Are Progressive Democrats Being Trapped by Their Own Russia-Trump Fake News Propaganda

It has been five months since the Progressive Democrats and their lapdog mainstream media accused Donald Trump and his team of contact -- maybe even collusion -- with Russia in hacking the Democratic National Committee computer system and hacking into and publishing the emails of Hillary's campaign manager John Podesta -- all this they strongly suggest lost the election for our girl Hillary -- we are still waiting for factual confirmation, because in all likelihood, there is no evidence to be found. • • • THE BIG PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT MISTAKE. Some Democrats are beginning to express doubt, or at least caution, about opening the door to investigating Russia’s presidential campaign influence gambit. The Rolling Stone, the Podesta Group, and even James Clapper tried to warn them. But, in their rush to blame Russia and Donald Trump and his team for Hillary’s loss on November 8, they ignored the advice. The ProgDems were singlemindedly looking for something so bad that it would damage Trump irremediably and force him out of office. • The tune has shifted lately as congressional Democrats try to extricate themselves from what looks like a sinking ship. But, instead of admitting they rushed to judgment, instead of apologizing to America and President Trump, they have found a new mantra. TheHill put it into headline : "Dems threaten to pull support if Russia probe not 'legitimate.' " That's right -- after using hearsay, rumors from "unnamed intelligence community sources" and fake news from their propagandist mainstream media, some Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are threatening to end support from the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election if it is not conducted in a "legitimate" manner. Representative Jackie Speier, from California of course, told the New York Times (who else?) : "I'm not going to be part of a dog-and-pony show that is not a serious effort to do an investigation, because this is really serious. If it’s not a legitimate and comprehensive and in-depth investigation, why would we be party to it?” Representative Jim Himes said : “Most of us would agree that there’s no way we’re participating in any form of cover-up or whitewash, so we will walk away if the moment requires...[but] we’re certainly not there yet.” • So, instead of going quietly after their big mistake, Progressive Democrats are going to try to turn their error into yet another fake news attack on Trump and the GOP Congress by accusing them of not conducting "legitimate" investigations. • • • EVEN THE ROLLING STONE CAN'T FIND EVIDENCE. On March 8, Matt Taibbi wrote an article for the Rolling Stone quoting Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who appeared on Meet the Press Sunday to discuss the Trump - Russia "scandal." Chuck Todd asked : Were there improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials? Clapper answered : "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, "our," that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that…' Todd then decided to hang himself out to dry, asking : I understand that. But does it exist? Clapper was adamant : "Not to my knowledge." Todd refused to give up, even though the noose was tightening around his Progressive neck : If [evidence of collusion] existed, it would have been in this report? Clapper was noncommittal : "This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government." • Rolling Stone got the importance of the exchange right : "This is the former Director of National Intelligence telling all of us that as of 12:01 a.m. on January 20th, when he left government, the intelligence agencies had no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin's Russia. Virtually all of the explosive breaking news stories on the Trump-Russia front dating back months contain some version of this same disclaimer." • The Rolling Stone goes on to cite the "smoke " in the Russia story : General Michael Flynn having "improper discussions" with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak prior to taking office; the Republican platform change with regard to American assistance to Ukranian rebels; and the "unreported" contacts between officials like Jeff Sessions with Russina Ambassador Kislyak. But, the best the Rolling Stone can do is state the already pretty much acknowledged fact that "the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee." But, says the Rolling Stone : "...the manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right. Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald Trump. The notion that the President is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett's shirtless representation of Putin palling with Alec Baldwin's Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban smart set. And yet, this is an extraordinarily complex tale that derives much of its power from suppositions and assumptions. If there's any truth to the notion that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian state to disrupt the electoral process, then yes, what we're seeing now are the early outlines of a Watergate-style scandal that could topple a presidency. But it could also be true that both the Democratic Party and many leading media outlets are making a dangerous gamble, betting their professional and political capital on the promise of future disclosures that may not come." • Looking at journalistic techniques used in the more "legitimate" reports, the Rolling Stone makes a very serious accusation -- that the media is serving up non-news by labeling it just the beginning of better stories to come. The Rolling Stone points out : "Many are framed in terms of what they might mean, should other information surface. There are inevitably uses of phrases like "so far," "to date" and "as yet." These make visible the outline of a future story that isn't currently reportable, further heightening expectations. Take the Times story about Trump surrogates having "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence officials (an assertion that can mean anything, incidentally -- as a reporter in Russia I had contact with Russian intelligence officials, as did most of my colleagues and friends in business, and there was nothing newsworthy about those interactions). That [NYT] story not only didn't explain whether the contacts were knowing or unknowing, it also brought up a host of other "dots" in the Russia narrative for the reader