Perez’s pathetic piffle

The Trump Dossier of Russian disinformation was commissioned and funded by the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. These inconvenient facts, reported just last week after all the Trump/Russia campaign collusion hysteria, upset the narrative relentlessly peddled by Clinton, by the Democarats and by the Democrats’ media adjunct. What to do?

We can see what Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez does. He keeps on keeping on, emitting fog. He evades, he lies, he zigs and zags as he did yesterday at the breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on the future of the Democratic Party. C-SPAN has posted video of the breakfast here. Richard Pollock highlights Perez’s comments on the dossier in the Daily Caller report posted here. I’m disassembling and drawing on Pollock’s report for the bullet points below.

‌• Hey, it was just “opposition research” and it would be “malpractice” not to seek it out. Perez put it this way: “Opposition research is not simply something that ought be done, it would be malpractice not to do it.”

‌• But Fusion GPS hired a British spook who drew on the friends of Vladimir Putin disseminating disinformation compiled in the dossier. Is that what he’s talking about? Actually, he’s not talking.

‌• Perez refused to disclose any basic information about the DNC’s role with the dossier and Fusion GPS.

‌• When specifically asked, Perez declined to report how much money the DNC paid Fusion GPS, which DNC official authorized the payment or identify any DNC officials who actively collaborated with it.

‌• One week after the Washington Post revealed that the Clinton presidential campaign and the DNC paid Fusion GPS, Perez purports not to have ascertained how much money the DNC paid to Fusion GPS. “I don’t know how much of the opposition research was Fusion opposition research. I have not [disaggregated] that amount.” That’s an outrage. Disaggregate now!

‌• Perez also indicated that he had not ordered an internal investigation about the DNC’s role with the firm. He doesn’t want to know too much at this point.

‌• Perez used elegant variation to make the point again. “As you know I wasn’t working at the DNC the time of this contract,” he told reporters. In Freddie Prinze’s classic catchphrase, “That’s not my job.”

‌• Perez also repeated the Democrats’ charge that the Russians hacked the DNC emails and the Russians were “in regular contact” with the Trump campaign. “We know that we were hacked by the Russians at the DNC.” Actually, we don’t know that Russians hacked the DNC servers because the Democrats have withheld the servers from law enforcement. But good try before a friendly crowd.

‌• “We now know from yesterday th[at] Trump and the Russians were in regular contact. They weren’t getting together to trade vodka recipes. They were getting together to affect the outcome of the race in 2016,” Perez said. George Papadopoulos did it!

‌• Back to the dossier again, it was just “research.” Based on the “research,” Perez asserted that Trump “has a very shady relationship with Russian authorities.” He added, “What we know from the research, the Trump campaign and the Russians were talking to each other.” Actually, we know from the dossier that the Clinton campaign was talking to senior Putin officials through a couple of cutouts.

‌• And, according to Perez, that “research” just picked up where the Washington Free Beacon and Paul Singer left off. The DNC merely “continued” the project. “When their work was done, it was continued by the Democrats,” Perez said. Interested readers know that this is the dropping of the Democratic bull. In fact, it is undisputed that the dossier and its Russian connections are the pure product of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.

Perez’s pride in the “research” fails him at the last. He falsely spreads the blame like a ten-year old caught, so to speak, redhanded.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line