The big news is Bud Lite. We ain't buying. All these brilliant well-connected people ran roughshod over the Constitution only to discover that Russiagate, J6, impeachments and show trials don't get you allegiance. Woke works for woke people, a small minority. The dog caught the car. Now let him try to drive it.
Thanks for the confirmation that their 'real' agenda has nothing to do with real considerations such as inflation and possible default. We are expected to share their concern for matters of no concern to us in our personal lives, while by their own actions they have destroyed their claim to authority. What is government if not the law? First they encourage athletes to 'take the knee,' refusing allegiance to the country. BLM and Antifa are encouraged to revolt, violently. The police are vilified and even attacked. The rule of law is trashed. Now we have revelations that our government agencies did not observe any of the legal guidelines these past few years.
But who is the government then? What is their authority based on?
Granted. I share your concern. I'm afraid I have given up, and retreated into a defensive position. I often quote Bastiat, who stresses the need to preserve our own moral compass, and that is not easy in this present world. If Washington is lost, at least maybe we can preserve Main Street and the American way of life.
I would add, the moral degeneration of America is not a given, and I choose to believe the majority of Americans are moral and maybe even religious. Our public forum has been taken over by vociferous minority elements, who also have an inordinate role in the power structure, and like Bartleby the Scrivener we can choose not to go along.
IMHO, #4 is weighted heaviest. I would add that "hating Russia" has been ingrained in our culture through Hollywood for as long as I can recall, and I am over 60. Generations have been conditioned as irrational Russiaphobes, largely at the subconscious levels.
You answered your own question with all the references to Russia. Ukraine isn't a hill, it's a bridge--a bridge to Russia. A bridge too far, looks like.
"Six ways from Sunday", I think it was. He got crosswise with some powerful elements in the IC early on.
It is remarkable how much he was able to accomplish regardless. What I take from that, in terms of lukewarm comfort, is not so much the greatness of the man (although that's certainly a factor) but rather that he had at least some effective allies amongst all the backstabbers.
Getting Sessions to recuse was also done beautifully. Sessions got played by his former Senate Colleagues, he trusted them. It’s tragic for Sessions reputation what happened. And Trump would not fire him till after the midterms, probably worried about an obstruction of Justice charge sticking, or being impeached.
I wonder if it would have helped Trump to fire Sessions earlier?
They never had to worry about Trump v Russia because Trump was subservient to congress. In Aug. 2017 the House and Senate neutered him, voted to make all his Russia decisions subject to 30 day review by congress. The whole world saw that Trump was powerless. The demotion had been spearheaded in Feb. 2017 by his "pal," Lindsey Graham (just back from Ukraine where he promised more weapons to kill Russians). Trump could've resigned and told his voters that US presidents are powerless. But he chose just sit there for 4 yrs talking and acting like a worse neocon than McCain while Jared was de facto pres. In 2016 I voted for a wall, normalization of relations w Russia, and reduced US foreign aggression. I'm still waiting for those things. Only ten wks after his inauguration Trump bombed Syria after a few alleged complaints from people in Idlib. Idlib of course is 100% jihadist controlled. It would've taken months for an on the ground investigation to have substantiated alleged jihadist complaints. Under Trump, US effectively annexed one third of Syria, continues to illegally occupy it to this day....8/6/2017, "Finally, the U.S. Congress has produced a piece of legislation. And it passed with quasi-unanimous, bi-partisan support" showing the world that "America’s ability to pursue or even to have a foreign policy is non-existent....In short, Congress gave itself a 30-day review period to vote down any changes Trump tries to make in terms of America’s foreign relations with Russia....The key new provision in law is dubbed The Russia Sanctions Review Act of 2017. It codifies into law past sanctions on Russia imposed by previous Administrations [such as Obama's], and prohibits the President from lifting any existing sanction against Russia without the prior permission of Congress. The law states that the process of securing such consent requires that the President send to Congress a (prior) report stating and arguing the presumed benefit that would accrue to the U.S. through the lifting of any sanction. The Congress then may institute hearings on the President’s report....may then consider a resolution of approval or disapproval (within 30 days of receiving the President’s statement)."...https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/06/playing-politics-with-the-worlds-future/
These fools were and are lusting after war, power and money. They can’t wait to kill more young American soldiers. They’ve about run out of ukranians. If they aren’t stopped they’ll be sending Americans next.
