The twisted takedown targeted at Jared Kushner

There is a twisted takedown effort aimed squarely at Jared Kushner — President Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law. Still unable to cope with Trump’s Nov. 8 victory, the left is breathlessly determined to topple the administration that they believe should have never existed.

To depose the president, liberals must first cut his legs from beneath him by driving a wedge between the commander-in-chief and his closest advisers. They tasted blood with the firing of former National Security adviser Michael Flynn amid news that he misled the vice president. Now, they have an insatiable thirst for more.

Liberals tried to oust Attorney General Jeff Sessions when news emerged that his congressional testimony did not clearly articulate his minimal, par-for-the-course communications with the Russian ambassador while he was a Senator. Then came a slew of leaks suggesting Senior Advisor Steve Bannon was on his way out. That was unfounded, as were reports that Press Secretary Sean Spicer would be fired.

Now, the left has its eye on a much bigger target  — the president’s most trusted adviser, Jared Kushner. Pointing to a slew of unfounded allegations, liberals apply a dubious lens of criminality to anonymous leaks that, even if true, are entirely explainable.

The name of the game is “show me the man, I’ll find you a crime,” as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz so eloquently called it. For his part, Kushner has offered to comply fully with any investigation and answer all questions, but he is nevertheless the victim of contrived criminality.

Let’s look at the so-called case against Jared Kushner:

Kushner’s meeting with the Russians

The White House confirmed that Kushner did indeed meet with a Russian envoy during the transition period to, “establish a line of communication.” But as the New York Times points out, “It is common and not improper for transition officials to meet with foreign officials.”

Indeed, Kushner met not only with the Russian ambassador and a Russian banker at the suggestion of the ambassador, but also more than two dozen other foreign officials from various countries. As overseer of the foreign policy part of the transition, it was in fact Kushner’s job to conduct meetings like these.

Kushner’s involvement in the Russian investigation

Then came Thursday’s earth-shattering headline: “Jared Kushner now a focus in Russia investigation.” Sounds ominous, right?

The body of the Washington Post story undercuts its shadowy headline. Buried five paragraphs down is this: “The Post has not been told that Kushner is a target — or the central focus — of the investigation, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing.”

To be clear, Kushner is not a “subject” of the investigation, nor is there any assertion of criminality. In fact, as Jennifer Rubin suggested in her Washington Post column, “he may merely be a witness,” which would be entirely expected since he is a key player in Trump administration foreign affairs.

Kushner’s alleged request for a back channel to Russia

Friday’s Washington Post headline further fueled the liberal takedown effort: “Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin.” Again, sounds worrying without context.

The Post reporting is based on an anonymous source, who read or heard an intercepted conversation between the Russian ambassador and Moscow. The Russian ambassador supposedly told Moscow that Kushner had suggested creating a secret back channel of communication.

Once again, though, the Post undermines its own story. This time buried eight paragraphs down is this: “Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts.” So the entire story might in fact be a fabricated effort by Russians to sow discord, but the Russians — who the left has repeatedly characterized as untrustworthy and menacing — are to be entirely trusted when their information damages the Trump administration.

But even if the reporting is true, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly says the suggestion of a backchannel “doesn’t bother me,” buttressed by the support of National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster who said over the weekend that he was “not concerned” by it either.

Why? Because back channels are common methods of communication used strategically to achieve a desired end. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton utilized a backchannel through Oman to communicate with Iran about a potential nuclear deal. Yes, that’s right, the Obama administration used this very same method to communicate with the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. They did so without incurring any furor or significant outrage.

In other words, back channels are only a sinister tool when the Trump administration does it.

We as Americans should all be concerned with the smearing of the Trump administration and unfounded allegations of collusion with the Russians. “This is being done backwards,” Dershowitz suggests. “It raises great concerns about civil liberties.”

He goes on to explain that criminal investigations ordinarily center on a certain statute. Hillary Clinton, for example, was being investigated under the Espionage Act for the mishandling of classified information. In the case of the Trump administration, investigators seem to be saying “we don’t like what happened,” according to Dershowitz and, “let’s investigate and maybe we will find something that we can find a statute to fit. That’s not the way it ought to happen.”

Kushner is the victim of exaggerated speculation supported by little evidence. Because of his affiliation with the Trump White House and the Trump family, he is subject to the perverse standard of guilty until proven innocent. It is a grotesque miscarriage of justice indeed.

Kayleigh McEnany (@KayleighMcenany) is a political commentator and graduate of Harvard Law School. She completed her undergraduate degree at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and studied politics at Oxford University.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.