The Late, Great Russian Collusion Myth

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 June 28, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Incoming elected administrations, especially the Obama transition team of 2008 in the case of Russia and Iran, seek contacts with foreign diplomats before formally entering office.

Most presidential campaigns are staffed by at least a few free-lancing opportunists who see their candidate as a nexus for profiteering. There is no need for a reminder of the lucrative careers of Bill Clinton from 2009-2012, or of Hillary Clinton’s brother, or of the nature of some of John Podesta’s investments. And foreign governments, our own included as in the case of the Obama Administration’s entrance into the Israeli elections, are frequently accused of trying to sway or indeed interfere with another nation’s campaign cycles.

Yet what is strange about the charges of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is that those landscapes were concocted into something supposedly criminal and uniquely applicable to Donald Trump’s election and presidency. Indeed, one of the strangest events in recent political history was the post-election false news narrative that Trump and the “Russians” had colluded during the campaign to rob Hillary Clinton of a sure victory.

The discredited concoction lingers to this day, despite the fact that former FBI Director James Comey on three occasions told Trump that he was not the subject of any investigation about collusion with the Russians.

Both the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan (both foes of Trump) at various times admitted that there was no intelligence, to their knowledge, that implicated Trump as a colluder with Vladimir Putin to gain advantage over Clinton. Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson seconded that consensus by conceding there was no evidence of any Trump campaign effort to persuade the Russian to alter the elections. In a more general sense, Barack Obama (who had intelligence reports of Russian election-cycle hacking) three weeks before the election, and the assumed certain victory of Hillary Clinton, had dismissed entirely the idea that any party could taint a U.S. election. Obama went on to accuse Trump of whining for even suggesting that the impending election might be questioned by impropriety.

Even news producers at CNN, the chief engine that drove the collusion fairy tale, were caught on camera admitting that the entire story was mostly “bulls—t”. And one producer added, “And so I think the president is probably right to say, ‘Look, you are witch hunting me.’” Recently, three staffers, including a reporter and an executive editor, resigned from CNN in disgrace for peddling more fake news accounts of collusion between Trump and the Russians.

Who Really Blew the Election?

The logic of the collusion yarn was always somewhat ridiculous.

Hillary Clinton lost the election largely for three reasons, none of them having anything to do with Russia, and all within her power to have rectified.

1) Clinton was a poor candidate: prone to offensive outbursts, appearing haughty and curt, mired in a variety of email server and Clinton Foundation scandals, whose voice, mannerisms, and attitude turned off precisely those middle-class voters critical to her candidacy;

2) Strategically, Clinton ran an incompetent campaign, turning over its direction to an inexperienced amateur and thirtysomething Robby Mook, who wasted resources by strangely believing that it was more important to run up a mandate by flipping solidly red states than first ensuring that her “blue wall” was secure;

3) Clinton never offered a political message other than the novelty of becoming the first female president. She failed to appreciate that Obama’s progressivism had grown unpopular, while his transient 2016 personal popularity and past Electoral College success were not transferrable to a white 69-year-old multimillionaire like herself—even as the downside of his negatives and his unpopular agenda certainly were.

Who Appeased the Russians?

Prior to November 2016 any writ of Russian collusion was usually lodged against the Obama Administration. Its much heralded but failed “reset” policy had been aimed at George W. Bush’s supposed overreaction in 2008 to Putin’s aggression in Georgia.

Reset was always marketed by ridiculing Bush and overturning his estrangement with Putin: missile-defense in eastern Europe dropped; Russian cyberattacks unanswered; private, hot-mic assurances that Obama would need “space” for Putin not to press him before the election so he could later, when reelected, respond with “flexibility” (a de facto admission of a sort of election-era collusion); ridicule accorded Mitt Romney by Obama for stating that Putin’s Russia was an existential enemy.

Indeed, most prominent Republicans were long at odds with the Obama Administration’s inexplicable appeasement of Putin as he gobbled up Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and, on an American invitation, reentered the Middle East after a Russian hiatus of more than 45 years.

Indeed, most prominent Republicans were long at odds with the Obama Administration’s inexplicable appeasement of Putin as he gobbled up Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and, on an American invitation, reentered the Middle East after a Russian hiatus of more than 45 years. House Intelligence Committee leader Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) had harped for years on the dangers of unanswered Russian aggression, the administration’s intelligence failures, and the existential threat Putin had posed to American interests—most dramatically by hiring hackers to distort American campaigns.

How the media was able in a matter of hours after the election to rebrand Democrats as anti-Russian hawks and Republicans as colluders with Putin is one of the strangest and yet most successful political fabrications in recent history.

Genesis of a Lie

To understand the Russian metamorphosis, it is important to return to the last few months of the 2016 campaign. Hillary Clinton enjoyed a wide lead in nearly almost all the polls. Esteemed prognosticators insisted that her odds of winning the Electoral College were more than 80 percent.  The media, eager to push a Democratic narrative, the progressive Left, and Never Trump conservatives ritually denounced a buffoonish sure loser Donald Trump. All gleefully vied with each other in predicting just how much damage Trump’s catastrophic loss would do to the Republican Party.

Yet during bouts of Clinton’s triumphalism there was also progressive pique over a series of embarrassing leaks of private communications of the Democratic National Committee, as well as emails of Hillary Clinton’s consigliere John Podesta—apparently the work of contract hackers working for Russia hand-in-glove with Julian Assange’s Wikileaks operation (a liaison, to be fair, still denied by Assange) to ensure the correspondence enjoyed wide play.

It was no secret that long ago Putin had developed a contempt for Obama, Clinton, and John Kerry, largely because his appeasers lectured him sanctimoniously without commensurate displays of credible deterrent force.

Given Hillary’s sizable lead, and given that it was common knowledge that Putin’s Russia had a deep antipathy for both Obama and Clinton for purported U.S. meddling in the 2012 Russian election, no one at the time paid much attention to the source of the embarrassing Wikileaks disclosures. It was no secret that long ago Putin had developed a contempt for Obama, Clinton, and John Kerry, largely because his appeasers lectured him sanctimoniously without commensurate displays of credible deterrent force.

At about the same time, Never Trump and later Clinton campaign opposition research against Trump (the 35-page “Steele dossier”), most of it easily refuted, came into the hands of James Comey’s FBI. The latter informed key government agencies of the lurid details of Trump’s “Russian ties,” as deep-state bureaucrats were leaking the salacious fantasies to the press.

Still, most pre-election media gave the Russian collusion narrative little play—given the surety of an impending Clinton victory. The smear was seen as a redundancy, a superfluous slander given Hillary’s huge mandate, perhaps even a needless headache in her post-election transition to president.

Then Trump did the unthinkable. He won.

Worse still, he got elected while losing the popular vote by 2.9 million votes and by crashing through the once solid blue-wall states—with ominous repercussions for future Democratic campaign strategies

At that point, in need of an exegesis that exonerated the Clinton campaign, and lacking a convincing political message to counter the Trump agenda, Democrats, progressive activists and the media revived the stale Russian collusion fake news story. The media, eager for ratings and clicks, fueled the con with hysterical assertions of Trump’s guilt and Mike Flynn’s treasonous behavior. Neither narrative was credible, but again both were seemingly authenticated by intelligence careerists who saw Trump as an existential threat to their own universes.

The collusion myth certainly fit a lot of convenient stereotypes: The flamboyant wheeler-dealer Trump and his convoy of purportedly shady operatives were to be portrayed as not much different from money grubbing Russian oligarchs.

The collusion myth certainly fit a lot of convenient stereotypes: The flamboyant wheeler-dealer Trump and his convoy of purportedly shady operatives were to be portrayed as not much different from money grubbing Russian oligarchs. Surely Russia preferred the novice Trump: he presumably would be an easily manipulated dunce and “owe” Putin for the alleged Russian contract hackers, who had exposed the dirty laundry of the Clinton campaign and the DNC (warping the primaries and debates to defeat Bernie Sanders, colluding with reporters to coordinate strategies, etc.).

Trump played into the sense of hysteria by winking and nodding at the idea of Putin as something akin to a savvy manipulator rather than as the monster of failed reset. And Putin for his part obviously saw in Trump a strongman figure who might be tougher, but less self-righteous and thus in a strange way more deserving of respect as a proud leader of a rival big power. More important, in tune with traditional Russian maskorova, the strategist Putin enjoyed the deceptions and the resulting frenzied in-fighting that consumed America and calcified its policies abroad.

Still, why did the obviously silly collusion story persist in the absence of any credible evidence?

A Most Useful Idiocy

The proverbial deep state of the Obama Administration was involved in legitimizing the fraudulent Trump collusion dossier, and perhaps more still in leaking its contents. It is likely that high Obama officials surveilled the Trump campaign team, albeit under the guise of incidental sweeps during security probes. Under the guise of national security, they unmasked names and leaked them to the press. Yet after the election, the Russian narrative was no longer superfluous insurance for a sure winner, but rather become a desperate tool in delegitimizing the new president.

In the political sense, collusion also crowded out a number of other disturbing and more likely factual news. In inexplicable fashion, Barack Obama had done nothing when told that Russian hackers or contract players were trying to tap strategic communications of the Democratic Party. Why such dangerous laxity?

Collusion and its later twin “obstruction” served other political purposes. The charges overshadowed the House Intelligence Committee’s explosive discovery that Obama officials had engaged in surveilling, unmasking, and leaking to the press.

Was it just another example of Obama innate timidity and his deer-in-the-headlights inability to act forcefully in defense of his country’s strategic interests? Or had Obama seen no need to create an incident when he was certain that Russian shenanigans would not affect Hillary’s sure win? Or was he becoming worried that there, in fact, was Clinton culpability with the Russians in a number of financial arrangements (from Bill’s honoraria to donations to the Clinton Foundations to sweetheart deals on uranium acquisitions) and that Putin might retaliate by leaking embarrassing information in such a way as to denigrate his own administration?

Collusion and its later twin “obstruction” served other political purposes. The charges overshadowed the House Intelligence Committee’s explosive discovery that Obama officials had engaged in surveilling, unmasking, and leaking to the press.

It also would help crowd out disturbing revelations from James Comey that he had acceded to Attorney General Loretta Lynch manipulations of his ongoing investigations of Hillary Clinton—coming on top of her improper secret meeting with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac amid rumors that she was promised by sure winner Hillary Clinton a continued quid pro quo tenure as attorney general.

An FBI Adrift

Collusion additionally muddied the waters about the increasing politicization of the FBI. Comey himself had improperly assumed the role of investigator, judge, and jury in the Clinton election-cycle investigations—whining about, but acceding to, obstructive pressures from Lynch, later leaking information in (successful) efforts to force appointment of a special investigator, and slavishly courting Trump in private with assurances that he was not under investigation, while covering his options by his agency’s leaking tidbits that suggested Trump was in fact being investigated for collusion.

Comey in exonerating Clinton had cited her various transgressions only to dismiss them by stating she had no demonstrable intent to commit such crimes—an exemption nowhere found in such federal statutes, an indemnity provided to no others similarly charged with federal security breaches, and proof again that Comey was neither emotionally nor professionally fit to both run an investigation and then simultaneously adjudicate its future legal trajectory.

The spouse of Comey’s top lieutenant, Andrew McCabe, had been a recent Democratic candidate for the Virginia state senate and a past recipient of huge amounts (in excess of $500,000) of progressive cash, much of it directed by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally. That fact was not released by the FBI. Surely, under normal circumstances, McCabe would have been recused from the entire Clinton investigation. That McCabe also had been in a veritable feud with Michael Flynn over personnel matters since 2014 reinforced the fact that Comey’s team was incapable of investigating Hillary Clinton, and had no business trafficking in unproven and ridiculous charges of Russian collusion against Trump or insinuation that Flynn was a traitor.

The spouse of Comey’s top lieutenant, Andrew McCabe, had been a recent Democratic candidate for the Virginia state senate and a past recipient of huge amounts (in excess of $500,000) of progressive cash, much of it directed by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally. That fact was not released by the FBI.

In the matter of the phony Steele file that was at the heart of the collusion charge, the FBI somehow acquired a copy, disseminated its contents among an ever expanding circle of government grandees, and must have been aware that its lurid contents would leak to pet progressive reporters—despite its own knowledge that the dossier was a product of Never Trump and Hillary Clinton opposition research and easily refuted. (The author of the Fusion file, a private investigator and former British M-16 hand named Christopher Steele, had not been to Russia recently, had no updated information on the Putin administration, and no recent contacts with reliable Russian spies—but he was peddling a hit piece to Never Trump Republicans, then to the Hillary Clinton campaign, and finally to the forces of the deep state determined to undermine Donald Trump.

Ultimately, however, it was not just the deep state and progressive hit people that promulgated the lie of Trump as Putin’s lackey and who tried to destroy the reputation of the elected president.