Follow the money. These political vandals are all about enriching themselves. From the Clintons to McConnell, they were all looking out for themselves and their future skimming off the top of an international money laundering operation. Trump was an outsider who could not be trusted to be a 'team player' so he had to be vanquished. Trump survived, and they fear him more now than when he was in office.
You may be onto something with this. I was immediately reminded (once again, sorry) of the testimony by Vindman and Fiona Hill at the impeachment hearings about the Ukraine call. If anyone knows where to find transcripts of that testimony I’d appreciate it. My memory holds that both of those characters said something to the effect of “How dare Trump meddle in our international affairs. They are commanded by the Interagency, not a mere president.” But I have been unable to locate it.
Vindman ("the interagency") reported to Fiona Hill who reported to John Bolton:
11/7/19, “Deep State on the National Security Council: Colonel Vindman Is an ‘Expert’ With an Agenda,” Strategic Culture, Philip Giraldi
“Congress is currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants in...an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political quid pro quo from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package....
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman’s written statement (my emphasis) is revealing:
”When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.”…
The prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated to the United States with his family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some capacity in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart. Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include a key role in Pentagon planning on how to deal with Russia....
Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough to suit him....
Colonel Vindman, who reported to
noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill,
who in turn reported to By Jingo We’ll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense.
Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman’s prepared statement: “….I was worried about the implications for the US government’s support of Ukraine….I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support [ie, billions in US taxpayer cash] it has thus far maintained.”
Vindman’s concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that “Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation,
a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against [alleged] Russian aggression.”
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia’s economy is about the size of Italy’s or Spain’s limiting its imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments....
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth’s three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett – to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow....
Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe.“…
Totally agree....this is confirmed by the first impeachment attempt. The second Trump was sniffing around Ukraine corruption and potentially impacting the march to war, it was time for the knives to come out. Vindman, State Dept, & Ukraine diplomatic staff were all employed to support the narrative. It wasn't fatal to Trump, but think about it in baseball terms. After a high and tight knock down fastball, the batter is not so inclined to "dig in". That's what Impeachment 1 did to Trump....distration and message to stay away from Ukraine. Remember, the even kept this going after he released the weapons. The message was STAY AWAY from Project Ukraine, the money machine funded by energy and the military industrial complex, that's printing money via the war.
Then along came Covid and the fix was in for the basement dweller, also supported by changes in the mail in ballot rules. The FBI handled the laptop issue and shut down the only big threat to emerge late in the race.
What's really crazy is that Clinton benefitted from the Uranium deal with Russia, Bill gets $500K for a twenty minute speech in Moscow and she cut off Trump so he couldn't speak Putin's name without being called an apologist.
I respect the point you're trying to make, but remember that no-one expected Trump to beat Hillary and whatever rigging they were engaged in at the time.
Yes, Comey killed the email server. But he was also forced to revive it afterwards, if only briefly. But it was at a delicate enough moment in the campaign that many would go on to blame Comey for her defeat.
The Russia hoax was certainly conceived as a counterpoint to the email issue, but I agree with you that it was not ONLY a counterpoint. Collusion with Russia is just about the worst crime a U.S. politician could be accused of, and unthinkable at the time for a Republican candidate. It should have been fatal. But it also has the virtue, once he beat their scheming and actually got elected, to accomplish everything that you laid out in your article.
Those are points I've thought about, but ... I don't think they change things.
"many would go on to blame Comey for her defeat."
Those of course were all Dems. No serious political analyst thought that was the reason for her defeat. Your second appoint addresses the real reason for her defeat--and Trump's victory.
"Collusion with Russia is just about the worst crime a U.S. politician could be accused of, and unthinkable at the time for a Republican candidate. It should have been fatal."
This used to be true. And if it had remained true in 2016 it should have been fatal, as you say. But the positives in Trump's platform won for him, which is the true reason for her defeat.
For your objections to carry the day, we would need to explain why the Russia Hoax really took off AFTER Trump's win. It would have been one thing for Hillary and her inner circle to have continued, but instead the Russia Hoax became the rallying point for virtually all the DC Establishment. There had to be some reason for such strong dislike for Trump, who had won a stunning victory. We might assign the reason to his border policy, but in a way that's linked to Russia--open borders and Russian regime change were both pet ideas of the globalists. But, as I said, Trump could be thwarted on the border, to some extent, but the real danger lay with his ideas on Russia.
