When All Else Fails, Democrats Resurrect the Russia Trump Collusion Hoax

Since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, Democrats in Congress, their voters, and the anti-Trumpers have spent the last three years trying to delegitimize his administration with their phony smear that Trump colluded with Russia to win. Over and over, they have peddled this false narrative, trying to get more mileage out of this dead horse.

There is no evidence that Trump colluded. Zero. Yet it hasn’t stopped Democrats from trying to make it stick. They spent two years on a witch hunt that spent millions of dollars and wasted the nation’s time chasing a ghost. They knew it was a scam. But they also knew that what mattered was raw politics—using anything to get rid of Trump outside of the electoral process. Keep in mind that Robert Mueller’s investigation in his 448-page report never established that Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia during the election. That still does not matter. The phony narrative alone was damaging enough. It was repeated and propagated by every liberal media outlet obsessively for two years while Trump had to fight the lie to keep it from sticking.

And now what? No collusion, but here we go again with the resurrection of the phony Russia collusion nonsense. If you recall, I said after it was proven that there was no Russian collusion that we had not heard the end of this political mischief. I know Democrats. There is no getting rid of them completely. They never give up. They never quit. I warned that Democrats would try to get additional mileage out of the Russia collusion hoax.

Recently, leaks have appeared, and news cycles again claim that Russia is trying to help President Trump win in 2020. Still, no evidence. However, a few troubling things are emerging about these accusations. First, this information was leaked out of a classified briefing to members of Congress. Yes, classified. One news story pointed out that a Democrat lawmaker in the room told Vox’s Alex Ward that, “the evidence was very compelling that Moscow favored Trump.” The story also said that “it was not clear what specific steps if any, US intelligence officials think Russia may be taking to help Trump.” Yes, no specifics. Another point written in the Vox story said that “while details about the exact nature of Russia meddling remain unclear, there is good reason to believe the reports—despite lingering questions. Oh really.

Democrat members of Congress immediately jumped in. Senator Sherrod Brown, without a stitch of evidence, claims that Trump is colluding with Russia to help his reelection. Jerry Nadler now wants more investigation of political interference by President Trump in the Justice Department.

Since Barack Obama became president, our intelligence agencies and investigative agencies have become infected with politics. Leaks are now a frequent occurrence of information that is supposed to be confidential, classified, and top secret. Politicizing intelligence is extremely dangerous and very troubling. Integrity in our intelligence agencies and officials is vital to maintain trust and credibility. They get to operate in so much secrecy. The American people never know what they are doing. We blindly trust them, and congressional oversight is lacking. Recall this blind trust of these intelligence officials led a FISC judge to accept the Steele dossier to obtain wiretap approval of the Trump presidential campaign in 2016. These leaks could deter other allied intelligence agencies like the UK MI6 or Israel’s Mossad from sharing critical information out of fear that they may be outed as the source. Maybe about an impending attack, for instance. Shameful.

Confidential information must not be discussed or referenced by anybody briefed in a confidential hearing. As a former sheriff, I know a thing or two about intelligence reports, the stages involved in the process, intelligence briefings, and how intelligence is used. Intelligence and reports generated are estimates about the future. Opposing intel views are supposed to be included to prevent the decision-maker from being steered to decide by a person with a vested interest in what decision should be made. They are a compilation of bits and pieces of information that may reveal a picture. Intel reports identifying enemies, their intentions, and their capability of carrying out an attack. These reports are used by a decision-maker, like the president, that action by him may be necessary.

Another interesting observation is that US officials informed the Bernie Sanders campaign about Russian efforts to aid his campaign. When the FBI had information about Russia attempting to infiltrate the Trump campaign, Trump was not afforded that courtesy. Instead, the FBI used it to obtain a wiretap and put a plant inside the Trump campaign. Why the double standard?

Trump is a fighter. He understands what is going on here. When he recently ousted Joseph Maguire from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) post, I smiled. Maguire went around the president in briefing Congress. Maguire can’t be trusted. When serving the president, trust is a vital virtue. Maguire should have told the president what he would brief Congress about. The criticism about Trump’s choice to be the next DNI, Richard Grenell, is the typical dribble that comes from swamp dwellers when another swamp creature isn’t selected. Saying he is not qualified is a dog-whistle for saying that he’s not one of them. That is a good sign. Trump needs someone he can trust.

The DNI post was created out of the 9-11 Commission report to bring cohesion and eliminate stovepipes within the intelligence community’s 17 different agencies that were working separately and not sharing information before 9/11. Grenell will have the added and more difficult task of getting these agencies out of the business of politics.

So brace yourselves for another Russia collusion hoax. The only way to stop this is at the ballot box. Get ready for November because the swamp draining is not complete.

"*" indicates required fields

San Francisco considers funding reparations for slavery at $5 million per black person. Do you support this?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.