A Media Unhinged

The media fed off the hysteria. In its fusion role with the Democratic Party to delegitimize Trump, journalists saw collusion as the most effective way to create a sort of national madness directed at the Trump presidency.

Just as the Democratic Party sought to challenge voting machines, tried to reinvent the Electoral College, threatened impeachment, talked of removal by the 25th Amendment or the Emolument Clause, stalled confirmations, demanded recusals, and cherry picked liberal judges in lawsuits, and as the street “Resistance” went after Trump with demonstrations, campus violence, and sick celebrity talk of presidential assassination, incest, and perversion, so too the media lent a professional patina to the Resistance with the collusion story—the glue that for the first 100 days of the Trump administration held the opposition together.

The collusion myth filled a Democratic, progressive and media need for deflecting blame for Hillary’s loss, diverting attention from real Obama administration and Clinton scandals, and delegitimizing President Trump after the election.

And now?

The collusion invention has become a sort of boomerang, bringing negative attention back to its authors and promulgators and turning over old Obama administration stones to reveal quite unsavory things beneath.

The collusion myth filled a Democratic, progressive and media need for deflecting blame for Hillary’s loss, diverting attention from real Obama administration and Clinton scandals, and delegitimizing President Trump after the election.

It is also no exaggeration that the collusion mythology has helped to destroy CNN as a news network altogether (e.g., the Kathy Griffin decapitation act, the Anderson Cooper and Reza Aslan scatology, the periodic Jim Acosta puerile meltdowns, the constant incoherent anti-Trump harangues of Don Lemon and Fareed Zakaria, the CNN fake news report that Comey would refute Trump’s assertion that he was told that he was not under investigation, the recent firing of three marquee reporters for fabricating another anti-Trump news account, the tapes capturing a CNN producer confessing to the absence of any support for CNN’s collusion trope, the Harvard Kennedy Center study showing that CNN coverage of Trump was 93 percent negative, etc.)

In sum, the collusion mythology fit a preconceived need.

Had it not existed, some equally groundless hit-piece would have had to be invented.

Content created by The Center for American Greatness, Inc is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected]

About the Author:

Victor Davis Hanson
Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. Dr. Hanson is the author of The Second World Wars – How the First Global Conflict was Fought and Won. It is coming out in October 2017 by Basic Books.
  • Good summary, but only hints at the obvious implication that a cabal of Intel chiefs and Obamunist loyalists, namely John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey conspired to promulgate (through electronic ‘wiretapping’, unmasking, and multifold links to sycophants in the leftwing media) the fable of Trump-Russia ‘collusion’.

    I suspect the ‘collusion’ myth got started when the Democrats hired an anti-Russian Ukrainian IT firm to figure out how the DNC computers got hacked. They of course blamed the evil Russians, which inspired the Intel Cabal to inflate the collusion balloon to the point where Hillary Clinton was able to claim that ’17 intelligence agencies’ all agreed that Trump was ‘Putin’s puppet’. Of course, there weren’t any 17 agencies: it was just Brennan, Clapper, and Comey.

    For more details, see “The Easter Bunny Cover-up,” https://walkingcreekworld.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-easter-bunny-cover-up/

    /L. E. Joiner – https://walkingcreekworld.wordpress.com

    • pogden297

      Oh, Lord, please don’t tell me you don’t believe the Russians hacked the emails. Even Trump now admits that’s what happened.

      • champ

        So the Russians published Democrat emails unaltered. We should be thanking them for that service in unearthing Democrat perfidy…

      • The DNC refused to let the FBI investigate their hacks (unlike the RNC). John Podesta’s computer was wide open, and he fell for a simple phishing scheme that was wild in the Internet; could have been anyone (even Russians). Then there was Seth Rich, his mysterious murder, and a former British diplomat who claimed he received a stolen DNC file in a park in Washington, DC. AFAIK, no evidence has been published that confirms US Intel claims that the Russian government was responsible.

      • JimBob777

        Seth Rich- answer that or STFU, moron.

      • Last I heard Trump claim it COULD have been the Russians, and it could have been someone else …. Now no one really know who hacked the emails, since Hillary and the DNC would not let the FBI investigate the hacking!

  • Peter63

    Entirely agree.

    Could we now have loads of pieces all over conservative news-and-views media about the Urgent Need to de-Goldman-Sachs-ify the Trump Administration and, more generally, purge the White House of people peddling same-old, same-old policies that the two sections of the Fusion Party (the Democrats and the Republicans) have long foisted on the USA?

    Unless President Trump gets back to Candidate Trump’s excellent policy positions – in full, undiluted – what is the point of supporting him?

    • Brother John the Deplorable

      Because to do otherwise is to give in to the administrative state.

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP should find a couple of hot looking Russian hookers and hire them to pose as the ladies that gave a golden shower to the bed the Obama’s slept in.
    That would cause the media and Democrats to start bleeding from their ears.
    The manic frenzy would be the best entertainment EVAH!

  • brian_in_arizona

    The focus on the ephemera of a Russian connection to Trump and his close associates detracts from a focus on actual Trump policies.

    While the media has not completely ignored Trump policies, his policies do not seem to drive clicks and ratings. It is possible that much of what Trump proposes are in fact supported by significant numbers average Americans as much as they are loathed by others, people are indifferent to them, or people just don’t want a continuation of the left-right status quo of the last 16 years…. unlike the MSM.

  • Dave781

    VDH correctly points out that in the past Republicans (Bush, McCain and Romeny) opposed appeasement of Russia. But VDH fails to point that Trump agreed with Obama.

    If Bush McCain and Romney were right then that means that Trump was wrong.

  • john martin

    Victor Davis Hanson the historian is documenting this period of American politics before our very eyes. We are so lucky to have someone of his caliber take all the sorted details of the Russian collusion hoax and put them into historical perspective for other generations to see how close we are to total progressive nihilism. Will we survive as a culture? Still to be determined.

    • sandslug

      At the end of this all I hope he wrights a big book.

    • Mike Brown

      Great re-cap of events. Unfortunately, the revisionist media will quickly try to re-write this version into something that meets there needs.

    • Melida Stinson

      We still have Douglas Brinkley who no doubt is recording the opposite view of history.

  • blaine

    Obstruction of justice can include crimes committed by investigators and prosecutors – an interesting example being malfeasance.
    I was wondering why all investigating officials when under oath continue to publicly deny there was any evidence of collusion, or that Trump was ever under investigation… How could he not have been? Obstruction of Justice can include crimes committed by prosecutors and investigators when they cast public aspersions on someone who they know has not committed a crime and publicly investigate them for ulterior motives, e.g. political reasons (which is malfeasance). Publicly stating under oath that there is no evidence of collusion, and that Trump was never under investigation, is a good defense against charges of malfeasance leveled by Trump against those investigating him.
    I believe Trump would certainly charge them with this (obstruction of justice by malfeasance) if he could. But the flip side of this is that if there really is no crime, in this case no collusion with the Russians, the investigators really are open to accusations of malfeasance. It is a real crime, and investigators can and have been convicted of it in the U.S. If this article is correct, the investigators themselves need to be investigated for malfeasance, which is itself a type of obstruction of justice.
    Will we soon have another special prosecutor investigating the FBI, and CIA?
    Should special prosecutor Mueller mishandle this case, could we even have a special prosecutor investigating the special prosecutor?

  • Michele

    A fish rots at the head – the community organizer is, has been and always will be a lawless, inept, dangerous manipulator intent on destroying America that he so desperately hates. Who provided the most corrupt administration in the history of our country – DOJ, IRS, NSA, CIA, FBI, SoS, VA and on…Thank God for Trump – not perfect – but a non politician who loves America with heart and soul…the only person who can make America great again…

    • sandslug

      But Obama is in love with really rich people. For him you just can’t spend enough.

      • aranby willikers

        Ya, Trump doesn’t like rich people. That’s why he has appointed a bunch of them and why he’s fixing to give them massive tax cuts.

        • zgli

          Trumps billionaire Dept Secretary’s can’t be bribed. They don’t need the grief or the money. It is always the dangerous dems who try to leverage their power to enrich themselves.

          • aranby willikers

            Interesting way to look at it. So I guess we should all be lead by ultra-rich folks who won’t take bribes? Only question is how some of these shady folks made their cash and whether their fealty it’s to the people or to money.

          • JimBob777

            No, we should reject allowing billionaire dhimmiKKKrats from being in government.

          • That was true with the Obama’s and Clinton’s team …. but the really rich get to a point where money is not what they want as much as fame …. and something worthwhile to be remembered for ….. JD Rockefeller spent more of his life giving money away than in making it in the first place. He gave us better gasoline at a cheaper price, and he gave us Williamsburg. Both while making his money and while giving it away, the common person benefited !

          • aranby willikers

            Yes, there is a noble tradition of philanthropy by the very rich. Trump is not part of that tradition. I did the math and research a couple months ago. Trump has given in the range of 0.05% of his net worth to charity. He has not given to his own foundation in years, and has used funds from the foundation to purchase portraits of himself and to pay off the Attorney General of Florida (Bondi) after she ‘decided’ not to go ahead with charges on the Trump U thing.

          • We do not know if Trump is part of that tradition or not, he give more money to Charity than Hillary and Obama did when they first ran for office …. and as you pointed out (I assume you are right) he has his own foundation …. And many RICH people try to give in manners that cannot be seen, since if you donated money to charity you get a lot of junk mail in return …. A lot of wealthy people use their planes to fly people who need medical services, or they pay for research …. Or when serving the public they donate their pay to a public good (oh! I understand that is what Pres. Trump is doing) …. and if you are still busy, it can be hard to donate wisely …. However, giving from one’s own resources is a habit of the POOR and of CONSERVATIVEs, Liberals tend to feel good if they take other people money (government taxes) and give it to projects that may or many not do good.

        • Thomas Paine

          I know it sucks when people that have proven their ability to use capital to create more and improve economic conditions of the entities/companies they manage get to keep more of what they earn. Then they have the nerve to invest it productively into the private economy that most Americans are invested in also…crazy!!

          • aranby willikers

            Yes, or when people inherit wealth, get a little bit lucky then use any means necessary to build their wealth, borrowing, lying and scamming their way to the top. Then a bunch of greedy folks (republicans) who idolize greed and wealth as a virtue bring them into power, thinking they actually care about or have any way to fix the problems of the common folk. Then they take what they can from the poor to give to themselves and their cronies. Then your country turns into a laughing stock.

          • johnnydavis1

            Your statement would be accurate if you replaced republicans with Democrats.

          • aranby willikers

            Don’t know if lefties are traditionally idolize greed and wealth. Hey, anything goes though! Make your own narrative.

          • johnnydavis1

            Of course they are. Look at the amount of money those Democrat Congressmen accumulate while in office. It is a path to wealth for them.

          • Maineiac

            Most if not all did not inherit or marry into it a la Kerry. They did it the old fashioned way-hard work and long hours.

          • William Rau

            Pretty clearly demonrats hate money and wealth. Poor Billary, only worth a hundred million or so as a result of their slavish devotion to public service, or in Bill’s case, pubic service. The whole swamp needs to be drained, starting with all of them.

          • aranby willikers

            Drain the swamp to build a toxic waste dump.

          • Freddie Freeloader

            Yeah those poor have sooooooo much that everyone else needs, I think I’ll go rob some poor folk myself later…

          • aranby willikers

            Are you familiar with high interest loans? Minimum wage work? Slumlords? Fast food? Smokes, booze, drugs? People get rich off poor folks every day.

          • ffarkle

            You’re funny.

            Please go read some actual history books. You won’t be so funny after, but you also won’t be so bitter about such nonsense.

          • Altalena

            FDR and JFK were both born in log cabins and had to bootstrap their way up the ladder.

            Right.

          • Jim Croft

            Just like cheap energy has done for the poor. Look at Hati no trees cause they burn them for fuel hence terrible floods when it rains.

          • Grumpier

            Investing with bankruptcy, good gig if you can get it..

        • champ

          He appointed those “rich” people because he believes that the fact that they are rich shows them to be successful businessmen…

          • aranby willikers

            Ohhh… Not that they were lucky enough to be born into a rich family? And not that they ran scams left and right, perhaps a fake university, a fake charity, couple of bankruptcies and some shady loans?
            Getting rich is occasionally genius, but more often a combination of luck and greed. Wealth is not a measure of ones quality as a human being. Running a government is not running a business. Being very wealthy means these people will lack certain understandings of how life works for the rest of us.
            The worship of greed and wealth is at the crux of America’s current dilemma.

          • champ

            Frog off, wanker…

          • Craig the Czech

            Or stop wanking, froggie.

          • Thomas Paine

            You narrative bespeaks of the jaded view you have of economic freedom and empowerment found in the American experiment as enshrined in our founding documents. That aside Capitalism has lifted more people out of Governmental oppression, poverty and hopelessness than any other econmic methods that have ever been tried.