I do agree that his position on Russia posed an existential threat to the DC establishment. Both neocons and globalists agree that the overthrow of Russia is central to their goals.
Your intelligent comments demanded a response. Understand that I'm a lawyer by education and an advocate by temperament. I pitch my views strongly at times, but that doesn't mean I don't see the merit in objections.
WSJ for the flick and switch... https://www.wsj.com/articles/durham-and-a-presidency-in-crisis-fbi-cia-federal-corruption-john-durham-clinton-campaign-russian-collusion-1d8a0ed0?mod=opinion_lead_pos9
Your trenchant commentary linking R hoax with R war picked up by Thomas Lifson at American Thinker - https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/05/durham_proved_a_vast_conspiracy_to_deceive_voters_about_trump_and_russia_but_wont_indict_anyone_so_media_can_bury_the_story.html
What seems to be forgotten in the majority of the coverage of the Durham Report, is the Mueller Star Chamber.
Not forgotten. That's what Durham explicitly excluded from his report, per CTH. I'll write about that and related matters this morning.
The big news is Bud Lite. We ain't buying. All these brilliant well-connected people ran roughshod over the Constitution only to discover that Russiagate, J6, impeachments and show trials don't get you allegiance. Woke works for woke people, a small minority. The dog caught the car. Now let him try to drive it.
Yeah, that's a feel good story:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/bud-light-backlash-shows-no-sign-letting-and-now-there-contagion-budweiser-busch-and
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/miller-lite-joined-woke-cult-feminist-ad-goes-viral
But here's their real agenda:
Karine Jean-Pierre slams bans on trans treatment for minors: 'These are our kids, they belong to all of us'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/karine-jean-pierre-slams-bans-trans-treatment-minors-kids-belong-us
Excuse me? “These are “our” kids; they belong to all of us.” KJP, you are no parent. Please! Stick to what you’re good at: partisan mumbo-jumbo.
Zhou needs more hugging opportunities my friend.
Thanks for the confirmation that their 'real' agenda has nothing to do with real considerations such as inflation and possible default. We are expected to share their concern for matters of no concern to us in our personal lives, while by their own actions they have destroyed their claim to authority. What is government if not the law? First they encourage athletes to 'take the knee,' refusing allegiance to the country. BLM and Antifa are encouraged to revolt, violently. The police are vilified and even attacked. The rule of law is trashed. Now we have revelations that our government agencies did not observe any of the legal guidelines these past few years.
But who is the government then? What is their authority based on?
"matters of no concern to us in our personal lives"
Excuse me--the moral degeneration of America is of great concern to me in my personal life, and is behind the decline of America.
Granted. I share your concern. I'm afraid I have given up, and retreated into a defensive position. I often quote Bastiat, who stresses the need to preserve our own moral compass, and that is not easy in this present world. If Washington is lost, at least maybe we can preserve Main Street and the American way of life.
I would add, the moral degeneration of America is not a given, and I choose to believe the majority of Americans are moral and maybe even religious. Our public forum has been taken over by vociferous minority elements, who also have an inordinate role in the power structure, and like Bartleby the Scrivener we can choose not to go along.
President Trump’s inauguration speech. DC and deep state knew what President Trump was going after.
Agree with this analysis. It explains everything about the Russia Hoax.
I’m still puzzled why Ukraine has become the hill to die on for the West?
Couple of theories:
1. Neocons want to divvy up / break apart Russia.
2. goal is regime change in Russia.
3. general hatred of Russia.
4. lots of Ukrainian dirty money to US Politicians to dirty up Russia.
5. Soros hates Russia, since they have limited his influence.
6. Russia is a useful scapegoat.
Or may be it’s all of them.
Both #1 and #2.
IMHO, #4 is weighted heaviest. I would add that "hating Russia" has been ingrained in our culture through Hollywood for as long as I can recall, and I am over 60. Generations have been conditioned as irrational Russiaphobes, largely at the subconscious levels.
Yep - White Russian Nazi’s are the default villains for Hollywood.
https://www.military.com/off-duty/movies/2022/02/28/8-great-russian-movie-villains.html
You answered your own question with all the references to Russia. Ukraine isn't a hill, it's a bridge--a bridge to Russia. A bridge too far, looks like.
