In the Stephanopoulos interview, the President did not say he would purchase such information, nor did he say he would make use of the information; he also was not asked about “stolen” or “hacked” information. Of course, the hearing of the Democrats running for President is far more acute than that of the average person, for every one of them heard that the President would condone stolen or hacked information – you know, much as the Democrats and the Clinton campaign condoned and in some case paid for, from foreign sources, in 2016. They all swear up and down that they would instantly refer directly and immediately to the FBI such an attempt to “interfere with the election,” just as they did in 2016 – when they sicced the Justice Department, through FISA warrants and by other means, on the Trump Campaign – even though the information in question was false, and was, “dirt” accusing Mr. Trump of various malfeasance and improper behavior. Of course, then it was “their” Justice Department, and fresh from its recent clearing of Hillary Clinton even though it was conceded that she had done wrong, the FBI was primed to find someone guilty, even if they had done nothing wrong.
Well, all that is in the past, and Mr. Stephanopoulos is dealing with the hypothetical future. Let’s face it – the Russians may not call themselves Communists anymore, but they still are dangerous adversaries and almost never have America’s best interests at heart. They should not be trusted, and President Trump and everyone else who may be offered juicy bits from Russian sources should immediately inform the authorities. That the Clinton campaign and the Obama Administration chose to play footsie with those sources rather than deport them or sanction them probably helped to color Mr. Trump’s opinion as to whether or when he would inform the FBI. Let’s face it, investigating someone who is offered unsolicited information – rather than investigating the one who offers the information – sends a message that if you tell us, we will get you.
The Trump campaign may have done nothing wrong, but it did buy itself trouble when it agreed to meet with folks who claimed to have “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. This was foolish and unnecessary, for as we noted some time ago, there was more “dirt” already in the public view about Hillary Clinton than there was about any other politician. What would be the value of any more? And, similarly, with an eye to 2020, there already is plenty of “dirt” out there on President Trump, and anything else isn’t going to change anyone’s minds at this point. We think it would be for the best if all campaigns refused to deal in dirt, real or imagined, and if all of them slammed the door on anyone offering dirt, whether from a foreign source or a homegrown one, the world would be a better place; and public figures should pay heed to this advice – never answer a hypothetical question.