          • aranby willikers

            There’s different flavours of capitalism. And there are different kinds of money. The kind you make from honest work and the kind you make from taking advantage of folks.

          • johnnydavis1

            The entire premiss of Democrat policy is to make money off of the “struggles” of the poor and “victimized”.

          • aranby willikers

            Like Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow?

          • johnnydavis1

            So you are saying that Trump is a victim?

          • aranby willikers

            Naw, his big new lawyer runs a shady charity that rips off poor folks and which he fleeced like 30 million off of. Another classy choice by the King of Klass himself.

          • That sound like the Clintons….

          • The drug dealer take advantage of folks, and they never get really RICH … However, there are the truly RICH that you are making richer by using their products ….like FACEBOOK, and perhaps you have an iPhone or iPad …. the really RICH today, graduated or left college during the 1960s / 1980s with a new concept …. most of the old money if they do not continue to produce is lost after three generations …. every year there is new wealth created by hard working people that think out of the box. And People like you that are more than willing to buy their products and then complain that they made a profit even if it is only by making a profit that you can continue to serve the public.

          • aranby willikers

            Big pharma is a drug dealer. They get really rich.

            No Apple products ( well maybe a 10 year old iPod) and don’t Facebook.

            66% of billionaires are ‘self made’. However only 35% were from the working or middle class while 39.5% started out with a million or more dollars and of that 21% were born with their billions.

          • What percent do you think the net profits represents …. and how would you feel if you could only use drugs that were developed 20 years ago? In the USSR the drug companies make less, and produced less…. and you do not use a personal computer …. or a cell phone? Your know no one who uses FACEBOOK! …. Take a look at how many families were rich for over three generations …. Then look before FREE EXTERPRISE came into being … how may generations were workers and traders or business people or nobles! My family were business people since the 900 AD, and on the other side small nobles since the 1200 …. they did what they did becasue they were born into their class …. now some have become poor, some have become wealthy … and we marry whoever we want ….. We are blessed due to Free Enterprise … I agree with you that we are less free then we were, and that is thanks to the Wealthy Democrats.

          • Free Enterprise is the correct term, under Free Enterprise people enter in trade freely, people trades goods for goods, of goods for money, etc, and both free they are better off for having made the trade. Slaves cannot be a part of a Free Enterprise system. During the Jackson Era, when Pres. Jackson move the Indians (who were setting up businesses with accounting systems, and Han schools for boys AND girls and was doing it on their own land) out of the South along the TRAIL OF TEARS to Oklahoma. This was not the action of a Free Enterprise system, it was the action of a powerful state that had no regards for the rights and freedom of the Indians who adopted the business ways of Europe, and became wealthier becasue of their business skill … The Democrats could not stand the free competition! They took advantage of the folks (in this case the Indians) …. as well as taking advantage of the blacks, in time they even violate the rights of the FREE BLACKs who owned plantations ! With Free Enterprise, people are free …. under other economic system people are subjects of the State!

          • Maineiac

            You really need to take a step back and a few deep breaths. Then wiki the biographies of those people to see what they really did.

          • aranby willikers

            Like Donny, the success story. Born to millionaire parents, Donny’s grandpa was a pimp. With only a million dollar loan from his dad (and another 6 or 7 million later), Donny started from nothing and somehow made money buying and selling real estate in New York over the course of 40 years. Along the way he hired illegals, went bankrupt (several times) dabbled in political affiliations, grabbed some putties and even had time to fleece some losers with a fake university! Actually lots of losers got fleeced – around 320 million of them excluding future generations.

          • Are you saying that the Clintons were better ? … perhaps you need to learn more about the Clintons … As for going bankrupt …. that is the major reasons for corportations … so that people can invest but limit their liability …. Most of us like to drive, Ford made it possible (after a few bad starts) … and most of us like the prepared foods, my family knew Mr.Campbell, we choose not to invest with him, good thing, since that time his business failed, after two more bankrupt attempts, he made good and we now have Campbell Soups … Going Bankrupt is part of the learning process …. However, the Clintons did not play by any moral rules, and if you are a moral person you would not have wanted the Clintons to be in the White House …. after all with Trump there the Press will focus on him, if Hillary was there, the Press would be diverting attention aways from their misdeeds ….

          • JimBob777

            Only doltish dhimmiKKKrats believe that great wealth ONLY occurs by luck.

          • Almost…. he appointed them because they were successful business people (which resulted in them becomeing rich). Not becasue they are RICH, but becasue the can think outside the conventional box.

        • Under Obama, the POOR got poorer, and the RICH got richer …. and Small Businesses declined (first time since the Great Depression, a Great Recession caused by FDR). A tax cut like Kennedy’s tax cut may benifit the rich, but like with Kennedy, and all the other tax cuts for the RICH, they will end up paying more taxes …. so to you want more tax revenue, or is it that you want the rich to be poorer … when the rich suffer to poor suffer even more.

          • aranby willikers

            So you think Trump is going to usher in an era of greater equality? Tax cuts for the rich will see them paying more taxes? Why, because they’ll be making so much more money?

            This is preposterous. The very rich should be a bit poorer and why not. Rich folks money gets saved while middle and low income earners actually spend cash – the kind of cash that makes an economy go round and brings in tax dollars.

            Also please spare me the ‘when the rich suffer’. What does that mean, ‘we’ll have to wait a year for the new yacht’? I’m middle class and I don’t do much suffering. I get what I need and what I want. The ultra rich don’t get a new yacht, the poor get crushed dreams, no dinner and to sleep in a van.

          • Swampcat

            Being poor seems to be a mind-set. Many people work to pull themselves up from poverty into middle class and/or ultra class. Some people have a mind-set that they should stay on public assistance for generations and remain poor. It’s not that they want to remain poor, but their actions are what keep them poor. It is a mind-set. It is a culture. Can we not work together to rid our people of that mind-set. Obama promoted government assistance, which is what is keeping people poor for generations. Why not offer jobs, and welfare only for those who are truly needy. Let’s limit the time on welfare. Generation after generation of welfare recipients is killing our country in more ways than one.

          • Swampcat

            I am not rich, but middle class. The rich in this country pay the majority of taxes. There was a study done that indicated that if we took every penny from the rich, we would still not be able to fund the government for more than 6 months. Then what???? Look, I am with you that it seems unfair that the rich can buy yachts while we buy corn on the cob, but it is what it is. Maybe they are smarter than the rest of us….maybe they were born rich….maybe they worked harder than us….Whatever!! I work very hard and would hope that my hard work pays off, but I am not going to demonize some guy just because he might be rich….especially when I realize he is paying a shit-load of money to make our government work (taxes!).

          • aranby willikers

            According to this the 1% have between 33 and 42 % of the total wealth and 18 to 23 % of income (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/brookings-1-percent/473478/).

            54.2 trillion was the total wealth of Americans in 2009 per Wikipedia. So 33 % of that is 17.88 trillion dollars of wealth in that thin upper crust. The six month operating budget for the US government is 1.9 trillion (based on a 12 month 2015 budget of 3.8 trillion).

            Of course there is a national debt of 20 trillion dollars, which at 2.4% interest is 500 billion. That would be 2.1 trillion every six months. And I’m using numbers favoring you.

            And really, the most honorable money you can make is through working for it. Not all of these guys made it to the top being nice moral individuals. Getting there and living there, it helps to be greedy and ruthless.

            Anyway you seem like a decent person. Not sure where you get your numbers, doesn’t seem to add up. I’m no economist though.

          • Yes, and look at the RICH GUYs that gave us the iPad I am using, the iPhone that I carry with me, and my Apple Computer that I do my banking on …. or lets look a Gates who is responsible for the programing most of the non-Apple people uses ….. or how about the person that developed FACEBOOK …. all these people we can be thankful for, were not super rich, they became super rich by giving us what we wanted ever if we did not know at the time that we wanted it. The there are many old Rich familie, but they do not stay rich unless they offer the people something the PEOPLE want ….

          • Yes, the RICH will be making more money becasue ot the tax cut, and hense will pay more taxes …. each and every tax cut over the past 60 years, made the RIch richer, and made it so that the Poor paid less taxes, and their take home pay increase … Let me respone from my company’s history, of years we were just breaking even, the profits me made were so small that we could not expand, then we received a tax cut that left us with a little more after tax income … We were able to invest it in energy saving equipment, which gave us more profits the next year, and we paid more taxes the following year. Then we invested the extra money in a new product line, completing with WR Grace. Which in turn, saved the country millions on a product line that WR GRACE dominated. The result was we were able to share 33% of our profits with our workers, the consumers were able to buy insulation at a 40 reduction in price, there was less energy consumes, and we paid the government more taxes …. everyone won except perhaps Big Businesses like WR GRACE. ….. Why should the RICH be poorer … that would only hurt the Poor …. What you should be intersted in is how to make the Poor and Middle Class richer or less poor! I am all for cutting FICA and FUI taxes so the take home pay would be greater, and employers would gain at the same time …. but people like you would want to keep the Poor poor to prevent the Rich from becoming richer …. by the way, who do you think make those new yachts …. you think Obama or Hillary make yachts …. no! Skilled working people make yachts …. YOU Aranby care little for the poor … if you did you would be working for Tax Repeal of Labor Based Taxes (FICA/FUI) and for School Choice so that the POOR can get educated and get a good job and keep most of their pay check. …. the lost revenue could be made up with a FAIR TAX on GOODs.

          • aranby willikers

            I believe the anecdote regarding your company refers to corporate tax, while I’m taking about personal tax.

            Skilled working people do make yachts, but yachts and other luxury goods are a tiny part of what makes the economy as a whole go around. Trickle down economics have repeatedly been shown to be ineffective, most recently in Kansas.

            You think school choice is going to improve education for poor kids?

          • We are taxed at a personal tax rate (limited partnership) …. most small business no longer use the standart Corp form of business..

          • Altalena

            Move to Pakistan; their income equality figures (GINI) are better than ours.

            If you think that stat necessarily betokens a better standard of life, I have a bridge to sell you.

          • aranby willikers

            Well if a nation build itself as the captain of freedom and equality… I guess those days are over.

          • Altalena

            Do you mean “billed” or “built?” Or neither?

            Ever hear of the Gilded Age? Look it up.

          • Our Free Enterprise system is not as good as it could be, and out Labor taxes need to be repeal, FDR really hurt workers …. and our tax system is based on workers income …. it should be based on GOODs, goods should be taxed equally no matter where they are made (domestic or foreign) nor how they are made (human labor or machines) … our nation is built on Freedom, and equality before the law …. not income. Now we need to free up our education system so that parents can pick the school for their children, based on the values and needs of the parents … the state should not control the school system. …. we need to repeal many regulations that were made by agency and not passed by Congress. An excess of regulations make it differcult for simple people to complete with the wealthy. However, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs demostrated that one can still make it big in this land if you have something people want …..

          • aranby willikers

            I’m not invested in an income vs goods and services tax.

            Equality should not only be legal (which regardless is not the case) but should also incorporate opportunity. Clearly this can never be the case in practical terms but offering people the chance to approach their potential is a noble goal.

            Last, I’m in Ontario Canada. We have four primary school systems that kids are obliged to have access to – French public, French Catholic, English public and English Catholic. There are also French immersion schools, private schools and schools that Carter to particular religious groups. As you might guess this is not a particularly efficient operation, particularly when you begin to examine logistics.

            I also think school choice can’t help but exacerbate the current deep divisions in the US population.

          • In Canada, there is the basic foundation for divisions ….. having two national language causes problems in every country that has two or more national languages. Charter School does not cause any division other than those cause by difference in education. I am not sure how much you know about our education system …. but many of our innner city schools that the poor attend, do not educate, the only way out is to attend a Catholic school if you can afforded the cost, or win the lottery and attend a Charter School. Moreover, none of our public schools can teach real values … they tend to teach that you are in school to advance your own petty wel-being …. I am not a catholic, but I sent my son to a Jesuit High School to get a total education (their goal was “Men for Others” … my son is gifted and I wanted him to use his gifts to advance himself as well as other (the WISE know you cannot do one without the other if you want the GOOD LIFE). Education with good values benifits the whole community! ….

          • Why should the very rich be a little poorer, I think the issue is not to make the RICH poorer, but to make the POOR richer. That way everyone id better off. I am not interested in an area of greater equality in terms of bank accounts … but we should offer greater equality in terms of education, and it terms of being able to go into business of themselves.

          • aranby willikers

            Common ground! That’s the equality I mean, more equality in terms of people’s ability to understand and achieve their potential, whatever that might be.

            As you can probably tell I spend lots of time on the guardian, cbc, etc. I also frequently check out Breitbart and I’m seldom impressed with the reporting or the dialogue. You are certainly more knowledgeable, thoughtful and subtle than many of your comrades on the right and i appreciate that.