Sometimes I wonder if Putin called Hillary the c word and this is the result.
All of the above + neocons are delusional, demented, destructive, demonic . . .
The Russian Hoax after Trump won was a way to kneecap his administration, and it worked beautifully.
I’m still surprised he got as much done, with all the forces, including his own party, against him.
"Six ways from Sunday", I think it was. He got crosswise with some powerful elements in the IC early on.
It is remarkable how much he was able to accomplish regardless. What I take from that, in terms of lukewarm comfort, is not so much the greatness of the man (although that's certainly a factor) but rather that he had at least some effective allies amongst all the backstabbers.
The kneecapping of Flynn was beautifully done.
They knew Sessions would be a wimp too.
Getting Sessions to recuse was also done beautifully. Sessions got played by his former Senate Colleagues, he trusted them. It’s tragic for Sessions reputation what happened. And Trump would not fire him till after the midterms, probably worried about an obstruction of Justice charge sticking, or being impeached.
I wonder if it would have helped Trump to fire Sessions earlier?
Compliments of Barack Obama and his troop of flying monkeys.
Consummate professionals. No shortage of tradecraft.
They never had to worry about Trump v Russia because Trump was subservient to congress. In Aug. 2017 the House and Senate neutered him, voted to make all his Russia decisions subject to 30 day review by congress. The whole world saw that Trump was powerless. The demotion had been spearheaded in Feb. 2017 by his "pal," Lindsey Graham (just back from Ukraine where he promised more weapons to kill Russians). Trump could've resigned and told his voters that US presidents are powerless. But he chose just sit there for 4 yrs talking and acting like a worse neocon than McCain while Jared was de facto pres. In 2016 I voted for a wall, normalization of relations w Russia, and reduced US foreign aggression. I'm still waiting for those things. Only ten wks after his inauguration Trump bombed Syria after a few alleged complaints from people in Idlib. Idlib of course is 100% jihadist controlled. It would've taken months for an on the ground investigation to have substantiated alleged jihadist complaints. Under Trump, US effectively annexed one third of Syria, continues to illegally occupy it to this day....8/6/2017, "Finally, the U.S. Congress has produced a piece of legislation. And it passed with quasi-unanimous, bi-partisan support" showing the world that "America’s ability to pursue or even to have a foreign policy is non-existent....In short, Congress gave itself a 30-day review period to vote down any changes Trump tries to make in terms of America’s foreign relations with Russia....The key new provision in law is dubbed The Russia Sanctions Review Act of 2017. It codifies into law past sanctions on Russia imposed by previous Administrations [such as Obama's], and prohibits the President from lifting any existing sanction against Russia without the prior permission of Congress. The law states that the process of securing such consent requires that the President send to Congress a (prior) report stating and arguing the presumed benefit that would accrue to the U.S. through the lifting of any sanction. The Congress then may institute hearings on the President’s report....may then consider a resolution of approval or disapproval (within 30 days of receiving the President’s statement)."...https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/06/playing-politics-with-the-worlds-future/
These fools were and are lusting after war, power and money. They can’t wait to kill more young American soldiers. They’ve about run out of ukranians. If they aren’t stopped they’ll be sending Americans next.
Mark you nail this so well. Follow the cash. Cash like a sugar cookie soils their beaks.
Grifters all.
Follow the money. These political vandals are all about enriching themselves. From the Clintons to McConnell, they were all looking out for themselves and their future skimming off the top of an international money laundering operation. Trump was an outsider who could not be trusted to be a 'team player' so he had to be vanquished. Trump survived, and they fear him more now than when he was in office.
You may be onto something with this. I was immediately reminded (once again, sorry) of the testimony by Vindman and Fiona Hill at the impeachment hearings about the Ukraine call. If anyone knows where to find transcripts of that testimony I’d appreciate it. My memory holds that both of those characters said something to the effect of “How dare Trump meddle in our international affairs. They are commanded by the Interagency, not a mere president.” But I have been unable to locate it.
Vindman ("the interagency") reported to Fiona Hill who reported to John Bolton:
11/7/19, “Deep State on the National Security Council: Colonel Vindman Is an ‘Expert’ With an Agenda,” Strategic Culture, Philip Giraldi
“Congress is currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants in...an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political quid pro quo from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package....
