Democrats Russian delusion makes even less sense with Donald Trump, Jr. allegations

Rowan Scarborough:
The amateurish nature of the infamous meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and two Russian lobbyists in June 2016 undermines a major accusation in a so-called dossier: its assertion of a long, information-trading relationship between Russian intelligence and Donald Trump and his aides.

If the Trump team had such a productive Moscow liaison for years, as the dossier, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, and his Russian sources claim, then why did the president’s son need to listen to two nominal Russian sources, a former U.S. intelligence official asks.

“If the Trumps actually had a long-standing relationship with the Russian intelligence services and were regularly receiving information on Hillary Clinton — this is one of the claims in the Steele dossier — there would be no reason to accept a meeting with an unknown lawyer who claimed to have compromising information,” Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and State Department counterintelligence official, told The Washington Times.

“If I’m friends with the owners of the Washington Nationals and getting box seat tickets from them, why would I go out on the street and buy tickets from a scalper? It just does not make sense.”

During the campaign, the Trump team did not appear to spring any anti-Clinton ads that were based on Moscowsourcing. If an extensive connection existed for years, official public reports have not confirmed it.

In fact, former FBI Director James B. Comey testified to the contrary last month before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

A New York Times story that said U.S.-intercepted communications showed that Trump aides “had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officers” was almost entirely false, Mr. Comey testified. He said that when the story appeared in February, he immediately notified Republicans and Democrats that it was not true.

Mr. Comey said “many, many stories” on the Trump-Russia probe were “dead wrong.”
This latest story looks like another dry hole for Democrats looking for an excuse for their election losses.  The facts do not support their fantasies.  Their arguments lack logic.  They are taking the untenable position that it is unlawful to take evidence of wrongdoing about their candidate from a source they don't approve of.  In other words, they are saying that the Trump campaign should not accept evidence of criminal activity by their candidate because of the source.  That is patently absurd.  It is also hypocritical when you consider they were willing to take the dodgy dossier from some of the same sources.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

The Christmas of the survivors of Trump's first year in office?