The Real Reason Trump Was Investigated for Russia Validated

Hillary Clinton Delivering Campaign Speech

My hypothesis as to why President Trump was investigated for Russian ties is at least as plausible, and likely far more plausible, than the Democrat Party’s Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy. The Democrat Party is on a crusade to destroy Donald Trump’s Presidency. So far, an 8+ month investigation has returned exactly zero evidence that Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Note: There are no claims that the grossly embarrassing information exposed by the DNC server hack and John Podesta’s emails was faked.

The Democrat Party is well known for the tactic of going on the Offensive by charging opponents with accusations that they themselves are guilty of. They are quick to tar and feather the Republican Party and every member in it as racist supporters of the Ku Klux Klan working to bring back Jim Crow Laws for example. Of course the truth is that the Klan was the militant arm of the Democrat Party, and it was Democrats who invented and employed Jim Crow Laws. History shows that Republicans were the Party that fought the Klan and Jim Crow Laws.

It’s also well known that in campaigns the truth doesn’t always matter. October surprises often have some measure of truth, but their real intent is to quickly damage one’s opponent in the run up to Election Day. The election ends before the full truth gets out.

It’s with these two thoughts as background that I hypothesize that the investigation into Donald Trump and his campaign’s alleged ties to Russia was in fact:

  1. A weaponization of the United States intelligence agencies and
  2. Their use in opposition research for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Why? Remember, the book Clinton Cash clearly detailed Hillary and Bill Clinton’s ties to the Russian Government and Vladimir Putin. Bill Clinton was given over $700,000 for a speech that he gave in Russia. There were very clear ties between Hillary and Bill to wealthy Russian oligarchs.

Infographic Highlighting Corruption From Clinton Cash

Select Examples From “Clinton Cash” Exposing Hillary and Bill Clinton’s Scheme to Enrich Themselves And Their Foundation

Clinton Cash details the connections between the Clintons and Russian front companies in the sale of 20% of US uranium mines to the Russians. Clinton Cash also details how nine investors connected with the sale donated $145 Million to the Clinton foundation.

Hillary Clinton had no defense against these revelations. They were well documented and damning. Her campaign had to be concerned about her connections to Russia and Putin and her role as SECSTATE in moving the sale forward, so they needed a strategy to deal with it. Beyond ignoring the scandal, it’s likely that Hillary’s best strategy for blunting the impact of this bombshell was to have counter charges ready to go against Donald Trump.

Going on the Offensive against Trump’s campaign might buy Hillary enough time to get her safely through the election. In order to orchestrate an attack against Trump, Hillary’s political machine required a portfolio of evidence stockpiled and disseminated within Democratic operatives to be used at the moment of greatest need.

Unfortunately, the Russian connections to Clinton never became a significant issue during the election, despite its explosive nature. Clearly the Democrat Party and the minion media were completely convinced that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election, and so her blitzkrieg counterattack against Donald Trump and his campaign was never used.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democrat Party were shocked the night of 8 November, and Trump’s win demanded an explanation. The Democrat rank and file was enraged, since the minion media convinced them Hillary was going to win in a landslide. From their perspective it wasn’t possible that Trump could’ve beaten her fair and square.

The Democrat Party/Minion Media conspiracy that came out was the unspent Opposition Research round that Donald Trump’s campaign had ties to the Russians. In the end this witch-hunt will find nothing because there was nothing to it, and there never was intended to be anything of substance in it. The intent was merely to distract the American voter long enough to get Hillary across the finish line.

Further evidence as to my contention that ties to Russians and their impact on America’s elections really have nothing to do with this story is the clear evidence that no one is asking about Hillary Clinton’s ties to the Russians and what influence or leverage they may have had over her, had she become President. The fact that this is a one-way story, completely surrounding Donald Trump and his campaign, proves that facts really didn’t matter.

Validation:

  • John Solomon, Laura Ingraham Show on Fox News, 14 July, 2020

Why did the Democrats pick Russia and Ukraine to be the two pho-scandals that they pursued against President Trump and after hundreds of hours of reporting and going through documents, heres what we found out. They were trying to ward off, to scare away Republicans from using Russia as an issue against them in the 2016 election. Why? Because it was their biggest, one of their biggest foreign policy failures.

For greater details proving my April, 2017 hypothesis see John Solomon, and Seamus Bruner’s book: Fallout, Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, And The Washington Lies That Enriched The Clinton And Biden Dynasties.

  • Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA), Sean Hannity Show on Fox News, 29 July, 2020

I think what really happened was this was meant to be an October Surprise. They were trying to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Likely to cover up for Hillarys problems with Russia. Thats the irony here. And then they were desperate after the election to do something. And thats when the Obama Administration really got involved, and thats when it really started to come out that the FBI was just using whatever they had to just continue this investigation, and thats going to be the problem because they had nothing! It was all fantasies of the Democrats.

“The president’s legal team said Saturday they believe the entire meeting may have been part of a larger election-year opposition effort aimed at creating the appearance of improper connections between Trump family members and Russia that also included a now-discredited intelligence dossier produced by a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele who worked for a U.S. political firm known as Fusion GPS.”

The Democrat Party’s Win-Win COVID-19 Strategy

Sadly, Democrats are playing politics during the COVID-19 crisis, while Americans lose their lives. What makes matters even worse is that this is an election year and the American people will go to the polls in November to elect our next president. Instead of coming together and fighting for the American people, the bulk of the Democrat party is engaged in partisan politics led by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the Democrat Party’s minion media. Normally, I would lead with the presumptive Democrat Party presidential nominee, but Joe Biden can’t function beyond creating embarrassing videos shot from his basement bunker.

