Moscow Mitch-- Kentucky's Russian Asset

The evil queen from Kentucky: "If I'm still Majority Leader of the Senate after next year, none of those things"-- and he's talking about Medicare-for-All, free public college, the Green New Deal, a minimum wage increase, LGBTQ workplace equality, background checks on gun sales...-- "are going to pass the Senate. They won't even be voted on. So think of me as the Grim Reaper." OK, but we already think of him as McTurtle, as a bribe taking crook, as the cock sucker from the Louisville's Pickle Park, as Cocaine Mitch and, most recently, as #MoscowMitch.

And, speaking of which... a couple of days ago, the Louisville Courier-Journal looked into why McTurtle is so freaking out over his latest nickname. Maybe it hits too close to home. "[T]he more rocks people turn over," wrote Joseph Gerth, "the more it appears that Moscow Mitch may in fact be a Russian asset, like Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank called him recently. Oh, not in the sense of a Russian asset in an old cold war thriller who is planted here by the GRU as a child with the sole goal of growing up to help defeat the United States for Mother Russia. No. That’s not McConnell’s style."

#MoscowMitch by Nancy Ohanian

What is his style, though, is allowing anyone to get away with anything as long as it advances his own personal goals.

He’ll allow a president who makes racist statements get away with them with nary a peep, as long as the president appoints whomever McConnell wants on the federal bench.

He’ll push for an unqualified U.S. ambassador to the United Nations so long as it keeps open millions of dollars of coal industry money for his next election.

And to some, it appears, he’ll allow the Russian government to interfere with our elections as long as he thinks it’s helping his party win elections and hold the White House.

So let’s talk about McConnell and Russia.

In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, President Barack Obama called top congressional Republicans and Democrats together and informed them of national intelligence assessments that found the Russians were using an internet disinformation campaign to influence the presidential election.

Obama wanted to send out a bipartisan statement warning the Russians that such meddling wouldn’t be tolerated, but it also would have served notice to Americans that what they were reading online may have been placed there by Russian actors.

McConnell objected. Not only did he refuse to sign the letter, the Washington Post reported later that McConnell said “he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.”

One way-- and probably the most accurate way-- to interpret that is McConnell essentially told Obama that if he brought the Russian allegations to light, Republicans would undermine his warnings and claim he was saying it simply to help Hillary Clinton.

Obama backed down, and the administration sent out a much weaker letter.





McConnell, amazingly, has since blamed Obama for not being forceful enough with the Russians, but he has never given an explanation of his role in keeping the intelligence assessments from the public.

Then, we have Oleg Deripaska, the Russian oligarch and buddy of Vladimir Putin who was banned from doing business in the United States because of alleged ties to the Russian mafia.

The Trump administration, however, cut a deal to allow Rusal, a Russian aluminum company 70% owned by Deripaska, to do business in the United States, as long as Deripaska reduced his ownership to less than 45%.

When a bipartisan group of congressmen objected and tried to stop the Trump administration from doing that, McConnell stepped in and blocked them. Now, Rusal has said it plans to invest $200 million in the planned Braidy Industries aluminum plant near Ashland, Kentucky.

Just Wednesday, Politico reported that two of McConnell’s former staff members were lobbyists for Braidy. McConnell’s office refused to say whether they had lobbied McConnell directly.

Finally, McConnell blocked passage by unanimous consent of two Democratic measures designed to tighten election security-- one of which would have required campaigns to report to the FBI if a foreign government offers to help influence an election.

That one would have struck directly at Trump, whose campaign had contact with Russians during the 2016 election but doesn’t appear to have reported attempts by Russia to influence the race.

McConnell has criticized the two bills as overly partisan.

But, more than anything, he may be doing the bidding of Trump, who clearly benefited from Russian involvement three years ago.

And it was that action that spurred the “Moscow Mitch” nickname and the claim he was a “Russian asset.”

McConnell, who has in the past embraced nicknames given him by his opponents-- from the “Grim Reaper” to “Darth Vader” to “Cocaine Mitch”-- took to the floor of the Senate on Monday and decried those impugning his character.

Why did this upset him so, while he has embraced others?

Maybe it hit too close to home.

Perhaps, he knows our democracy is at risk and he’s not doing enough to protect it. Maybe he knows that his legacy won’t be the conservative judges he puts on the federal bench after all.

Maybe he knows the legacy of “Moscow Mitch” will be that he looked the other way when he thought Russian influence could help him and his party and that he harmed America in the process.

But if he thought the floor speech would make the nickname go away, it was a terrible error in strategy, because it revealed something that can get under the old sphinx's skin.

Memes abound on the internet with McConnell wearing Russian fur hats. The Democratic Party of Kentucky is selling Moscow Mitch shirts.

Throughout our history, our politicians who have stood up to the Russians are the ones who have become heroes. Kennedy. Reagan.

We don't honor those who capitulate.

And if you believe this isn't going to come up repeatedly at Fancy Farm this weekend, I've got some ocean-front property to sell you in Severo-Yeniseysky.