Add this little dab below to what I wrote above and apply it equally to Slick's article from Reddit/Wiki that started this/his discussion.
Are Democrats' Claims About Trump Colluding With Russians Collapsing?
Justice: FBI Director James Comey told Congress that his agency is investigating President Trump's campaign for evidence it colluded with Russia to influence November's election. The only problem is he has no evidence at all that it has taken place.
In his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, Comey said that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's possible coordination with Russia's government as part of a "counterintelligence probe that could reach all the way to the White House and last for months."
These are serious allegations. But both Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, who also testified, agreed that there is no evidence so far of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Nor was there any evidence that Russia's amateurish meddling in the campaign had any influence on voters, Comey said, echoing earlier comments by both former acting CIA Director Michael Morell and by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
If this holds up, it's a devastating blow to the Democrats, who were hoping to use what appears to be an entirely bogus scandal to gin up public opposition to President Trump, for the sole purpose of damaging his presidency — and, perhaps eventually, as a prelude to legal action or even impeachment proceedings.
We wonder: Is this how unhinged a political party gets after losing an election it thought was a shoo-in? It sure seems that way.
We're glad Comey testified. Russian meddling in U.S. elections is a serious issue. But it shouldn't be partisan, which is exactly what Democrats have made it to be.
Even the fact that Comey is disclosing this information now is suspect. He received permission to do so from acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, an Obama appointee, after President Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the investigation due to Democratic criticism and pressure.
So is this a case of remnants of the Obama administration in the "deep state" trying to damage Trump? Or just bureaucrats doing their job?
More to the point, transcripts of former NSA chief Michael T. Flynn's tapped conversations with Russia's ambassador (which led to Flynn's resignation) were clearly leaked in violation of the law.
In questioning Comey, Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina pointedly asked whether "unauthorized dissemination (of classified information) is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison?"
To which Comey responded: "Yes, as it should be. It's a serious, serious crime." Yet, he did not confirm any investigation of such a crime, even though it's clear one occurred.
And why not? A spate of recent leaks intended to hurt the Trump Administration have trickled out from the intelligence bureaucracy, many of whom are Obama appointees. For the record, it doesn't become less of a felony to leak information just because you think you're on the "right side of history."
It's rich in irony that the Democrats are now making a big show of their patriotism, loudly telling everyone they're shocked — shocked! — at the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. It's un-American!
But as others have noted, there is far more evidence that Obama, not Trump, actively colluded with Russia — and then was played by Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. After all, it was Obama who ridiculed Republican candidate Mitt Romney for calling Russia America's "No. 1 geopolitical foe," by saying: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because … the Cold War's been over for 20 years."
It was Obama, however, who over an open microphone told Russia's then-President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" on nuclear missile defense after the 2012 election — in effect, admitting that he was deceiving American voters.
Even worse, after sitting by as Syria deteriorated and ISIS created its own terrorist fiefdom across Syria and Iraq, Obama essentially outsourced the U.S. response to Putin's Russia, leading to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people and the mass migration of an estimated 12 million Syrian refugees, many to the West.
Was Obama's clear culpability for this disaster mere incompetence, or just part of the 2009 "reset" he and his clever former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, cooked up?
As for Clinton, while secretary of state, she approved a deal that gave Russian nuclear agency Rosatom a majority stake in Uranium One, which controls about a fifth of the U.S. uranium supply. This would be suspicious enough in itself, but from 2009 to 2013, as reported in "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, Bill and Hillary Clinton's foundation took in over $100 million from people linked to the uranium deal, including some Russian officials.
"Obama and then-Secretary Clinton had possibly the most pro-Russian policy in U.S. history, yet Trump gets accused of being a Russophile," noted Matthew Vadum at Frontpagemag.com.
Aren't these more troubling than any of the so-far false charges leveled against Donald Trump? Or does Democrats' anti-Russian "patriotism" only extend to members of the other party?
In the end, the Democrats have stirred up a hornet's nest, but it's still not clear that they won't get bit instead of Donald Trump. Empty accusations, "fake news," and politically motivated attacks could eventually come back to haunt Democrats.
The whole Democratic narrative may be collapsing. As of today, there is still no proof whatsoever of collusion between Trump and the Russians, despite an ongoing investigation since last July. But there's plenty of evidence that the Democrats have pushed a false narrative for reasons of political gain.
http://www.investors.com/politics/edito ... ollapsing/
The FBI, DOJ and all the Intelligence agencies have had seven months since the election, seven months before it and arguably two years...and still, they have nothing on Trump. Funnier still, 'nothing on Clinton'. In the interest of fairness...I say lets appoint a special prosecutor and Grand Jury for each....let the cards fall where they may. No one gets immunity from prosecution. What say you?