          • First let’s get Breitbart out of the picture, there is no such thing as the “alt-right” ….in terms of the “Left – Right” political/economic line …. to the Far Left we have absolute state (a king/dictator) with absolute control of the political/economic system, on the Far Right have a society/community where no one has any more political/economic control than any other person. The ALT RIGHT, is a contradiction in terms …. if ALT RIGHT is defined as the “alternative right, a loose group of people whith far-right ideologies” ….What I have heard of them, the term should be ALT LEFT, since they seem to be simular to Hitler and his national socialist party (Hitler was on the far Left), where they wanted to have a nation/state where the DNA is very limited.

            They also have a very limit understanding of US History. In the War for Independence, we had DNA representing tribes from Europe, Africa, and Asia. The people from these various tribes fought on both side of the great civil war …. and when looking at the 13 colonies it should be noted that the Germans were Germans, the English were English, the French were French, and once could add the Dutch, and the various Indians Tribes (Asians)… the different tribes spoke differant languages, belonged to different churches, we were not the WHITE NATION. After the war, what we had in common was the willingness to live with the others (most of the time) and live under common Laws. We had the Electoral College to protect the smaller tribes (RI) from the bigger tribes (NY) ….

            Check out the ALT-RIGHT (really ALT-LEFT) if you want …. but if you want to check out the real RIGHT (more RIGHT than the Conservatives) read Adam Smith (1776), Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, or Fredrick Hayek of the Austrian School of economis / Moses Institute. …. These are intellects of the Right, not the very FAR RIGHT, since most intellects reject the concept of a stateless society .

          • Swampcat

            I have never understood the phrase that “the rich get rich by stealing from the poor.” If you are poor, you have nothing that can be stolen. Well, I realize in this country the poor have cell phones, big screen tv’s, and internet, but you get my point. This makes no sense to me…..the rich get rich by stealing from the poor……no sense.

          • I found the RICH get richer by making the poor better off, so that they can buy those iPhones, and big screen tv’s …. In economics, most of the time you can get ahead if you can offer the people a better product with more quality at a lower cost ….FORD drove my Grandfather out of the AUTO business becasue he offered the people a car that the people could afford, my Grandfather was offering a wonderful had made car (the Davis) that only the wealthy could afford.

        • URstandingwhere

          Those same people got to liquidate their holding free of federal taxes, to help fill the swamp.

        • Jim Croft

          Well I think u should reevaluate that remark. It seems to me that politicians in general and democrats in particular use a political life to become rich at the expense of the rest of us. Did u know that between the two of them the Clintons collect 1,000,000 per year in government pensions. Yet they use the Clinton Foundation to finance their life style. Obama is sure convincing as a wanna be billionaire on vacation.
          The speaker of the house objected to Trumps lobbying regulations by saying members of congress were intitled to rip of the taxpayers as lobbyists. (Not his exact words)
          The susessful know how the system works. So they have an idea how to fix it. Unlike professors or hacks who are clueless. Tom Perez for instance would be right at home in Cuba or Venezuela and maybe Canada.

          • aranby willikers

            If Trump knows how the system works why can’t he get anything done, even within his own party. Why can’t the great deal maker make a deal? Why does he show such a poor understanding of so many issues? What would he know about the needs of poor folks? The government is not a business and should not be run as one.

        • BlueBoomPony

          He hires successful people who get sh!t done.

          You know, unlike you.

          • aranby willikers

            Success is relative. I help a lot of people out in my work every day. I have a great family, two houses, three cars. I collect motorbikes and guns. Best part? I earned my money honestly. I never did anything shady and I never ripped anyone off. Not like your hero.

        • John Jaeger

          Trump SHOULD HAVE appointed a bunch of homeless people, losers who know nothing and have achieved nothing. Then he would have been more like Barack Obama. That would make you happy. But Trump promised to make America great again. “Elections have consequences. We won. You lost. Deal with it.” You Leftists can’t do that. Ever.

        • Yoda0060

          All I can say is, thank you President Trump for putting in place, people who have repeatedly demonstrated a propensity for getting thing done in a successful manner. May all Americans become enriched by such selflessness.

          • aranby willikers

            Well since they all have conflicts of interest, especially trump, I’m not sure it’s so selfless. The guy gave peanuts to charity over the years. You really have drunk the trump branded cool aid out you think this is anything more than an ego stroking, brand growing power and money grab.
            And you can call multiple bankruptcies and scams successful? You right wingers really do have a different playbook! It’s all about money and a glittering, superficial success/excess.

      • zgli

        He hussein also brought filth gangster rappers to the White House many times. And shake down huckster Al Sharpton many times to foment rascist riots.

        • Ric S

          And HIllary did the same, while trashing Trump for his “gruff” language. Obama and Hillary both slickster and trickster artists………..

        • Michele

          yes – we could fill pages with dangerous words and actions the devil in disguise did that devastated our country…

    • Clark Kent

      When Obama assured the Russian minister that he’d have more freedom after the election, the question was freedom to do what? Conspiracy Alert!!! I believe giving Putin the ability to corrupt anything he wanted in America was one of many efforts Obama had to destroy yes destroy America.

      • kcmark

        The telling part is that the MSM never even asked the question.

        • JimBob777

          Because they weren’t in the slightest bit interested in knowing the answer.

    • aranby willikers

      He loves money with his heart and soul. He doesn’t care about America or Americans.

      • taek kenn

        Unfortunately for you Trump is President. In life it’s all about winning and not whining. But if whining online brings your life some happiness, then carry on whining. Everybody deserves some happiness in their life.

      • You are speaking from a Clinton and Obama view point.

    • pfbonney

      And don’t forget the F&W Service, (who raided Gibson Guitar for donating money to Republicans)….

  • cbretana

    Great summary. I confess to being surprised that the tide seems to be turning here. I guess the old adage that “if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” actually does have some limits to it.
    It will be, (is), entertaining to watch the Dems, and the MSM, twist in the wind as they slowly turn the HMS Russian Collusion/Obstruction around by 180 degrees.

    • sandslug

      A worm in dirt will turn.

      • cbretana

        … and you can lead a horse to water, but it’s a different color under the bridge.

        • irish19

          Good point.

    • Clark Kent

      In our dreams the investigation will now be about the Obama administration.

    • champ

      Here’s hoping that the Trump-Russia hysteria turns around and bites the Democrats in the arse…

  • E. T. Bass

    Given the fact that the target audience for this preposterous “Russian collusion” myth are the very same folks who thought 0bama was going to give them free healthcare, that their economic woes were attributable to rich people having too much money, that retreating from the battlefield in Iraq would bring peace and that higher taxation is the remedy for a nonexistent climate crisis, can you really blame the democrats for peddling this horse hockey to their low information base voters?

    • aranby willikers

      Have you checked out a Trump rally? Low information? You are aware of the racist, hillbilly, drug addict right-wing base? Maybe you’re just too close to have any perspective.

      • E. T. Bass

        Trump supporters aren’t any of those things.
        You are regurgitating idiotic leftist talking points.
        Thanks for illustrating my point there, Einstein.

        • aranby willikers

          How can you deny what is patently obvious? Not all, but a large segment of the Republican base (certainly in excess of 60%) are WWF watching, racist, incestuous, Oxy and speed shooting low-lifes. I can send you the link.

          • BillClintonsShorts17

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH….gasp..choke…..BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

            Aranby dork, GFAC.

          • taek kenn

            ////
            Unfortunately for you Trump is President. In life it’s all about winning and not whining. But if whining online brings your life some happiness, then carry on whining. Everybody deserves some happiness in their life.

          • mikeconstitution

            Your ignorance and bigotry are amusing.

            Republicans are the people raising families, going to work, buiding business, creating wealth, and generally making things work.

            Democrats are the people taking stuff that is not theirs and then smearing the people they are stealing from for not “giving” enough.

            Because fairness.

            You leftists own racism and violence, especially the political kind.

            One hundred years of communism resulted in more than one hundred million deaths at their hands.

            Your ilk are just part of that same continuum of savagery.

          • johnnydavis1

            When you can’t argue the merits of your political positions based on logic or reason, use personal insults to denigrate the entire opposition. Liberals use these empty personal attacks because they know that their politics are harmful. I’ve found that the type of people who make these kinds of comments are usually projecting their own internal feelings upon those who opinions they don’t agree with (because they lack the intelligence to understand them).

          • Control Freak

            I think the data showed that about 53% of white women voted for Trump (painful for you I know, but there we are), so according to you, something like 35% of white women in the US tick all those “deplorable” boxes. I think not.

      • champ

        Get over it loser, your despicable old hag of a candidate lost, go cry somewhere else…

      • Thomas Paine

        Your comments are very persuasive and a great reminder of why we deplorables dislike the haughty smug elite folk that continue to demean and discredit our character day after day. I am not sure that it is the kind of message that is going to garner alot of support for you and the policies that you support? Keep it up, makes me want to go and pull the lever for Trump in 2020.

        • aranby willikers

          I’ve given up on garnering support. If I can help even one Turnip fan realize what a crappy person they are and feel a bit worse about themselves that is enough for me. Thank you for acknowledging my elite status – among democrats I am considered normal.

          • Thomas Paine

            My point is that your sentiments are the same as the media and the political opponents of Donald Trump. They are made on a daily basis and only serve to improve the electoral prospects of Republicans in Congress and ultimately Trump when the time come and I just wanted to encourage you to keep up the good work!!

          • JimBob777

            Dolt, you are far, far too stupid to accomplish those things, but hey- keep spewing lies, there are so amusing from a sub moron.

          • aranby willikers

            Glad to amuse a fellow sub moron.

          • johnnydavis1

            Being considered a “normal” Democrat isn’t something to be proud of.

      • Liberal_2017

        Says the welfare queen from her single wide in the trailer park behind Wall-Mart.

        • aranby willikers

          Nice supposition. You even managed to incorporate a bit of old-timey Republican racism in there. Nicely done! You are an American hero. Too bad you’re turning your country into a joke.

      • J Penuel

        Sorry, Troll. I attended a Trump rally. The racists, hillbilly, drug addicts were the left-winged, middle-finger flipping, profane, tattooed creeps that trolled the lines.

      • taek kenn

        Unfortunately for you Trump is President. In life it’s all about winning and not whining. But if whining online brings your life some happiness, then carry on whining. Everybody deserves some happiness in their life. ////

      • JimBob777

        Liar- pull your head outta yer ass, dhimmiKKKrat.

      • The only racist I see every day are the racist Liberals that have such a low opinion of Black and Hispanic that they think the “underclass” (their view of others) need their guidence …. and need to be told what to do, and how to do it!

        • aranby willikers

          No, I just think blacks and Hispanics (like everyone else) need decent food, education, safety, adequate medical care and a fair chance in life. Think Turnip can come through for them? LOL…

          • Freddie Freeloader

            Oblammers didn’t set the bar very high, I think President Trump tripped on it walking into the Whitehouse so he’s pretty much set to blow everything oblammers did clean away…

          • As a racist you think the Blacks and Hispanics need extra help, that they cannot provide for themselves …. you think it is OK for the teachers’ Union to keep the poor in failing schools ….. Trump is offering the POOR better schools if he can get it pass the Democrats …. better educated leads to better jobs …. will it be done overnight … no …. but the Dems have been hurting the POOR since the 1900s. …. FDR and Johnson really hurt the POOR and the BLACKS …. Trump will try to get the economy going again … I was hoping Obama was going to promote family values (Husbands with Wives, protecting their children and teaching them values) …. at the end of the 1950s, the Black Family was more united (less divorces) and had a lower unemployment rate, and the family income was increaseing faster than white families …. Johnson put an end to that. And by the time Obama came to office he was able to not only slow the increase in earnings, but make it so that the black family lost income.

          • aranby willikers

            Obama’s presidency began with recession, largely courtesy of Trump’s Goldman Sachs buddies (eg steve mnuchin).

            I don’t think being taught that the world it’s flat, global warming is a myth and God created the world in seven days is preparing American kids for life in the 21st century.

          • So did many other Presidents begin with a recession …. If the President is like Coolidge the recession last a short while, and then if you know what you are doing there follows the 20’s which ended with a recession which FDR was able to turn into the GREAT DEPRESSION! Obama did not have a GREAT DEPRESSION because of term limits. BUT Obama was able to turn the housing recession into the GREAT RECESSION! … However to know this one has to read economic history …. by the way GOLDMAN SACKS was the home of NJ Gov. Corzine who should be in jail …. Goldman Sacks donate 90% to the Democrats, and sometimes as much as 10% to the Republicans …. now Pres. Bush want to address the Housing issue that in due time caused the recession of 2007, but the Dems block him, and the Reps in Congress were fearful of speaking up …. the 2007 recession was due to the loosing up of mortage standarts under the Democrats in the late 1990s. As it turns out Man Made Global Warming is a Man Made Myth …. the science dues not support the panic … and Climate Change (the new term) take place all the time …. and the world is getting Greener and the Climate is getting better for People! As Einstine believed God did make the universe

      • Fredx

        Count me in!

