The Russian Collusion: The Real Story

Sunday was the worst day the Democrats and their publicists in the mainstream media have had since Rachel Maddow had to concede that Donald J. Trump had been elected President of the United States of America. On Sunday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller released his long anticipated report on whether President Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 presidential elections. Mr. Mueller stated that they did not find credible evidence of any such collusion between Mr. Trump or his campaign and the Russians. A knife through the heart of the Democrats’ and the mainstream media’s two year campaign to de-legitimize Mr. Trump’s presidency.

But there is more to this story than a failed smear campaign. This was an allegation that an American citizen colluded with America’s number one enemy – Russia – to become President of the United States. That is a twisted tale of treason and treachery that Hollywood tried once – no twice – in the Manchurian Candidate but that no rational person, given a moment of reflection, would ever believe. Particularly without a shred of evidence.

So who began this two-year waste of money, and for what reason? For now, that is a matter of conjecture but one that demands an answer. But it is something that has bothered me over time and was crystallized by Mr. Mueller’s report. A report that did not surprise me given the level of scrutiny about these accusations without any evidence – even in spite of Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) shifty-eyed assertion that he already had the evidence of collusion.

I don’t have the answer. I posed that question to a group of friends with whom we were having dinner Monday evening. These are successful people who are not particularly engaged in politics but remain alert to the world of politics because of the substantial effect it has had and does have on their businesses. Each seems to have a favorite list of suspects and all seem to agree that it was a cabal of people. Among those listed were the usual suspects: Hillary Clinton, former President Barack Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former head of the FBI James Comey and virtually his entire cadre of Seventh Floor cohorts, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan, George Soros and even Sen. Chuck Schummer (D-NY) and now Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). But it was more difficult when asked about the motive(s) of their particular candidates.

In the Watergate investigation that led to the impeachment and resignation of former President Richard Nixon (R-CA), Deep Throat (the insider now revealed to be former FBI Deputy Director William Mark Felt) told Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to “follow the money.” That was, and is, good advice. The money trail will likely lead you to some of those probably culpable – Ms. Clinton, John Podesta, and Glen Simpson of Fusion CPS and in turn Christopher Steele – the actual author of the fake dossier upon which the entire investigation of Mr. Trump began. But that is already known.

It will probably reveal that the fake dossier was created as an “October surprise” to assist Ms. Clinton in her election bid. It is not unusual for less than honorable political candidates to hold back some dirt on their opponents to be released in mid- to late October immediately preceding the election – in time for it to have maximum impact without a real opportunity for the opponent to fully respond. But following the money is insufficient to understand the full breadth of participation in the conspiracy to subvert the 2016 presidential election. It is doubtful that the money trail will lead to people like Mr. Comey and other public officials.

So it is also about motive. And in this case the motive is about power and protection. More precisely, if Ms. Clinton had won the election, it was about the opportunity to move up in the “power rankings” of the Washington insiders and protecting them from any examination of what might have been done during the Obama years. And when Ms. Clinton lost it was solely protecting them from an examination of activities that might have occurred during the Obama years – draining the swamp.

There is sort of an unwritten rule among the elected officials to refrain from disclosing the dirty secrets they stumble upon in return for the assumed refrain by those who succeed them. But Mr. Trump was not a career politician. He had no loyalties when cleaning “the swamp.” All of the secrets were now up for grabs.

So let’s look at the motives of some of those previously mentioned:

•  Hillary Clinton. That’s pretty obvious. She wanted to be President and an October surprise would benefit her by not only bruising Mr. Trump but by distracting from the investigation of her abuse of emails during her time as Secretary of State under Mr. Obama – potentially including criminal charges.
•  President Obama. Mr. Trump despised Mr. Obama. As much as the Democrats would like you to believe this was about race, it was about revenge. Mr. Obama held Mr. Trump up for ridicule on more than one occasion because Mr. Trump had doubted Mr. Obama’s claim to birth as a United State citizen – a prerequisite for being President. If Ms. Clinton would be elected, Mr. Obama’s secrets would be safe. If Mr. Trump was elected President all of the information on Mr. Obama’s actions during his presidency would be available for disclosure. Mr. Obama’s place in history was and is in danger.
•  James Comey. Mr. Comey had a unique position. He had already cooperated in tamping down the investigation of Ms. Clinton and her emails, including writing his recommendations before the investigation was complete – including before the FBI interviewed Ms. Clinton on what can only be described as a rigged interview. Having done that Mr. Comey was in a position to retain his position as Director if Ms. Clinton was elected. Not only would he retain his position but he now had a powerful tool to ensure that he could stop any attempts to limit his actions by threatening to release the full breadth of information that the FBI learned during that investigation of Ms. Clinton. For Mr. Comey it would have been substantially about power. But when Mr. Trump won, Mr. Comey was at risk – a risk that wound up with his dismissal and the exposure of the corruption that surrounded him and is cadre of FBI lieutenants.
•  Andrew McCabe. Mr. McCabe was a partisan; his wife had already benefited hugely from friends of Ms. Clinton during her unsuccessful run for public office. He was a known and reliable entity to the Clinton’s and would be in superior position to succeed Mr. Comey if Ms. Clinton won. He was also the ideal candidate to give substance to the Steele dossier by opening an investigation into Mr. Trump and the BS collusion theory. When Mr. Trump won, and more importantly when Mr. Comey was fired, he became “at risk” resulting in his termination and a referral for his criminal prosecution. Motive – power, then protection.
•  Peter Strzok. Mr. Strzok made it to the Seventh Floor of the FBI during Mr. Obama’s administration. He was a partisan. He detested Mr. Trump as evidenced by his exchange of text messages with his paramour, Lisa Page. His reason for hating Mr. Trump remains unclear but it is clear that he was a willing participant in attempting to deny Mr. Trump the presidency. Had Ms. Clinton won, Mr. Strzok was in position to move up in the FBI hierarchy. When Mr. Trump won he instead exercised his vitriol. It is unclear whether he had other actions to conceal and protect. Motive – power and protection.
•  Lisa Page. Ms. Page was a nobody in this whole intrigue. However, as Mr. Strzok’s paramour she engaged in the exchange of text messages that disclosed Mr. Strzok’s animus and his “secret plan” do deny Mr. Trump the presidency. However, Ms. Page played a major role in the aftermath when she testified to Congress that the FBI, as late as May of 2017, despite an unprecedented investigation, could not establish any link between Mr. Trump (or his campaign) and the Russians. It was, in fact, a hoax and a witch hunt. In the end, she had no motive so she told the truth.
•  James Clapper. Mr. Clapper, as head of the National Security Administration, has a history of lying to Congress. Based on the charge and capabilities of the agency he was in a position to know what was going on with regard to the any collusion between Mr. Trump and the Russians. Even though he knew that the Steele dossier was bogus he repeatedly gave it credence by suggesting that more and more parts of it were proving to be true – all without detailing which parts and what evidence existed to support those assertions – there were none. He is a weasel best known for using half-truths as fact. He declared that the Steele dossier was not the primary source for the affidavits to the FISA courts when in fact it was the only source. He is another Obama appointee and has reason to be concerned about disclosure of his conduct during the Obama years.
•  John Brennan. Mr. Brennan as head of the CIA was another Obama appointee and, like Mr. Clapper, was in a position to know whether there was any collusion between Mr. Trump and the Russians. He endorsed the Steele dossier as being true despite having access to the fact that there was no supporting evidence validating it. Mr. Brennan also lied to Congress repeatedly and despite calls for his firing was retained by Mr. Obama. Mr. Brennan, like Mr. Clapper has reasons to be concerned about disclosure of his conduct during the Obama years.

It is doubtful that Mr. Schummer or Ms. Pelosi participated in this sham beyond accepting every allegation as true without any supporting facts. Neither of these two possesses the requisite knowledge, skill or courage to actually be involved in the creation or implementation of this attempt to subvert the 2016 presidential election. But gullible they are, and that looms large over their credibility and their leadership of the current Congress.

In the end, the participation in and the purpose of this ruse that has led to two years of wasted time and money needs to be fully disclosed and those involved need to be held accountable. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has vowed to pursue this at Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He should be encouraged to do so without rancor or bias and let the chips fall where they may.  It is time to “drain the swamp.”