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman’s written statement (my emphasis) is revealing:
”When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.”…
The prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated to the United States with his family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some capacity in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart. Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include a key role in Pentagon planning on how to deal with Russia....
Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough to suit him....
Colonel Vindman, who reported to
noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill,
who in turn reported to By Jingo We’ll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense.
Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman’s prepared statement: “….I was worried about the implications for the US government’s support of Ukraine….I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support [ie, billions in US taxpayer cash] it has thus far maintained.”
Vindman’s concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that “Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation,
a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against [alleged] Russian aggression.”
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia’s economy is about the size of Italy’s or Spain’s limiting its imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments....
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth’s three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett – to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow....
Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe.“…
https://strategic-culture.org/news/2019/11/07/deep-state-on-national-security-council-colonel-vindman-expert-with-agenda/
Your recollection is totally correct.
I remember that very well. Especially the arrogance of that asshole vindaman who should be court martialed.
Totally agree....this is confirmed by the first impeachment attempt. The second Trump was sniffing around Ukraine corruption and potentially impacting the march to war, it was time for the knives to come out. Vindman, State Dept, & Ukraine diplomatic staff were all employed to support the narrative. It wasn't fatal to Trump, but think about it in baseball terms. After a high and tight knock down fastball, the batter is not so inclined to "dig in". That's what Impeachment 1 did to Trump....distration and message to stay away from Ukraine. Remember, the even kept this going after he released the weapons. The message was STAY AWAY from Project Ukraine, the money machine funded by energy and the military industrial complex, that's printing money via the war.
Then along came Covid and the fix was in for the basement dweller, also supported by changes in the mail in ballot rules. The FBI handled the laptop issue and shut down the only big threat to emerge late in the race.
I think that's all true.
What's really crazy is that Clinton benefitted from the Uranium deal with Russia, Bill gets $500K for a twenty minute speech in Moscow and she cut off Trump so he couldn't speak Putin's name without being called an apologist.
I dunno Mark.
I respect the point you're trying to make, but remember that no-one expected Trump to beat Hillary and whatever rigging they were engaged in at the time.
Yes, Comey killed the email server. But he was also forced to revive it afterwards, if only briefly. But it was at a delicate enough moment in the campaign that many would go on to blame Comey for her defeat.
The Russia hoax was certainly conceived as a counterpoint to the email issue, but I agree with you that it was not ONLY a counterpoint. Collusion with Russia is just about the worst crime a U.S. politician could be accused of, and unthinkable at the time for a Republican candidate. It should have been fatal. But it also has the virtue, once he beat their scheming and actually got elected, to accomplish everything that you laid out in your article.
Those are points I've thought about, but ... I don't think they change things.
"many would go on to blame Comey for her defeat."
Those of course were all Dems. No serious political analyst thought that was the reason for her defeat. Your second appoint addresses the real reason for her defeat--and Trump's victory.
"Collusion with Russia is just about the worst crime a U.S. politician could be accused of, and unthinkable at the time for a Republican candidate. It should have been fatal."
This used to be true. And if it had remained true in 2016 it should have been fatal, as you say. But the positives in Trump's platform won for him, which is the true reason for her defeat.
For your objections to carry the day, we would need to explain why the Russia Hoax really took off AFTER Trump's win. It would have been one thing for Hillary and her inner circle to have continued, but instead the Russia Hoax became the rallying point for virtually all the DC Establishment. There had to be some reason for such strong dislike for Trump, who had won a stunning victory. We might assign the reason to his border policy, but in a way that's linked to Russia--open borders and Russian regime change were both pet ideas of the globalists. But, as I said, Trump could be thwarted on the border, to some extent, but the real danger lay with his ideas on Russia.
Thanks for your response.
I do agree that his position on Russia posed an existential threat to the DC establishment. Both neocons and globalists agree that the overthrow of Russia is central to their goals.
"Thanks for your response."
Your intelligent comments demanded a response. Understand that I'm a lawyer by education and an advocate by temperament. I pitch my views strongly at times, but that doesn't mean I don't see the merit in objections.
Well, this kind of thing has been going on since at least when the CIA took out Kennedy. Can't get much worse than that, so...