  • jk in durham

    Another failed attempt at diverting us from reality. Everyone (including leftists like me) agrees that the investigation underway is about Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election. It is not an investigation of Russia-Trump collusion (although if that happens to be found, so be it.) The reasons that people are talking about the latter instead of the former are (1) Trump’s infantile attempts to quash the investigation along with his refusal to believe the former happened (despite testimony of the heads of CIA, FBI, NSA, and apparently more than 10 other organizations that say it did happen) makes him look guilty, and (2) rabble rousers like VD are paid to feed virtual (as in non-real) red meat to the 30% of American that are Trump lovers, facts be damned.

    Get over it.

    • Francine Bowman

      Sorry, the egg is still all over your face.

    • Rob Harris

      jk I am not so sure you are correctly reading what is going on. The media and deep state and the Dems in congress are all about getting Trump. Russia did not change a single vote in the election, so the investigation of Russian election influence should be closed by now. But it has been kept open to destroy the new president.
      Tell me – why didn’t Trump get the 6 month honeymoon usually afforded to new administrations?

      • jk in durham

        Neither you nor I know if Russian influence changed votes in the election — but that’s not why there is an ongoing investigation (which, btw, were all instigated by conservative, Trump-loving congressional Republicans, not Democrats). There is an investigation of Russian election influence because Russian fingerprints are there (at least according to Pompeo, Coats, and Comey).

        It’s pretty easy to understand why Trump got no honeymoon. Politifact, Fact-checker, et al.: 75% of what comes out of Trump’s mouth are documentable lies. If he would stop lying, the bad press, the bad ratings would (probably) vanish. It’s pretty simple.

        • kcmark

          Politics 101 – it’s never lying unless you say it under oath.

    • Indiana Mike

      Yeah, “Climate Change” is not about Global Warming either, huh? What you write is, quoting John Bonilield “mostly BS”.

    • Brother John the Deplorable

      First of all, Dr Hanson is a great deal smarter than you. You need to sharpen your reading comprehension skills, and learn when you are in the presence of greatness. Second, not only is there no evidence that there was any “collusion,” but no serious person has put forth an explanation how it was supposed to work and rob Hillary of the election, but there isn’t any evidence that Trump attempted to quash an investigation into this “collusion” that didn’t exist. None! If you have any, it’s time you put your cards on the table.

      But it’s important for you to understand, if Trump believed such an investigation was a waste of the FBI’s time, and was driven by politics (which of course it undoubtedly is), he’s quite within his rights to order the FBI to drop the entire thing.

  • JJS_FLA

    My view is that the “Russian Collusion” meme is so outrageously stupid that it was NOT concocted for DOMESTIC consumption but rather was a hastily arranged preemptive excuse, a sop to mollify all the INTERNATIONAL actors who were promised a Clinton victory. Remember, unsavory third-world dictators and crooks were conned to pay (Clinton Foundation) now for White House play later. Having promised that Hillary had a “lock” on the election owing to Bill’s superior understanding of American politics, only something unexpected like “Russian Collusion” could be proffered as an excuse.

    Bill knows well that these folks are like Tony Soprano on steroids when it’s time to collect a “Refund”. While the Clintons may have Secret Service protection, not everyone in their entourage is so protected.

  • Tanuge

    Seems a little premature to draw conclusions. After all, the investigation into Trump’s Russia collusion has been going on for about 1/20th the amount of time that Bill and Hillary Clinton were investigated. I get it; the right-wing media is desperately trying to inoculate Trump ahead of his National Security Advisor and his Campaign Manager being indicted for colluding with Russia.

    • Brother John the Deplorable

      You have evidence of some “collusion?” Nobody else seems to. Can you indicate how this “collusion” (a word I bet you never used before the election) took place, how it worked, and how it denied Hillary the presidency? Because numerous Democrat senators, among many, many others — including nearly all newspaper hit-pieces have conceded that there is none. Zero. It doesn’t exist, because the entire thing was made up.

      When Bill and Hill are investigated, things turn up. Bodies included. But she lost, so that’s not quite so important right now.

      • wreckinball

        And how its criminal. Colluding, secretly plotting against your political foe is called campaigning for the most part. For example its what Hillary and the media did. Other than Trump actually paying someone to hack the DNC. But that’s a crime whether the accomplices are Russian or not.

        • Brother John the Deplorable

          Trump paid someone? Who? Everybody hacks everything else all the time. But you still aren’t paying attention. Podesta’s email was subject to a phishing attack, and when that material revealed that the fix was in to screw Crazy Bernie in the primary, they kept the FBI away. Funny, for a “victim” of a “crime” to deny the investigators…

          • wreckinball

            I’m just saying that the only crime was the hacking which is akin to robbery. There is no evidence that Trump paid anyone to do this. Actually Assange, who really has no motive to lie, has stated it was an insider. And gee an insider was mysteriously murdered in what the officials are calling a “botched robbery”. Nothing taken shot twice in the back. Yea sure.

          • Dave781

            Assange has EVERY motive to lie.

          • wreckinball

            Give me one. If you are going to debate you actually have to present a case rather than just one line statements. This is not the Atlantic.

          • Yashmak

            He’s not interested in debate. If he were, he’d give some indication that he’s open to new information, rather than simply repeating the same nonsensical stuff over and over.

          • kcmark

            The DNC may have kept the FBI away from those server because the DOJ may have been communicating details of the HRC email investigation to the DNC. IMO

    • freak4life

      So the heads of the Intelligence agencies, no nothing and the media, proven liars and colluders with the “D” party are truth tellers, got it. Does reality ever intrude in your little world?

      • Tanuge

        You mean “reality” like Hillary Clinton was completely exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing? That’s what it looks like here in reality. What’s it look like in the fake-news fairy-tale world where you live?

    • wreckinball

      Russia attempted to influence the election including by hacking attempts. Wow I mean what a newsflash. I mean its not like we don’t do the same or more. Heck we send our president over to campaign against Brexit and Bibi.
      And weirdly the NSA hacking attempts of two state election commissions is now never mentioned?

      • Dave781

        So now you admit that Russians DID hack the DNC server? Try to keep your story straight.

        • wreckinball

          They attempted to hack state election agencies who allowed their severs to be inspected. The DNC did not allow law enforcement to inspect their servers so according to the DNC third party paid report the attacker used tactics and malware that are consistent with those previously used by Russians including the Russian government. But these tactics and malware are also used by other hackers. And once again that’s according to the private third party report not law enforcement.
          Try again. I think 3 strikes and you’re out. I have no use for trolls who either haven’t researched the issue or are just plain dumb.

          • Dave781

            True story – I was on a jury that convicted a burglar of a robbery. The victim’s stolen possessions were found in the defendant’s car. No one had to inspect the victim’s house.

          • wreckinball

            Ok one more time. Then you’ve proven that Assange is guilty. Whoopee, what a sleuth you are. I guess intelligence is not a factor on jury selection.

          • Dave781

            The FBI/CIA/NSA have proof that Russia supplied the information to Assange.

          • wreckinball

            Oh gee Dave, this just too much fun. Where is it? Oh wait its secret? But the Crowdstrike report is not. Hmm, and you just trust these folks right? I mean the same WMD folks and the “the video did it” folks?
            I usually require evidence before conviction. How did you get on that jury again?

          • kcmark

            You proved he was in possession of stolen property. You didn’t prove he actually stole the emails.

          • kcmark

            But the defendant is merely in possession of stolen property (e.g. Julian Assage). In order to win a conviction on theft, you need to put the defendant at the scene. Therefore, you need to inspect the victims house.

            Otherwise, a good attorney could argue the possessions were planted. And if you victim had ever stepped foot in the neighbor’s house (left fingerprints), now you have reasonable doubt.

            Your witness Dave.

        • BayouKiki

          I don’t admit the Russians hacked the DNC server. Podesta fell for a phishing expedition my dead mother would have spotted.

      • Tanuge

        Where have you been? Trump says the Russian hacking never took place.

  • freak4life

    I always look for VDH’s articles, clarity and truth are in his writings, thanks VDH another gem.

  • Indiana Mike

    John McCain hand delivered the false dossier to the FBI, KNOWING it was false.

  • wreckinball

    What is not mentioned is that the FBI never inspected the DNC server. the DNC hired a third party organization to hand the FBI that said the Russians did it. How precious. Try this at home. File a robbery report. Blame it on your neighbor because you have a feud with him. Then don’t let the police inspect the crime scene. Hire a third party to write a report saying your neighbor did it.
    I’m sure they”ll say sure we’ll just accept what the report says. Then bleach bit the evidence so no one can follow up.

    • Dave781

      If the police find your stolen property in your neighbor’s house then they don’t have to inspect your house to know that he was the robber do they? Your argument is a total straw man.

      • wreckinball

        The police found nothing. They accepted the third party report. The DNC server has been bleach bitted. Try again.

        • Dave781

          The “police” (i.e. the intelligence services) found nothing? That is not what they told Congress.

          • wreckinball

            Ok, the FBI accepted the DNC paid report at face value. Ignore. You’re too stupid to argue with.

          • Dave781

            Liar! That is not what I said.

          • wreckinball

            See post below. Congratulations. With that brilliant detective work you have now established that Assange is guilty. I mean you are genius.

          • BayouKiki

            The FBI found nothing on the DNC servers because it was never allowed access. Wreckinball’s analogy is solid

      • Yashmak

        His argument isn’t a straw man, and your reply comes a lot closer to fitting the definition.

        In this case, the “police” (FBI) didn’t find Russian hackers in Clinton’s server(s), not just because it’s a physical impossibility, but because her people never allowed them to inspect them.

  • Groty1

    Romney: Russia is our greatest geopolitical threat.
    Obama to Medvedev (secretly when he didn’t know his mic was on): After the election I will have more flexibility.
    Medvedev to Obama: I will transmit this info to Vladimir
    Putin: Hey, let’s help the guy from Romney’s party win the election.

    • Dave781

      Trump launched a hostile of Romney’s party. Trump was opposed to everything Romney believed in. Romney is a NeverTrumper. Trump is NOT a guy from “Romney’s” party.

      You can’t have it both ways.

      • Groty1

        This ain’t hard: Trump is a registered Republican. Trump ran in the primaries against 16 Republicans. Republican primary voters selected Trump to be their party’s nominee for president. Trump won the presidency as a Republican.

        • Dave781

          He won by running AGAINST 16 Republicans. That doesn’t mean that he agrees with them. Being a registered Republican was just a matter of convenience for Trump.

          • Groty1

            16 Republicans ran against each other. They all disagree on certain aspects. Otherwise, there would be no need for a primary. I was a Cruz supporter in the primaries. He lost to Trump because Republican primary voters liked Trump better. They made him the party’s nominee. If you want to pretend he’s not a “real” Republican, you are free to do so. I’m done.

          • Dave781

            Trump did not agree with GWB, McCain and Romney about Russia. Putin is smart enough to know this. That was my point.

          • kcmark

            Even though registered as a Republican, a case can be made that Trump was an Independent seeking the GOP nomination, just as Bernie Sanders was an Independent seeking the Democratic nomination.

  • Glenn Beaton

    This is the best short digest of the subject around.

    • BayouKiki

      I just found this site a couple of weeks ago and have been very impressed with what they put up. They’re longer reads requiring more attention than most of what gets posted these days but, for me, have been very helpful in contextualizing so much, particularly with respect to this Russian non-issue. It’s now a daily stop for me

  • DisgustedwithElitism

    Fake journalists, fake news, fake polls, fake federal investigations, fake Congressional investigations, fake evidence, fake minorities (Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal), paid fake demonstrators,fake, fake, fake…

    A lynch mob pretending to be journalists and “the loyal opposition” in the Democratic Party is still a lynch mob.

  • Wayne Lanham

    “How the media was able in a matter of hours after the election to rebrand Democrats as anti-Russian hawks and Republicans as colluders with Putin is one of the strangest and yet most successful political fabrications in recent history.” If by “recent” you mean since the Civil War, then I agree.

  • lostinthevalley

    One of the dumbest members of the house, Rep Brad Sherman (D-CA) is from the professor’s home state. He is still talking Trump impeachment due to Russia and was recently chided by Party veterans like Pelosi to cool it for now. It seems to be a way to get national attention, witness the equally clueless Adam Schiff (D-CA). Of course Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA), another brain trust, is leading the Russia charge. See a pattern here?

    • wreckinball

      Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA),
      The dumbest, but it is a tough crowd

      • BayouKiki

        Dumbest = Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

        • wreckinball

          Wow, good one. I think its a tough choice. Which one of these two idiots lectured congress wearing a pink cowboy hat? To me that’s the winner.

