By now, it’s impossible to believe there was no collusion involving foreign powers in the 2016 presidential election. It’s just that the campaign in question isn’t Trump’s. If you’ve missed the evidence pointing to Clinton collusion, you’ve not been following the events precipitating—and now engulfing—the Mueller investigation very carefully.
With the initial set of indictments handed down recently in that sprawling, curiously one-sided investigation, it has become clear that the investigation has run far afield of its original charter. The real and entirely political purpose of this unconstitutional farce is becoming clear.
Mueller’s partisan legal team composed largely of Democratic donors was never assembled to uncover the real collusion, but instead to bury it. Its real purpose was to project the illusion that the campaign cheerfully engaged in various kinds of collusion—Hillary Clinton’s—was, in fact, the helpless victim of collusion.
What Really Happened?
The hard, if elusive, evidence of her scheming is beginning to emerge despite the mainstream media blockade and the complete indifference of Team Mueller. It is time now to consider seriously that the opposite of the conventional narrative is true.
Yes, it is time to confront the shocking possibility that our own government colluded with its preferred presidential campaign, a campaign that concocted a bogus “dossier” with the help of useful idiots and willing foreign powers (including, but not limited to, Russia), and then used politically weaponized federal agencies to spy on and attempt to destroy the Republican candidate for President in 2016.
Worse, when that effort failed, the outgoing administration and its holdovers then embarked on an aggressive, multi-layered criminal conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral victor, even if that meant destabilizing our entire political system.
This, despite Hillary’s incessant lecturing and the media’s plodding insistence after the debates, that the eventual winner acknowledge the importance of losing gracefully. This, apparently, is a lesson only Republicans are supposed to learn.
A Tale of Two Treasons
If all of this sounds unbelieveable, consider: Is it any less unbelievable than the media-hyped narrative we’re asked to swallow concerning Trump’s supposed collusion? Either way, we are asked to believe a story that reads like a John Le Carré spy novel or a Robert Ludlum conspiracy tale. And whichever narrative is true, it makes the crimes of the Watergate scandal look like political jaywalking by comparison.
Our job now is to consider the facts, and apply Occam’s razor with care and precision to decide which explosive narrative is least implausible. Because, in the absence of a clear explanation, the one that is the least implausible must be true.
The Real “Bridge” to Nowhere
There is no question which narrative is simpler to explain; but is this explanation plausible merely because it is simple? Simplicity, it turns out, is all this tale has going for it.
Trump, according to this story, actively colluded with the Russian government to steal the election from an otherwise inevitable Hillary Clinton. In exchange for “hacking” the DNC’s emails (emails that contained damning content that is not disputed) and exposing them through WikiLeaks, it is claimed Trump agreed to do Moscow’s bidding as President. Somewhere out there, true believers claim we will find the evidence.
The circumstantial “evidence” for this narrative is Trump’s tongue-in-cheek campaign taunt in the summer of 2016 regarding the possibility that the Russians had Hillary’s missing emails (and should release them). Exhibit B was his alleged “bromance” with Putin, inasmuch as Trump appeared to speak favorably of the Russian strongman when alluding to the desire for the United States to have closer ties with Russia, and criticizing Obama’s failed “reset” during Clinton’s term as Secretary of State.
align=”right” This all-smoke, no-fire narrative has been reduced so much that the millions of devastated Hillary supporters who have invested their hearts and souls in it and waited on pins and needles for impeachment to commence, now howl helplessly at the moon in despair over an election they still cannot understand they lost because of positions on the issues and the flaws of their weak candidate.
Based on these flimsy foundations, the post-election mantras that “Russia hacked our election,” and “our democracy is under attack by a hostile power,” repeated relentlessly by Clinton and her surrogates to explain her loss, and the illegal obstruction of justice committed by James Comey himself, fueled a myopic focus of “Russian collusion” accusations against the Trump campaign, and a carte blanche Les Miserables-style inquisition to discover all his supposed “ties” to, and interactions with, any and all things Russian.
But this story, we now know, is so factually challenged, especially after the unrelated indictments of Manafort, Gates, and Papadopoulos, that it cannot be believed. To this day there is no evidence whatsoever that Trump colluded with the Russians, or that his campaign violated any statutes in the course of the campaign.