to connect. For instance, the Times mentioned the bizarre (and unverified) dossier prepared by Christopher Steele. Whether the Steele material was in any way connected to the contacts to which the Times referred was unclear, but the paper plowed ahead, writing : 'The dossier contained a raft of allegations...unsubstantiated claims that the Russians had embarrassing videos that could be used to blackmail Mr. Trump....The FBI has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims...' " The Rolling Stone calls these constructions end runs around the paper's own reporting standards : "The Times by itself could never have run that 'explosive' Steele dossier, or mentioned the 'embarrassing videos' -- because the dossier material can't be confirmed. But since it's all out there in the ether now, thanks to Buzzfeed, it apparently can safely be mentioned. Worse, the Times recounted all this in connection with the other story about alleged contacts with Russian intelligence, adding to the appearance of gravity and salaciousness." • And congressional Democrats are not let off the hook by the Rolling Stone : "Similarly, Democrats in Congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, 'We do not know all the facts,' and, 'More information may well surface.' They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out. Members demand that Trump release his tax returns, for instance, so that Democrats can 'clarify the specific financial interests that he has in Russia' -- as if it is a given that he has such interests, or that such interests will be meaningful." • • • THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. As we discussed in several recent blogs, there simply is No Evidence. It appears that there is nothing else to find -- because after five months of turning over every possible rock, getting one Trump advisor 'fired' when General Flynn resigned, and pushing newly sworn-in Attorney General Sessions to recuse himself from literally No Investigations, we all know that if there was any factual information to support even the slightest hint of collusion between the Trump team and Russia, it would be spread all over every newspaper and TV news program in America, Democrat congressional leaders would be wearing 'Impeach Now' teeshirts and Barak Obama would be checking the Lincoln Bible out of the Smithsonian. • As the Rolling Stone so aptly put it, the media should be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories : "Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it. In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on." • • • PROGDEMS HAVE RUSSIA HYSTERIA AND IT COULD BE DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA. The American Thinker published an article on March 12 titled "Diplomats warn that 'Russia hysteria' could harm US interests." In the article, Rick Moran writes that "several former ambassadors and Russia hands at the State Department are warning that the Democrats and the media could harm US interests abroad by stoking hysteria over Russia and the Russian ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak." Moran says the hysteria "has grown to a ridiculous level, as unconfirmed reports and outright falsehoods about Kislyak have been reported." • And, congressional Democrats are jumping on these unconfirmed reports to claim that "they’re evidence of the Trump administration’s close ties to Moscow." Moran gives examples -- Representative Eric Swalwell opened a website last week entitled “Connecting the Trump-Russia Dots,” with Kislyak’s portrait squarely in the middle; and, a CNN report alleged that “current and former US intelligence officials have described Kislyak as a top spy and recruiter of spies.” • The drumbeat has led to our almost accepting that Ambassador Kislyak is a spy. But, Wayne Merry, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council who worked as a US diplomat to Russia and has known Kislyak for decades, disagees : “That’s total horses**t. It’s a witch-hunt with paranoia and hysteria at its core. Normally it’s the Russians who become paranoid and hysterical. That the conspiracy theories and paranoia is coming from Americans makes me very uncomfortable.” Moran also cites two past US Ambassadors to Russia, who defended Kislyak in interviews with TheHill -- Michael McFaul a fierce Trump critic who was appointed by former President Obama, and John Beyrle, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush but served for three years under Obama. Both told TheHill that the Russian ambassador was merely doing his job and that there is no evidence of any illicit collusion between him and the Trump campaign : "...allegations and insinuations that Kislyak was the point person for this -- and that it could have played out in broad daylight at meetings on Capitol Hill or at Trump campaign events -- are preposterous." McFaul says Kislyak’s job is to meet with government officials and campaign people "and I think he’s good at his job. People should meet with the Russian ambassador and it’s wrong to criminalize that or discourage it. I want the Russian government to be as informed as possible about the American political process. When I was ambassador, it was frustrating how poorly informed the Russian government was. It’s a good thing to meet with him, not a bad thing.” • We cannot know exactly what Kislyak's role is, but we can be sure that it has not been shown to rise to collusion with a duly-elected US President. That is laughable. • • • DEAR READERS, the sad fact is that all these warnings have been ignored by Democrats hell-bent on destroying President Trump. The mainstream media and Progressive Democrats are taking the Trump-Russia fake news to outlandish lengths. Americans are being fed a steady stream of innuendo and falsehoods aimed at convincing them that, regardless of the fact that there is No Evidence, President Trump is in cahoots with Russia and should be run out of office. That is extraordinarily dangerous for American interests around the world. To accuse an American President of being a "traitor" of sorts without one iota of evidence -- this is what Democrats and the mainstream media are suggesting -- is dangerously irresponsible. The Democrats are using, says Moran, "a scorched earth policy in their opposition to Trump and they care little for who or what gets singed in the process." Even the far-left Rolling Stone agrees. • It could very well be the Progressive Democrats who are scorched, and it would be a fitting punishment for their perfidious betrayal of America.