          • BillClintonsShorts17

            Which CongressCritter was it who thought the island of Guam was going to capsize?

      • Yashmak

        But only because Barbara Boxer isn’t around anymore as the standout, no-contest winner of that contest.

    • johnnydavis1

      We have a lot of stupid Democrats in Congress from here in California. Put them all together in a room with a closed door and an exit sign, and they might find a way to get out (maybe).

  • Jack Spratt

    VDH’s essays are essentially the offical record of rational fact-based honest deconstruction of the leftist project in the USA.

  • Leftthecoast4Texas

    ” the collusion mythology fit a preconceived need. Had it not existed, some equally groundless hit-piece would have had to be invented.” What SANE person could ever imagine that the collusion of a national political party, supported by their union member deep state and the national media , would/could bring our nation to such a state of near destruction? Thank you, VDH for your surgical clarity and precision bringing this cancer to light. Let’s hope it’s not too late the save the patient.

  • TakuanSoho

    The rebranding was not strange at all. You had the media all in, you had the IC all in, you had the entire progressive movement that viewed government, tax-free foundations, think tanks, and universities as their exclusive domain.
    Add to this a sizable minority of the Republican party who wanted the Status Quo to remain as it was. And it is clear that the successful was not strange at all.
    What IS strange is that one, orange tinged, man seems about to defeat the entire movement on his own. That is strange, and a beautiful thing to see. CNN is about to implode, the NY Times is next. Criminal prosecutions against much of the corrupt IC are about to be released, watch – those leaking with crimes and those who created the environment with conspiracy.

    The other strange thing is, though perhaps not so strange, is how inept the establishment is proving to be.

    • TexasStomp

      “The other strange thing is, though perhaps not so strange, is how inept the establishment is proving to be.”

      Perhaps that’s because they are not inept. Perhaps they are willfully ignoring inconvenient facts and lying about others. Occam says, in most cases the simplest explanation of ALL the facts is usually the correct one. Take a closer look at this hot mess and I think you’ll find Occam was a very insightful man.

  • Burst On Target

    Bravo, Professor! The story of how this fabrication came to dominate the post-election American news beat needs to be trumpeted far and wide. Next up – how the nation deals with the cons, frauds, and nitwits who foisted this fairy tale upon us. Go for the jugular!

    • Danny Alt

      “Next up – how the nation deals with the cons, frauds, and nitwits who foisted this fairy tale upon us”.

      Indeed, he should start with the fraudulent nitwit con artist who significantly helped foist “this fairy tale upon us”, specifically.., by publicly uttering incriminating statements such as:

      “WikiLeaks! I love WikiLeaks!”

      and

      “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing”.

      • Burst On Target

        Incriminating statements? Incriminating of what? I’ll tell you what – absolutely nothing. Did you not read Dr. Hanson’s piece?

        You are a perfect example of the Left-wing lynch mob that howls for hanging someone shown NOT TO HAVE COMMITTED WRONGDOING – while ignoring facts and excusing partisan Democrats who have clearly broken the laws. Take your WikiLeaks and put ’em where the sun don’t shine.

        • Danny Alt

          You asked three (3) questions, you made an ignorant assessment of my political affiliation and you prematurely inferred a conclusion to a [still] ongoing investigation.
          So, I will attempt to respond to each.

          As to your question: “Incriminating statements?”

          When during the course of an ongoing and publicly known crime, to wit the 2016 burglary of The DNC Communications System, specifically, the hacking into another’s computer resulting in the theft of of another’s property, an individual, clearly benefiting from that theft, announces (for all to hear) that he is in favor of what the perpetrators are contemporaneously and criminally doing, publicly encouraging them to continue their criminal activity, most objective legal experts will consider such statements to be possibly incriminating statements when presented in a related court proceeding. Despite your legal expertise, I guarantee you, Robert Mueller and all those attorneys sees it that way as well.

          Now, to your question asking “incriminating of what?”.

          Donald Trump’s statements, two of which are posted below, are indications that Donald Trump encouraged criminal activity, that exclusively benefited him, to continue.
          While also expressing “love” for a criminal enterprise, run by a rapist in hiding, wanted by The U.S. Government – to wit “Wikileaks” .

          “WikiLeaks! I love WikiLeaks!”

          and

          “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing”.

          As to whether or not I read Hanson’s “opinion” piece, I did read his “opinion” piece. I deliberatively considered it as I would all “opinions”, fully understanding the difference between stated “fact” and merely one’s “opinion”.

          To your presumptuous ignorant speculation as to my political affiliation. I am a Registered Republican, since 1972, I voted Republican in every presidential election, except for two. In 1976, immediately after the crimes of “Watergate” were revealed, I voted for Jimmy Carter (that one time) and in 2016 I left the Presidential Column Blank.

          I have continuously maintained that Hillary is a “Career Un-Indicted Criminal” and should have been accordingly charged. And I felt that Obama violated the Constitution on multiple occasions (see SCOTUS Rulings). But, their particular indiscretions and their respective ability to avoid legal consequence, does not permit Trump to do the same or worse. He campaigned on being better than them.

          Finally, your inference that Donald Trump is “shown NOT TO HAVE COMMITTED WRONGDOING [sic]” is a bit premature. You might be justified in making such a claim after The Special Counsel’s Investigation is complete., or you might not!

          • Burst On Target

            Danny, I wish you no ill will – but we are looking at the situation from diametrically opposed points of view. I’m going to be blunt:

            First, I don’t care what your party affiliation is – you criticized President Donald Trump as if he had behaved like Barack Obama, Slick Willie, or LBJ. That’s BS! Trump is no saint – I think that is why he got the nomination in the first place. But, he is no worse than any of the pious, sanctimonious phonies that ran against him. To me – you are just repeating the Leftist talking points. So, if the shoe fits – wear it. Strike one!

            Next, IMO your personal bias blinds you to how dirty and unfair the opposition has played against Trump. It appears that you buy portions of the liberal-left critique against Trump – with no acknowledgment of the blatant fabrications, lies, and slanted coverage aimed at the guy. To me this thing is all about power – not about personality. But you’re reacting as if a certain personal distaste for Trump is definitive. In my book that makes you a ‘Never-Trumper’ – which does not impress me. Strike two!

            Third, your reply to me did not contain anything solid to back up your pov. Instead you went into passive-aggressive mode and struck back at me – at a personal level. I simply questioned where was the so-called ‘incriminating’ material on Trump – and you gave me fairy dust. Where’s the Beef? Strike three!

            If you think you have something legit that backs up your argument – by all means, bring it on.

  • Yashmak

    Those who think recognized the collusion narrative early on as a win-win for the DNC. If they managed to weaken or destroy the Trump administration, they won. If not, but they managed to damage relations with Russia, they could then pin that on Trump, and win. Only if (and as it turns out, when) it started to boomerang on them, would it be dropped.

    For proof of this, one need look no further than the missile strikes on Syria. This attack on an ally of Russia made it plain that Trump was in no way cozy with Putin or the leadership of Russia. Readers will recall that the left (and the press, as well), made very few mentions of the interference investigation for several days after that, recognizing that they would have a very difficult time trying to peddle the narrative at that point. It was only after the Tomahawk strikes faded from the news cycle that they slowly eased back into the narrative of collusion. Then, when this was pointed out, they tried to re-frame the whole strike as a “wag the dog” incident”.

    • wreckinball

      Exactly. It does not have to be true and most folks will just accept the MSM headlines without diving in further.
      See troll Dave 781 below.

  • Gergeleh Ganev

    Personally, the first time I saw the Russia card being played in earnest was when the Podesta and DNC wikileaks email dumps went mainstream news. Appearances by Adam Schiff and Donna Brazille stuck out. Any question about the *content* of the emails was answered with “Russia did it.” Russia Russia Russia. This was well before the election, when Hillary was still a shoo-in. As a messaging strategy it made sense. The emails were extremely embarassing, but they had to say *something* (anything) in response to questions about them. It only worked because MSM is largely complicit. From there it appeared to morph into what we see today. A massive bs nothing-burger.

    • gda

      Russia uncovered the TRUTH about the Dems for all to see. To me, that’s a GOOD thing, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise to try to suggest that the leaked emails were a bad thing.

      Russia messes with our elections after we mess with theirs. And so on back through the ages. Only difference now is that its on a cyber basis. Ho hum.

      • Gergeleh Ganev

        I agree it was a good thing for Democrat party corruption to be exposed, regardless of who did it. The evidence I’ve seen indicates Podesta fell for a stupid phishing scam, and an insider leaked the DNC stuff. I suppose Russia could have played some role in those, but I haven’t seen any reason to think that.

  • Grant Burton

    My recollection is that it all started with Donna Brazile. The day after the leak story broke, including her feeding debate questions to the Clinton champaign, she was in the air ranting about Russian hacking in answer to every question about her misdeeds.

  • wreckinball

    And this should boomerang since we now have unmasking issues, leaks all over the place, actual testimony of collusion Comey/Lynch but it seems the special prosecutor is not investigating all crimes. Only ones that Trump or his associates may have committed. And we will search until we find something anything. Find their scooter or Martha Stewart.
    Witch hunt.

  • Joel Mathis

    I don’t know if there is collusion as such. What I know is this:

    In the face of evidence that Hillary Clinton had had her files hacked by the Russians, then-candidate Donald Trump did not defend his fellow citizen against a cyber attack from a US rival.

    Instead, he gleefully exulted in it. Publicly asked the Russians to release information. He took advantage of a destabilizing act so that he might become president.

    Collusion? Depends on your definition. Honorable? Not even close. “Greatness?” Laughable.

    • Ray Runge

      What article did you read?

    • Clark Kent

      Dems are still paying people to troll on conservative sites. Mathis may be one.

      • Joel Mathis

        First off: Expressing a different opinion is not “trolling.”

        Second: I’m all volunteer.

    • gda

      Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but that dog don’t hunt. Better you put the blame on your bud O’Bum, who was told that the Russians were hacking, but said nothing because he thought the Clinton was going to win.

      You lost, and no amount of whining or retrospective pointing of fingers (at the wrong person) can change that.

      • Joel Mathis

        “Hindsight is a wonderful thing”

        It seemed pretty crappy at the time. Donald may have “won” — except for the popular vote — but that doesn’t make his actions honorable or worthy of a president.

        • gda

          Poor losers always question the rules in retrospect. And make no mistake, you and your ilk are HUUUUGE losers. You mad, bro?

        • gda

          “Donald may have “won” — except for the popular vote…..”

          Being awarded most popular girl in school is fine, but the Presidency has different rules, and is not JUST a popularity contest. Too bad for Hillary.

          Didn’t they explain that when she entered the contest? Sorry about that, I though she knew.

          Gosh, its only fair that we have a do-over, right? How about November 2020? Timing work for you?

    • kcmark

      Then if Hillary Clinton had her files hacked. The files she kept on an unsecured private server. The same server that contained classified State Department documents….. then Hillary Clinton needs to be prosecuted for mishandling classified material; even if it was not “intentional”.

    • Yashmak

      “. . .then-candidate Donald Trump did not defend his fellow citizen against a cyber attack from a US rival.”

      Neither did Obama, who actually KNEW about the hacking. . .I can excuse Trump for not defending a rival from something he didn’t know for certain had happened.

  • wwd88888

    Alternative theory. Clinton was bought and paid for by the Russians, which is documented, through fees paid to Bill Clinton and donations to their foundation. Clinton had a history as Sec. of State of granting favors to Russia. Russia was hacking to ELECT Clinton and protect their investment. Obama did not respond to the interference because it was thought to help Clinton win. The Podesta leaks were more likely from disgruntled Sanders supporters in the DNC than Russians.

  • All that is so but even if we knew none of it we have known for months where the Russia myth originates. The book “Shattered” (don’t buy it, it’s by a couple Hillaroids) told us that Clinton and Podesta concocted the Russia lie to divert blame from The Old Girl herself on election night. No one has ever denied this revelation. So everyone has always known it was a lie and where it came from. At CNN they knew. At NYT they knew. At WaPo they knew. Everyone has always known.

  • Clark Kent

    How the media was able in a matter of hours after the election to rebrand Democrats as anti-Russian hawks and Republicans as colluders with Putin is one of the strangest and yet most successful political fabrications in recent history.

    • DisgustedwithElitism

      Successful insofar as the liars who put it forward and their faithful followers repeated it and believed it. As to convincing any in the opposition, it was a huge failure.

      Just as we saw with BHO, the Left’s persuasive power is limited only to the already convinced.

  • Colt

    The Left is just using the Saul Alinsky playbook. Creating fake news and lies is all part of the deal. I am sure they will come up some more hogwash.