This all-smoke, no-fire narrative has been reduced so much that the millions of devastated Hillary supporters who have invested their hearts and souls in it and waited on pins and needles for impeachment to commence, now howl helplessly at the moon in despair over an election they still cannot understand they lost because of positions on the issues and the flaws of their weak candidate.
And Now the Rest of the Story . . .
Since the early days of this audacious hoax, we have learned much about the Clinton campaign and its real ties to Russian interests; exploding the conventional narrative. These are not conspiracy theories, but conspiracy facts—bolstered in credibility by Donna Brazile’s recent performance as a character witness for the Hillary campaign and the DNC under Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
What is emerging is a far more disturbing picture of actual foul play, both foreign and domestic, and demonstrable collusion, at multiple levels, between the losing campaign of Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and then soon to be out-of-power administration of Barack Hussein Obama.
align=”left” More and more that meeting between the junior Trump and Natalia Veselnitskaya looks like a deliberate setup—what the KGB under Putin back in the day would call “kompromat.”
We know, for example, that the Democrat-connected law firm of Perkins Coie was used as an intermediary by her campaign to help pay $1 million to fund the discredited Fusion GPS dossier, intended not merely to discredit Trump, but also—and possibly even more criminally—to create a false pretext for government spying on his campaign.
More shocking than that, we know one of GPS’ principals met with the very same Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump, Jr., both before and after that infamous meeting—even though she wasn’t supposed to be in the United States at all at the time.
More and more that meeting between the junior Trump and Natalia Veselnitskaya looks like a deliberate setup—what the KGB under Putin back in the day would call “kompromat.” In other words, this meeting was set up entirely for the purpose that it might be used later to “prove” Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, should it become necessary. And the over-the-top howls of “treason!” leveled against Donald Jr. as well as the drumbeat of clumsy attempts to connect the scandal to Trump’s family and inner circle emanate from the media echo chamber when news of the meeting broke seemed entirely too well coordinated to be spontaneous. Yet these same hypocrites yawn and shrug at the murky origins of Fusion GPS dossier—which Russian officials, along with Hillary’s campaign actually participated in creating.
At some point, you have to ask: Why on earth would a foreign country trying to elect Trump participate in so many schemes seemingly designed to defeat him?
Most damning of all, we learn of the extraordinary Uranium One deal, involving 20 percent of America’s uranium supply. This deal implicates none than other Mueller himself, who was head of the FBI when it happened. Under Mueller, the FBI squelched hard evidence of Russia’s designs to bribe Hillary Clinton in her role as one of the deal’s signatories.
It matters not at all that other agencies besides Foggy Bottom were involved in the approval of Russia’s acquisition of Uranium One, or even if (for the sake of argument only) we concede that it was a reasonable decision for our national security. What matters is that she and Bill Clinton collected money, in the form of $145 million in donations to their shady foundation, from Russian oligarchs tied to the deal, and took $500,000 in direct payments to the former president for a speech. This, after meeting Putin himself in his Moscow home.
align=”right” The facts of Hillary Clinton’s collusion are complicated and involve, as it were, many more entities than the fairy tale of Trump’s collusion. For this reason, in a world where good political fiction trumps confusing facts, it is tempting to prefer the Trump collusion narrative, if only to avoid a migraine.
All of which points to another obvious question: Why would a nation that had real leverage-increasing “kompromat” on an ethically fluid Hillary Clinton work with Trump to steal “her” election?
Even more to the point: Why did our FBI hide the fact that all of this was contemporaneous with the Obama administration’s pending decision to approve Russia’s acquisition of Uranium One?
With this information, Mueller’s one-sided, heavy-handed inquiry into clearly diversionary targets suddenly makes perfect, if horrifying, sense.
Occam’s razor, in paraphrase, suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the best. But all it literally says is that we should not “multiply the entities beyond the necessary.” Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler, is how Einstein put it.
The facts of Hillary Clinton’s collusion are complicated and involve, as it were, many more entities than the fairy tale of Trump’s collusion. For this reason, in a world where good political fiction trumps confusing facts, it is tempting to prefer the Trump collusion narrative, if only to avoid a migraine.
But doing so requires ignoring many interrelated facts already available in the public domain that make sense only in the context of the treasonous, un-democratic scheming of the Clinton campaign—first to deny Bernie Sanders a fair shot at the Democratic nomination, and then to deny the duly elected president his legitimacy.