Echoing Marxist dogma, Democrat Party radicals have long professed that they should never let a good crisis go to waste. Unfortunately, COVID-19 is no exception. They are posturing themselves for a win-win strategy to defeat Donald Trump, keep the House and win back the Senate in November.

The first part of the strategy applies if there are high mortality rates and significant American COVID-19 deaths. The Democrat strategy will be to attack President Trump and Republicans for failing to protect the American people. We’ve seen this line of Democrat/Media attack for several weeks, centered on “the President was slow to act and Americans died” mantra. It’s a totally vapid charge, but so was Trump/Russia, and the sham-peachment.

The second line of attack in their win-win scenario, kicks in if death rates are low. In this case the Democrat Party will attack Donald Trump and Republicans for hyping the coronavirus, whipping the American people into a frenzy in fear, destroying the US economy by locking down people in their homes via an authoritarian power grab. I know what you are thinking, that this isn’t possible given the “slow to act” charges being leveled today. Make no mistake, Democrats have no shame, and their Minion Media totally cover for them up. They are more than capable of turning on a dime, knowing the a lying media has their backs.

We’ve already heard some Democrat pundits crying with fear that Donald Trump’s dream is to become a dictator and the COVID-19 is his opportunity.

Both of these scenarios come with the added bonus that should Donald Trump overcome their vicious partisan attacks and win election for a second term that they could come back and impeach him for either mortality outcome. In fact, Democrats would scream that they have no choice, investigations are demanded, and inevitably impeachment would follow. This is a scenario that’s made ever more possible by the challenge Republicans have holding the Senate. Republicans must defend 23 seats this November while democrats only need defend 12.

It’s incumbent upon President Trump and the Republicans to lay the foundation for defeating each of these strategies.

They shouldn’t have to, but the reality is that Democrats are so blindly hateful and partisan that these counter strategies must be formed. Let us pray for the low death scenario, and that our national response will be so spectacular that we will all look back with wonder and amazement at how few Americans were taken by COVID-19.

NOTE: Nancy Pelosi is already shifting gears to attacking President Trump for destroying the US economy.

Marginalizing Obama

In a 22 November Washington Post opinion column David Swerdlick argued that President Barack Obama is a conservative. Of Obama’s Presidency he wrote:

“The former president was skeptical of sweeping change, bullish on markets, sanguine about the use of military force, high on individual responsibility and faithful to a set of old-school personal values. Compare that with proposals from his would-be successors: Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal, free college, a wealth tax, universal basic income.”

“…the former president, going back at least to his 2004 Senate race, hasn’t really occupied the left side of the ideological spectrum. He wasn’t a Republican, obviously: he never professed a desire to starve the federal government, and he opposed the Iraq War, which the GOP overwhelmingly supported. But to the dismay of many on the left, and to the continuing disbelief of many on the right, Obama never dramatically departed from the approach of presidents who came before him.”

“There’s a simple reason:”, wrote Swerdlick, “Barack Obama is a conservative…”

“To be conservative, as philosopher Michael Oakeshott, a movement hero, once put it, “is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.” The former president channeled the sentiment faithfully when he said recently that “the average American doesn’t think that we have to completely tear down the system and remake it…He believes, fundamentally, that the American model works – even if it hasn’t been allowed to work for everyone.”

Ignoring the obvious that Obama proudly championed “fundamentally transforming AmericaObama is anything BUT a conservative. He is precisely what his resume told us he was as a presidential candidate, a radical Saul Alinsky “community organizer”.

As the Blaze’s Giancarlo Sopo observed, Swerdlick isn’t the first to make the outlandish claim that Obama is a conservative, and those claims were soundly disproven in the past.

“Variations of the “Obama is a conservative” argument were made in 2008 and early in his presidency. New York Times columnist David Brooks famously claimed in 2009 that “Obama sees himself as a Burkean” and compared him to Edmund Burke, the 18th century Anglo-Irish statesman considered by many as the progenitor of modern conservatism.”

There is a key difference though between 2008’s claims of conservatism and todays. Circa 2008, the intent was to make Obama more acceptable, or at least palatable to republicans in the hopes of peeling off some of their votes, and gaining their support. Swerdlick, and I predict a growing chorus of Minion Media talking heads, makes the claim to marginalize Obama and blunt his critiques of the Democratic Presidential field.

In recent weeks, Obama’s come out of hiding and warned democrats, to avoid extremism. I would add that he’s really signaling them that it is far better to cloak their intentions as he did.

On 15 November, the AP’s Brian Slodysko wrote “Former President Barack Obama on
Friday warned the Democratic field of White House hopefuls not to veer too far to the left, a move he said would alienate many who would otherwise be open to voting for the party’s nominee next year.”

“There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don’t want to see crazy stuff. They want
to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”

The claim that Obama is a conservative is laughable, yet also insulting, from the
democrat party intelligentsia’s view. For years countless left leaning pundits labeled conservatives as racist, bigoted, homophobic, anti-Semitic and every other vile adjective that popped into their heads at the time. In the Saul Alinsky model, they were giving conservatives the “pick a target, freeze it, isolate it, and polarize it” treatment.

Is Swerdlick’s labeling of Obama as a conservative the beginning of a similar treatment to
marginalize him and thus dismiss his warmings? Or, has the Democrat Party moved so far left that from their new position on the ideological spectrum they actually see radical Obama as right of center?