    They are terrified that President Trump is going to succeed and make that muslim marxist of their’s look like the fraud he always was and continues to be.

  • pogden297

    Despite the author’s assertion, the claim has never been that Donald Trump personally colluded with Russians on his election victory. It was that campaign associates around him may have done that. Nonetheless, the FBI investigation is about a heck of a lot more collusion. I know Trump supporters would like that but obviously they are investigating financial crimes of Trump associates and Trump himself for obstruction of justice.

    • DisgustedwithElitism

      By definition, POTUS cannot obstruct justice. But, if you would like an example of obstruction of justice, that would be Lynch privately corresponding with members of the DNC regarding the email server investigation and meeting with the principal perpetrator’s husband in a sub rosa tete-a-tete in an out-of-the-way location.

      • odys

        Yes, POTUS CANNOT obstruct justice. It is called prosecutorial discretion, you know what Barry claimed he could do to let the Dreamers stay.

        • DisgustedwithElitism

          BHO is the most overruled by SCOTUS POTUS in modern history.

          • odys

            Yup 27 times he received an unanimous slapdown from SCOTUS for unconstitutional behavior.

    • odys

      Well, ALL the activities pointed at by the fake news peddlers happened BEFORE Trump even declared his candidacy. The FBI started surveillance on Flynn after he came to the support of a top FBI agent who said McCabe sexually discriminated against her and had launched a lawsuit. then quickly Barry’s intel community went after Flynn.

      Comey and McCabe are up to their eyeballs in FBI corruption.

      • kcmark

        Which should be reason enough for Mueller (Swamp Master Emeritus) to recuse himself.

    • willothewisp

      Really? When did they brief you on all of this?

    • Yashmak

      The talk, silly as it is, of impeachment that was making the rounds gives lie to your claim. It would be highly problematic to attempt the impeachment of a President who wasn’t personally involved in the collusion. . .the implication of such impeachment talk being that he must have been directly involved.

      Either that, or it was just another wild allegation from the left (which is, of course, what this whole thing is looking like it’s going to turn out to be).

    • kcmark

      After 9 months, no evidence of collusion by Trump or anyone associated with his campaign. In order to have obstruction of justice, there must be an underlying crime.

      So, what is that underlying crime? No accusations please, just the crime.

  • aranby willikers

    Just because you pile the BS high doesn’t change the nature of the substance. Instead of declaring Trump and his campaign innocent, why don’t we wait until after the investigation. Might save you some embarrassment.

    The problem is that the Republicans have chosen a greasy and immoral conman to be president. They will forgive anything to forward their agenda. This means the entire party is complicit in this outrageous joke of a presidency. Say what you will, America’s international standing had been irreparably damaged. The world laughs.

    • gda

      The trolls have arrived.

      • aranby willikers

        Cue Flight of the Valkeries…

    • kcmark

      Perhaps because it takes a greasy immoral conman to beat the slimy evil bloodsucking Clintons. The GOP tried the good guy approach (Romney) and it didn’t work.

      America loves anti-heroes, and the GOP found themselves a good one.

      • aranby willikers

        Victory at any price.

  • Doug Liser

    This is a feel-good story for Trump supporters. It addresses only the weakest legal arguments. Kushner and Flynn will be indicted on multiple felony counts. What did the president know? If he knew what they were doing, that alone is impeachable. Now we have Trump and his family in debt to Deutche Bank – the bank that got caught with $10B in illegal Russian transfers. The list of people close to Donald Trump with Russian connections unbelievable. The defense that the Democrats are just trying to protect Clinton who is not even a player in this case, won’t get too far except for the base.

    • gda

      Wow! How knowledgable you are. You must have a direct line into the FBI. Tell us more. That Trump seems like a bad guy for sure thanks to you. Have you told CNN about this?

      Gosh.

    • charliehorse

      Get yourself an agent….you have a good foundation for a best selling novel…….fictional novel for sure but if you weave some Chinese in there…….

  • I really have a problem with VDH’s analytical abilities.

    Here he slightly backs away from his previous claim that the dossier was a GOPe product and writes:
    “At about the same time, Never Trump and later Clinton campaign opposition research against Trump (the 35-page “Steele dossier”), most of it easily refuted, came into the hands of James Comey’s FBI.”

    This is unfounded nonsense in respect to the dossier being a “NeverTrump” creation. Fusion GPS is a Dem oppo firm. What GOP source hires Dems???

    The most likely source was an administration connected Dem in order to enable Rice’s operation.

    VDH needs to get his head straight or cite his source.

    • OldSaltUSNR

      “I really have a problem with VDH’s analytical abilities.” – Paul Deigan

      Paul, let me assure you, the “intellect” problem is entirely yours.

      The “unfounded nonsense” was based on published reports of a GOP-e operative who supposedly wrote the check for the Fusion GPS report. Google is your friend. Try it and you can be VDH’s analytical equal. Whether the report is factual or not does not implicate VDH in its reference.

      Disclosure: I was #NeverTrump prior to the election, so I have no dog in this hunt. However, unless you support the progressive cause, you ought to aim your weapons away from friendlies, which VDH happens to be, as well as a brilliant and morally honest man.

      • Then show the proof.

        Even the Senate intelligence committee admit that this is unknown.

        But apparently, VDH’s source is speculation and false information planted in Wikipedia by Dem operatives.

        Oh, and I doubt the problem here is mine. I was the first to call out Fusion GPS as a Dem oppo source. You see, analysis is what I do.

        Narratives and political hackery is what VDH does.

        Did you forget that? If you are so right, it would be easy to prove me wrong. But you can’t. Because you have been suckered. Just like VDH.

        Cite your sources or stop spinning tales.

        • OldSaltUSNR

          I thought about citing sources when I wrote my last note, but noticed that you offered none when trashing the host writer, so deferred. You said “VDH apparently thought the Fusion GPS was a GOP source.”, but that’s nowhere stated in this piece. Half truths are fact.

          http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/28/americans-need-know-fusion-gps-stat/

          “Media reports indicate a Republican opposed to Donald Trump hired Fusion
          GPS to do opposition research in early 2016. After Trump won the
          nomination, according to the reports, Democrat donors hired Fusion to
          finish the Trump research and produce the now-discredited dossier.”

          VDH’s statement is not unfounded. However, both you and I know that “media reports” are not always factual. Please publish your basis for proving this VDH’s statement is false, that it was “unfounded nonsense”:

          VDH: “but he was peddling a hit piece to Never Trump Republicans”. All VDH is saying is that Steele tried to sell his tale to any takers, and that some unspecified GOP “NeverTrump” operative bit a little bit at the bait. How does that mark VDH as something other than a “real scholar”, showing weakness in “VDH’s analytical abilities”?

          You might just want to check your narcissism at the door. You’ve proven nothing, cited no sources of your own, but you shout really LOUD when you speak and insult, just like some progressive snowflakes I know.

          • I’m not sure that reading is something you are good at.

            First, I stated that VDH made the Fusion GPS is a GOP source in a previous article that he wrote. Not this one. I pointed out that he was backtracking.

            Second, it is VDHs reponsipility to cite the source that is authoritative for his accusation that some GOP source funded Fusion GPS. He has never cited a source and as far as I can see he used Wikipedia.

            Now, this matters because it is very likely that the Obama administration sourced the report that they later tried to have Comey put into official reporting (and apparently succeeded by some other route) so that it could be used by Rice for domestic spying.

            If VDH either knows so little about US intelligence operations that his ignorance is simply the work of political hackers or he does in which case this article is a lie.

            Go cite an authoritative source that justifies VDHs claim or shut up.

          • OldSaltUSNR

            Yep, everyone except you is a “fool”. We get that.

            We also understand your sense of manifest self-importance, writing 1000 words, slightly modifying the subject, and DEMANDING (!!!!) my sources.

            Well, little man, you don’t get to demand anything from me. You chided VDH – I believe as a liar or something, I’d have to read back over your posts to figure that out and you’re not worth the time, and then asked for a source, which I generously provided, then you went on another rant about previous VDH articles and on and on and on.

            LOL, you’re a nut. Bye.

          • Looks like you are not much for thinking.

            If you cannot maintain an argument and are to immature to concede, you should remain silent.

            Or show yourself the fool. (Which appears to be a blind spot in your ego). Don’t worry. The world is full of people like you. You will never be lonely.

            In fact, there’s that Matthews fellow on TV that you might be buddies with. He’s one for opinions just like yours. And lots of them.

            Funny that.

    • kcmark

      You’re wrong. Never Trump GOP initially hired Fusion GPS. When it became clear they (mainly their boy Jeb) could not beat Trump in the Primary, they turned the Dossier over to the Dems.

      And Wiesel McCain turned the Dossier over to the FBI.

      • This is a fantasy set up by Dem operatives. McCain was suckered into delving into this long after the operation was set.

        Cite proof or admit you don’t have any.

  • cc

    Firstly, Victor, it appears your auto-correct or spell checker converted MI-6 into M-16, an unfortunate occurrence for certain.

    Secondly, you do a masterful job connecting the collusion dots together. I find it hard to fathom that any thinking person cannot see the lunacy and deceit in this.

    • Yashmak

      It’s not that they cannot. . .it’s that they refuse to. It’s reached a point where continuing to embrace the collusion narrative involves a significant degree of willful ignorance. There’s still a chance (although I’m extremely skeptical) some new information will come out that changes the picture. . .but all logic and probability indicates that’s not going to happen.

  • Sarastro92

    Excellent summary as far as it goes… However. the idea that Obama was a big softie is nonsense… In Hanson’s world unless the US is constantly threatening nuclear war and dropping a few nukes on hapless Third World civilian populations to establish “credibility” . What Clinton-Obama engineered was a coup on Russia’s doorstep led by neoCon Royalty, Victoria Nuland. Punishing sanctions were also instituted; unprecedented NATO troops on Russia’s borders; the ABM systems continue apace.

  • jack dobson

    What an exquisite, eloquent explanation and analysis of this hoax, professor. A small quibble regarding the fraud’s “success,.” though. Yes, it deflected attention from the Obama Administration’s near-totalitarian behavior and distracted from the Trump agenda. Yet wide swaths of the federal government along with the propaganda organs that served it have been delegitimized, likely permanently. The goal was to protect these corrupt instituions at all costs, and that was and is Mueller’s primary purpose. Putin himself could not have inflicted as much damage on the United States as this failed coup/cover-up. The media cannot bury what happened now because it invested so heavily in the predicate. The masses who normally pay scant attention are focused on the weird, Third World maneuvering in D.C.

    The primary question is whether the old constitutional order can be re-established, and more concerning, whether it should be. That looks bleak, but if anyone can do it the inexperienced, brash, trash-talking POTUS has shown he at least has the stones to try. A good start toward a return to the Rule of Law would be the investigation and trial of Hillary Clinton for her numerous felonies. If the facts lead there, President Obama should not be exempted from prosecution, either. The IC and FBI need to be the subjects of congressional inquiry, massive reforms and abolition and consolidation. The State Department needs to be purged deeply. It is a daunting task.

  • OldSaltUSNR

    Unfortunately, none of this will matter. 20 years from now, progressives will still be holding up as the absolutely, infallible their holy scripture that the 2016 Presidential election was hacked by the Russians, in collusion and for the benefit of a forever evil man named Trump. They will do this just as they now swear on their progressive media bible that Al Gore’s election in 2000 was stolen by a corrupt Supreme Court, i.e. “he was selected, not elected”, and that Reagan was a dementia addled who ran roughshod over the US Constitution with the “Iran/Contra scandels”.

    In this progressive meme, Democrats are never corrupt, elections they lose are always stolen, and their righteous ideas are never wrong or rejected. Marxism dies with Soviet Russia, Venezuela and countless other countries die with Marxism, but Bernie Sanders and Obama Democrats still maintain that Socialism is the wave of the future. Facts don’t matter to Democrats, because in their minds, there is no absolute truth. Truth is whatever they manufacture, as their needs arise.

    • kcmark

      Are you kidding? 20 years from now there will be movies about this. The IC, HRC and CNN will be the villains. Movie title? Draining the Swamp.

  • blahdeblahblah

    Other than a missing closing parenthesis, right on. I don’t suppose any leftist authoritarians will be convinced to give up their binky, but they should.

  • RAM500

    The traitors and schemers needed to create a diversion. Too many Americans want to be diverted, so it was easy to launch. Trump stood up well under the barrage, whereas many Republicans did not.

  • Scott

    Pretty much sums it up. Bravo!

  • James Hendrixs

    If Trump wants to remove the cloud od collusion from his administration, he should agree to a deposition asme release his tax returns for there last 25 years!! That would quiet them!!! What is he trying to hide???

    • Yashmak

      And if he did that, folks like you would find another straw to grasp at.

    • chuck334

      Why are you looking down your pants? Checking on your balls or brains or both?

      • I’m SO Pretty!

