons around today.

    When I hear democrats decrying listening to political dirt from Russia I don’t know whether to throw up or roll on the floor lmao.

    Latest Posts


    Don't Miss


    To receive the news in your inbox

    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x