Politico observes that “aid and comfort to our adversaries” is “the constitutional definition of treason.” That’s not quite accurate; the Constitution uses the word “enemies,” which is more specific than “adversaries” (Vladimir Putin’s Russia, for example, is an adversary but not an enemy). But in this particular case, the distinction lacks a difference, since she’s referring to ISIS, which is undoubtedly an enemy.
So we have a campaign in which a mainstream news reporter is propagating wild conspiracy theories and a major-party nominee is leveling accusations of treason over political speech. And we’re supposed to believe the other guy is “abnormal”!
But we’d like to dilate on the less insane premise Epstein and Mrs. Clinton share—namely, that ISIS prefers Trump and that his rhetoric is helpful to its cause. The matter is indeed “widely seen” that way, at least among the foreign-policy intelligentsia, as evidenced by Mrs. Clinton’s various appeals to authority—to which we’ll add one more: a Foreign Policy essay by the Council on Foreign Relations’ Max Boot, a former Marco Rubio adviser who now backs Mrs. Clinton and fervidly opposes Donald Trump.
“Why Trump Is the Islamic State’s Dream Candidate” is the headline, but the case is very weak. Like Mrs. Clinton’s, it relies entirely on appeals to authority. Boot also cites Matt Olsen, along with some highly dubious sources—a pair of “ISIS spokesmen” quoted in Time magazine. Boot does make a strong case (as if one needed making) that Trump’s policy proposals are less than fully baked.
Read More – WSJ