        He’s making sure the yellow stain is in front and the brown stain is in the back…

    • keyster

      He’s trying to hide all the money Putin gave him – like obviously dude!

    • odys

      You do realize you only see the 1040??? That is the 40 year tradition. Ever seen a 1040? What do you expect to see on it???? Do you think there is a line item for: “money received from wusskie oligarch”??????

    • sosumi idk

      There’s no reason for him to cooperate with you crazies. For one thing, it’s quite clear that you’re going to behave like madmen whether he cooperates or not.

      For another, it’s becoming clear that your irrational hysteria is going to hurt your side more than it will end up hurting Trump.

  • keyster

    THIS JUST IN!
    Anonymous sources have revealed that Trump leaves the cap off the toothpaste in the Executive bathroom of the White House. Democrats are calling for a Special Prosecutor. “Impeachment is a distinct and very real possibility” – Chuck Schumer (D-NY). “We have to protect the American people from justice or the injustice and obstruction and collusion of this administration.” – Nancy Pelosi (D- CA). “It seems when this president practices hygiene, he’s not in agreement with the American Dental Association.” – Jim Acosta (D-CNN). “Impeach Trump now, and when we’re finished with that we’ll impeach him again!” – Maxine Waters (D- CA).

  • GBinTN

    Brennan and Clapper should be dismissed not quoted as sources. They are liars.
    Giving them credibility gives credibility to a nest of lies and the orchestrated smear they are participating in.

  • bill

    Thanks for reminding me of that event during the debates where Mr. Trump said he wouldn’t necessarily accept the results of the election, and Hillary responded that what he had said was horrible to contemplate. It was a difficult time for us pro-Trump people and it’s wonderful how the exact opposite has turned out to be the case.

  • OBX47

    The man is mentally unfit for office. He and his grifter family are making a bundle while using the safety screen of the Oval Office. No tax returns, taking money from foreign entities, blatantly advertising his properties by making them “summer and winter White Houses, and so much more. The POTUS does have mental issues that are very apparent if you watch films of him from twenty years ago when he had the vocabulary of a college graduate and was able to string ideas together in a coherent fashion….not so today, which is why he is never out there answering questions. Most like he doesn’t understand or can’t remember facts, either. His father died of Alzheimer’s and he is in the early stages, hence the speech, anger and impulsiveness.

    “STAT reviewed decades of Trump’s on-air interviews and compared them to Q&A sessions since his inauguration. The differences are striking and unmistakable.”

    “Research has shown that changes in speaking style can result from cognitive decline. STAT therefore asked experts in neurolinguistics and cognitive assessment, as well as psychologists and psychiatrists, to compare Trump’s speech from decades ago to that in 2017; they all agreed there had been a deterioration, and some said it could reflect changes in the health of Trump’s brain.”

    “In interviews Trump gave in the 1980s and 1990s (with Tom Brokaw, David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Charlie Rose, and others), he spoke articulately, used sophisticated vocabulary, inserted dependent clauses into his sentences without losing his train of thought, and strung together sentences into a polished paragraph, which — and this is no mean feat — would have scanned just fine in print. This was so even when reporters asked tough questions.”

    • Adorable Deplorable

      Even were all your fears founded — even given my concerns about Trump’s narcisism and potential Dunning-Krugerism — I thank G-d EVERY DARN DAY that Hillary ain’t President.

      Go Gorsuch! Bye Kennedy! Bye RBG!

      • sosumi idk

        Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is “cognitively” more fit to lead the nation than Trump is seriously, seriously partisan.

        I mean, that woman couldn’t even manage a concession speech.

    • odys

      What a little man you are. I am surprised that you are never embarrassed.

    • sosumi idk

      Hilarious to see people not bothering to hide the fact that, to them, elections are only legitimate and binding when their guy wins.

      Cling to that denial. Hold on to the hope that YOUR disapproval is somehow relevant to whether this man can or should lead the USA. Hold on to that through 2018, at least, please – and be sure to campaign on impeachment based on whichever imaginary Disqualifying Offense Or Condition you (or more likely your handlers) have concocted today.

  • URstandingwhere

    Please explain, Session omitted contacts with Russians in federal filings and statements, Mr Flynn same, Kushner the same, Paul Manafort, and others…… Why? Why no interest by the Administration into the attack or future attacks. Trump knows the extent of the intrusion, The worlds greatest conman called the election rigged through the campaign. King Con, as he’s called on the street, would lose his title if he wasn’t party to the Bigly Conjob. Were those the Jobs he bringing back?

    • odys

      Sessions is not required to put down any contacts he has with anyone as part of the nomination for AG. None, whatsoever. NOW Al Franken asked a meandering question with lots of bombast and innuendo about the wusskies and Sessions answered it. Then Franken stated after the hearing ended he meant something completely different and Sessions had withheld info. Try harder.

      • URstandingwhere

        Is Sessions a lawyer? The top lawyer in the land was bamboozled by a comedian? Is that your excuse for felonies of omission by him and the others ?

  • therealzircon

    As usual, VDH does a bang up job of summarizing current politics. Thank you, Prof. Hanson.

  • rwisrael

    The “narrative” was served to the public on silver platter with deluxe garnishes. Unfortunately a case of massive food poisoning subsequently erupted all over the MSM and Democrat party.

  • Finally! Dr. Hanson is finally – as well he should – lumping the Never Trumper conservative movement in with the vile and vicious progressives as they seek to promote a “coup” against the 45th President of the United States. TRUTH needs to ring out from every mountain top: The conservative movement is rife with fraud! Its leaders promise much, but always fail miserably when time comes to deliver. It was the Never Trumper conservatives that, with curled-lip slander and egregious condescension, spit-upon Trump voters. Truth! Never Trump conservatives are merely the other side of the corrupt progressive coin. Shame on them all!

    • sosumi idk

      I notice Dr Hanson did not publish this over at National Review :p

  • Westviking

    totally ignoring the elephant in the room here, vic. the russian interference in the election was in the news starting

    last spring. but a masterly job of making egg salad out of the shells.

  • BlueBoomPony

    The Russian Narrative fades, and they’re back to “Chaos in the White House” for now, but they’ll come up with some new fake news propaganda. The Left will not rest until it has regained power or destroyed our nation. They don’t care. They are sociopaths who now openly talk about killing males and white people for political reasons. And if you’re not either of those groups, don’t feel smug. They’ll sacrifice your tribe in an eyeblink. If you’re not one of the power elite, you’re an insect in their eyes.

    There is no middle ground or appeasement. Only the utter destruction of the Left will save this country from a new dark age.

  • olderwiser

    Whatever its ratings, CNN is done as a credible source for news, apart from the liberal progressive loons who are addicted to the hard leftist diatribes featured continually. Given the many choices available now, with more appearing every week, the reputation now lost by CNN is not recoverable. So how much is a fake news cable TV tabloid network worth these days?

  • anne

    Yet again Dr. Hanson nails it.

  • Allie Youpe

    Hanson’s best piece in quite a while–and I’m a big fan. Well written, exhaustively documented, and irrefutable. The only thing missing is the remedy: Now Sessions needs to get up from his fetal position, stand up the DOJ and investigate and prosecute all the real criminals. Hillary, the IRS, the leakers…all need to be thoroughly investigated, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Trump’s deal-making zeal to make peace with his prior enemies was a mistake. They wanted to annihilate him. They wanted to crush him in the election, imprison him and possibly end his life. This is beyond an MMA match. It’s war and it will not be settled until the true criminals are exposed, prosecuted and faced with the full force of the law.

  • drhill

    Very astute article there Mr. Hanson!

  • Retired man

    CNN virtually destroyed? Let us hope so.

  • PowerDrill

    Democrats own the Russia lie.

  • Travvy

    “Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson seconded that consensus by conceding there was no evidence of any Trump campaign effort to persuade the Russian to alter the elections.”

    Did he happen to also ADMIT that his Homeland Security Agency was CAUGHT HACKING INTO THE VOTING MACHINES in Indiana and Georgia?

    Probably, not.

  • Jon Schneck

    The comparison to Watergate is actually a lot more accurate
    than the democrats want it to be. A sitting president used federal resources to
    spy on the opposing presidential candidate, then leaked the information to the
    hillery campaign. the Russian colluding with the Trump campaign team was a
    fabrication to cover up the obama administration’s criminal activities. The
    fact is there is no evidence of any colluding, and there is plenty of evidence
    that obamas crew spied on Trump and unmasked Americans identity and sent the
    info to hillery’s campaign

    • Exactly as I said in the first post of this thread. /LEJ

  • RonTruth

    Myth? President Obama tried to get Putin to stop the cyber-interference when te FBI and CIA told him about it.
    Hillary Clinton, during one of the presidential debates tried to tell Trump and the audience about the fact that 16 US intelligence agencies all agreed that the Russians were hacking the election.Trump denied it.
    Then, Hillary explained that 16 intel agencies all said exactly the same things about Russia.
    Comey was directed, through Justice Dept. to investigate it. Flynn, Manafort involved, and now Trump also. That seems to be where the whole Russia/Trump Campaign/Trump investigation came from, and apparently leads back to. Collusion can be planned, or it can be a consequence of circumstances, but the net effect is the same. A president should never fire an FBI Director one day, then the next dat tell a representative of the offending party,in this cane, the Russian Ambassador what he has done to his FBI Director and why. That seems to be why Trump is being investigated. Makes it look like Trump and the Russians have made some kind of deal which amounts to a large conflict of interests, and subsequent attempt to cover it up: Obstruction of Justice.

    • The 17 (not 16) Intel agencies claim was a lie. See my essay ‘The Easter Bunny Cover-up’ and references therein, linked in the first post of this thread. /LEJ

  • Xerxes

    Tick Tock Tick Tock
    Hillary will run out the statute of limitations clock
    Misdirection, that’s the name
    Divert attention, that’s the game
    Look, Russians, keep the press looking over there
    While Bill and I give high paid speeches everywhere
    All you mindless little people can do is wail
    But Bill and I will never see the inside of a jail
    You fools can’t put a glove on my ample rump
    Cause Mueller has all your attention on the obstructor Trump
    Bend over, bend way over, and kiss your easily misdirected ass
    Cause folks, this is how demcocracies pass
    The statute of limitations, tick tock tick tock
    With Muellers help, Hillary will run out the clock
    Tick Tock Tick Tock

  • The collusion myth is part of a coup that is ongoing against the President, and the President must stop this coup. Retaining and growing public support is very important in this regard, but ultimately – these are evil people who are attacking the President and must be stopped.

    • Andy

      Noted liberal rag the Wall Street Journal has joined the fray,reporting that a now-deceased GOP operative named Peter W. Smith attempted to gain access to emails thought to be from Hillary Clinton’s private server, that were likely obtained by Russian hackers. Smith also implied in conversations with his associates that he was working with Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn Here is the link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-operative-sought-clinton-emails-from-hackers-implied-a-connection-to-flynn-1498770851

      Dear Leader does not deserve this!

      • CosmotKat

        Attempting to gain access to information hacked by someone else is hardly proof of collusion or a crime. It’s not like he pledged to be more flexible with Putin like Obama did. It’s not like promising the Iranian Mullahs that if he’s elected they should wait to negotiate an agreement with the U.S. cause he would give them what they wanted killing a sitting president’s geopolitical strategy with an enemy state. It’s not even remotely close to the Clinton’s betraying their own country in order to increase their own wealth. Could it be that you, like most progressives, put your ideology over what’s best for our nation and it seems spreading disinformation and hate is part of your action plan.?

  • Loek van Iwaarden

    Not so fast.
    Unfortunately for #GropinDonnie and his KKK-Republicans, their yuuuge Russia problem just won’t go away.

    ‘… If Russia was providing the Trump campaign with information, and Trump
    was using it, that means that the President Of The United States colluded with a hostile foreign power to win a presidential election. It is no wonder why Republicans are working so diligently to cover this scandal up…’
    From:
    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/29/trump-collusion-smoking-gun-reported-russian-hackers-discussed-clinton-emails-flynn.html

    ‘… investigators have examined reports from intelligence agencies that describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain emails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the intelligence….’
    From: WSJ

    With his political unreliability and unworthy behaviour, this so-called President #GropinDonnie and his KKK-Republicans have done immense damage to Republican, and US’, standing in the world.
    This incompetent and shameless KKK-Republican administration is a laughingstock!

    The world is watching.
    They can’t fool all the people all the time.

  • You missed that President Obama begged Russia to invade Crimea. He made a bluff so absurd, it was basically impossible for the Russians to not “call it”.

    Rumor is that, among other things, we were punishing and setting an example of Ukraine for dragging its feet on getting with NATO and signing on to Missile Defense.

    • Like a classic protection racket. “That’s a beautiful port you have there, it’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

  • Apollo

    “British MI-6” not M-16. 🙂