Debunking Charlie Kirk on his Russia claims

Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of Turning Point USA, has had a lot to say in defending President Trump from the mounting evidence linking his campaign and presidency to Russia and its autocratic leader Vladimir Putin. The summit in Helsinki only furthered the deep mistrust many have about Trump and their belief the president has been “compromised” in some manner by Putin.

The indictments of 12 Russian government operatives in Democratic campaign email hacking and broad election interference, the arrest and indictment of a Russian spy who infiltrated the conservative GOP movement, and finally the release of the FISA warrant on former Trump campaign staffer Carter Page — all these events have pushed sycophantic Trump defenders like Kirk into “tweeting” overdrive, both to rally behind talking points and deflect to other issues.

First, there is a recent (posted July 2, 2018) interview Kirk did with Jamie Weinstein, a radio host with the National Review. Kirk was asked if there was anything “there” regarding claims of collusion between Trump and Russia. Kirk said no and then based his answer on the time he personally spent on the campaign trail, particularly the “90 days straight” he spent with Donald Trump Jr. He added: “I know what I saw. I know the conversations I had.”

He finished with: “If there was vast Russian collusion… I’m a smart guy… I know from personal experience this is nonsense. This is BS…”

While Kirk did spend much time with many people, the “I didn’t see it in my area, therefore it didn’t happen anywhere” argument is the worst kind of rhetorical warrant. And that he would have sensed it or noticed it as a “smart guy” is also highly debatable since Kirk is a Trump sycophant. His independent judgement should be questioned.

Second, Kirk in the interview — made after the special counsel indicted 12 Russian government operatives for hacking the Democratic and Clinton campaign servers — said Mueller had not turned up anything connecting Russia to Trump. He said this same thing in a tweet from April:

One must point out the guilty plea of Michael Flynn (certainly Russia-related) and the evidence linking Trump operatives to the Russian campaign. The New York Times reported: “Separately, the indictment [of 12 Russian government operatives] states that the hackers were communicating with ‘a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign.’ Two government officials identified the person as Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser to Mr. Trump and the subject of close scrutiny by the F.B.I. and Mr. Mueller’s team. There is no indication that Mr. Stone knew he was communicating with Russians.”

Kirk also dishonestly framed the server indictments about Trump:

No one is blaming Trump for the hacking. He did however call out to Russia to find the “missing” 30,000 emails in the Clinton email saga. The New York Times noted: “The indictment revealed that on July 27, 2016, Russian hackers tried for the first time to break into the servers of Mrs. Clinton’s personal offices. It was the same day that Mr. Trump publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton’s emails.”

Trump also has both agreed and disagreed that the intelligence community has found evidence of Russian interference, but the president hasn’t agreed that the community’s report said Russia did it to help his campaign.

Kirk has called the Mueller investigation “unconstitutional:”

The investigation is neither illegal nor unconstitutional, and as for “out of control” Kirk has said it hasn’t found anything of substance or made any connection to Trump, so what is “out of control?” He might be referring to indictments unrelated to Russian interference (Manafort) but those have been part of the original special counsel mandate and upheld by a judge.

Those are only some of Kirk’s claims about Russia.

I want to collect the tweets by Kirk that reference Russia and then fact-check them. They can be grouped together into two categories: tweets about Obama/Clinton and Trump toughness on Russia. Kirk has previously written in favor of the Nunes Memo and its political attacks on the FBI, which I debunked here. That memo was discovered to be baseless after the Carter Page FISA warrant was released.

Obama/Clinton

There is the Steele dossier, the Uranium One lie, the fact of Bill Clinton’s speech, and two strikes against Obama: he didn’t do anything to stop interference and he himself colluded with Iran (a baseless reference to the nuclear deal and legal settlement), not a direct Russia claim.

The Uranium One story has been fact-checked to all ends: here, here, and here. Kirk is just flat wrong.

The Obama-Iran collusion claim seems to be about the nuclear deal and the $400 million in cash given to Iran as the deal was signed. It was not a ransom, as Trump as claimed.

Bill Clinton did give a speech in 2010 in Russia. He was paid $500,000 by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank. This was noted on Hillary’s 2010 disclosure form. Politifact notes: Some critics of the Clintons have suggested this speaking fee might have been an attempt by Renaissance Capital to curry favor with the State Department, which was involved in the Uranium One deal at the time. But it’s important to keep in mind that Bill Clinton regularly delivers speeches for fees of $500,000 or higher — such as a $750,000 speech in Hong Kong in 2011, paid for by a Swedish communications company, and a $600,000 speech in the Netherlands, also in 2011, paid for by a Dutch finance corporation. Also, Renaissance Capital regularly invites world leaders to speak at its events, like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The Steele dossier was first funded by Trump’s GOP primary opponents, then taken over by the Clinton campaign. Comey did tell Trump about the dossier and some info in it and what in it could not be verified. Sen. John McCain has said he gave it to the FBI and Comey in January 2017. Soon thereafter Comey briefed the president-elect on it.

Comey only told Trump about the most personal, salacious claims in the dossier and said he didn’t know if the claims were true. The dossier is not fake — it is real. And some of its claims about Russia and the Trump campaign have been revealed as accurate.

The Obama response to Russian interference has been debated for its effect, but the public steps taken are clear. Kirk is wrong here as well.

Here is NPR on the private ways Obama responded: “Ultimately, President Obama [responded] privately with the Russian president Vladimir Putin. He took him aside at an international summit and said, please stop interfering in our election — to no effect. And the Obama administration also tried to ask leaders in Congress of both parties to sign a statement condemning these foreign efforts. The Democratic leaders agreed to do so. The Republican speaker, Paul Ryan, apparently thought that he could get there, but the majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, did not agree to do that. And so, ultimately, there was no public statement until October of 2016…”

The public ways NPR also notes: “So in December of 2016 and January of 2017, there were some punitive measures the United States imposed. The Russian “diplomats,” quote-unquote, were ejected from the United States. Their facilities in the United States were closed that they used to spy from New York and Maryland. And there were economic measures that the United States has taken, both under Obama and Trump, in retaliation for this election interference.”

And in another story, NPR notes: “Obama administration officials also told reporters on background that Russian intelligence operatives were behind the cyberattacks that led to the release of emails stolen from political figures and institutions. Later, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson formally blamed the Russian government in an official statement.”

Trump on Russia

Of course the idea that Trump is a Russian puppet is the reasonable outcome of his performance in Helsinki and other actions, most notably his on/off again confirmation it was Russia that interfered in our elections and his zero criticism — in fact praise — of Putin. So the usual GOP response has been to show how tough Trump is on Russia (and by that, Putin).

Ukraine: Kirk claims that Trump armed citizens there, expanded missile defenses there, and denounced annexation of Crimea.

First, Obama denounced the annexation. Kirk is wrong there. Radio Free Europe notes: “But since becoming president, Trump has adhered to the stance taken by the United States under his predecessor Barack Obama, who said Russia’s annexation of Crimea violated international law.” Kirk’s suggestion that Obama didn’t “denounce” the annexation may be reference to Trump’s illogical move to blame Obama for Putin taking Crimea. Both are wrong.

Second, what is the evidence of a denouncement or refusal to acknowledge by Trump of Russia’s taking of Crimea? He has said the invasion would not have happened under his watch (a nod to Obama). But he has said Crimea speaks Russian and so would rather be Russian. And while the White House ruled it out after the Helsinki summit, Trump refused to say before the summit whether he would accept Russian annexation. Trump did say apparently to Putin in the summit that he thought the annexation was illegal.

On the weapons and missiles in Ukraine, Trump did send lethal weapons to Ukraine, including a missile system this past spring. But reports indicated that Ukraine got these most lethal weapons after refusing to cooperate with the Mueller investigation.

Also the initial giving of arms to Ukraine did not include a PR show by Trump. The Washington Post notes: “The Trump administration notified leading congressional committees of the sale on Dec. 13 but didn’t make any public announcements, which some say reflects the sensitivity of the decision and concern about how it will be received by Trump supporters who long opposed the move, as well as by Putin. ‘The way it was not rolled out tells you something, that they are concerned about the perception of this. They are not trumpeting this as a major policy shift or signature policy priority,’ said Samuel Charap, senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation.”

Syria: Yes, Trump bombed Syrian government facilities after the use of chemical weapons there by the Assad regime. Russia has said the attack was “staged” by “foreign agents.”

The “200 Russians” killed by US happened in February. But the event is clouded in mystery. First, the exact number of dead may not be 200.

According to Bloomberg News, “contract soldiers, mostly Russians fighting on behalf of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, died in a failed attack on a base held by U.S. and mainly Kurdish forces in the oil-rich Deir Ezzor region.” But the attack was likely a “rogue operation,” not an official or even unofficial Russian military operation.

On the apology, Kirk seems to be suggesting the US didn’t need to apologize. And it doesn’t.

Sanctions: Yes, Trump has enacted sanctions against Russia, particularly in response to election interference. But Trump waited months to enforce the sanctions (he did so in April) mandated by a law he signed in August 2017. He has also backed off more, stronger sanctions “for supporting Syria’s chemical weapons attack on civilians.”

The basic comparison between Obama and Trump on Russia is a no-brainer, despite Kirk’s attempts. On sanctions, it can be a numbers game. But both have expelled “diplomats.”

NATO: The move to show Trump is a fan of NATO comes after his statements and actions that directly show the opposite. Trump has been critical of that alliance and the allies therein, causing them to plan without him. And causing discord in NATO only helps Putin. Kirk’s claim that Trump is strengthening NATO is far from accurate.

Trump has suggested US shouldn’t pay to defend countries in the alliance. Yes, Trump, like all presidents before him, have sought more funding from NATO partners. But those other presidents did so more privately, not shaming allies in public as to give them further cause not to do Trump’s bidding.

Here is a primer on how Trump gets NATO funding wrong. And it is certainly reasonable to conclude Trump is not trying to build up NATO as much as he is trying to suggest, in his words, the US should pay less for it.

Finally there is the bold and unqualified claim that Trump is the strongest on Russia since Reagan. George H.W. Bush might argue against that. Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama also had significant battles with Russia.

But let’s be clear: this kind of rhetorical comparison that is impossible to “prove” is Kirk’s bread and butter. It’s a throw-away line that has no value because it has no evidence. It is an evoking of a standard without making the comparison with research.

But if you are looking for a smart, nuanced comparison here is a great primer on the differences between Reagan and Trump, especially on Russia.