credit: thetelegraph

credit: thetelegraph

Democrats have only just discovered Russia is a hostile power, and horror of horrors, Russia actually conducts espionage against America!  This would be the same Democrat party that until Donald Trump’s election was absolutely certain Russia—and communism in general—was not only no threat, but was merely misunderstood. However, Trump’s election has awakened a new appreciation of the dangers of communism, and the usual stalwart Republicans, like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, are thoughtfully volunteering their expertise to their Democrat colleagues.


The impetus for this new awakening of concern about national security is the hacking of the DNC, Clinton campaign honcho John Podesta, and various other entities and individuals, allegedly by Russia. The Washington Post, which has more or less taken the lead in pursuing this story, has admitted the people identified as being involved aren’t really directly connected to Russia, but hey, it’s Trump, so why not? And of course, the only reason Russia would conduct espionage against America is to ensure the election of Donald Trump, and to defeat Hillary Clinton who showed her hostility toward Russia with her mislabeled “reset” button, and who, with Barack Obama, so resolutely opposed Russia’s expansionism and annexation of its neighbors. There is no one Vladimir Putin fears more than the flexible Barack Obama and his resolute and well-traveled Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The outrage and newly awakened concern for America’s security is curious, considering the fact Hillary Clinton has been exposing America’s secrets for years, and our enemies, and even our allies, are continually engaging in espionage even as we spy on them. Interesting too is the fact the hacking so concerning Democrats and some Republicans was publically announced months ago. Of course back then, Hillary Clinton was awaiting her inevitable coronation, so it was no big deal.

I have a few questions about this affair, but first, there are a number of interesting developments, the first via The Hill:  

The Hillary Clinton campaign is supporting calls by some members of the Electoral College for an intelligence briefing on President-elect Donald Trump’s ties with Russia ahead of their Dec. 19 vote.

Clinton’s top political adviser John Podesta released a statement on Monday in support of the effort, Politico reported.

The Hillary Clinton campaign is supporting calls by some members of the Electoral College for an intelligence briefing on President-elect Donald Trump’s ties with Russia ahead of their Dec. 19 vote.

Clinton’s top political adviser John Podesta released a statement on Monday in support of the effort, Politico reported.


Oh well, if John Podesta wants people without security clearances to have access to top secret information, why not? After all, he and Hillary Clinton have a great deal of practice and experience at that sort of thing. But perhaps things aren’t as clear as Podesta would have us think, as Fox News reports:

The Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA concluded in a secret assessment that Russia interfered in the race to boost Trump, not just undermine confidence in the system. Intelligence agencies reportedly found individuals connected to the Russian government gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee, as well as from Hillary Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta – though the agencies did not have ‘specific intelligence’ showing Kremlin officials directed the activity.

A “secret assessment?” Hmm. Apparently not so much. I wonder who told the Washington Post and why?

Trump has challenged the report, calling the assessment ‘ridiculous.’

Some Republican senators, though, have sought a bipartisan congressional probe to investigate further. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., endorsed those calls Monday morning, saying: ‘The Russians are not our friends.



It’s that kind of insight that has made Mitch McConnell the notoriously spineless politician he is. Trump, though, does have a point. He promises to change everything about the way America relates to the world, rebuild our military, and conduct foreign affairs on what is best for America. If that’s not 180 degrees opposite the last eight years, and the approach Hillary Clinton promised to continue, it’s at least 170 degrees. Why Vladimir Putin would prefer a newly competent, militarily strong and resurgent America over the feckless prostration of the Obama era, and the certainty of another 4-8 years of the same, is rather hard to fathom.

The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Schiff, D-Calif., criticized Trump and his allies for calling the intelligence community’s work into question.

‘Every day the President-elect and his team continue to denigrate the work of the intelligence community, to the detriment of the agencies’ important work and the success of his own presidency,’ he said in a statement.

Schiff’s approach is interesting when one considers the historical Democrat mistrust and hatred of our intelligence agencies. Suddenly, Democrats are the foremost champions of American intelligence? What could have caused that dramatic reversal?

This, from Jewish World Review is particularly appropriate to the season, political and otherwise:

Hysteria now threatens to become insanity. Rep. Jim Hines of Connecticut, a Democrat, says it came to him in the night, as if Marley’s ghost was rattling his chains at the bedside, ‘that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic. I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue, but I would rather have a legal issue, a complicated legal problem, than to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.

Oh dear. One can only imagine Rep. Hines’ nightmares if the Electoral College fails to deny Donald Trump the Presidency. Constitutional chaos seems to be the good Representative’s fondest hope. Insanity indeed.

Just for the fun of it, one might wish to visit my article from 2012 that revealed Democrat’s historic approach to Russia. I speak of the former “Lion Of The Senate,” Ted Kennedy’s offer to the Soviets during the Reagan era, delivered by a fellow Democrat senator, to betray America. In a quaint, long ago era, this was commonly known as treason. How times have changed.

Pertinent Questions:

credit: reuters

credit: reuters

Why would Russia want to elect a man that promises to make America, once again, a force to reckon with, particularly when the alternative was four to eight more years of a weak and non-threatening Clinton administration?

Is there hard evidence Russia is involved in “hacking,” and what are the details? Every news account seems to be lacking in these basics.

Even if we assume Russia actually wanted to elect Donald Trump, where’s any evidence of that? Merely hacking—if it occurred—into the accounts of the DNC, Podesta and others would seem nothing more than everyday espionage, or merely hacking unrelated to any state.

Many are suggesting that Russia somehow “influenced” the election. What does that mean? How was it done? How did it, in any tangible way, cause a single vote to be lodged, changed, or even reconsidered?

There are all manner of dark suggestions of Russian interference in our electoral process. Where is any evidence of this? Where is the evidence that Russia, or its agents, altered a single vote? Where is the evidence money changed hands, pro-Trump propaganda was disseminated, a single mind was changed, or anything unlawful or unethical occurred?

How do we square Mr. Obama’s proven, active interference in the Israeli Prime Ministerial election of Benjamin Netanyahu with the alleged and to date, entirely nebulous suggestions of Russian interference or influence? Let’s not even mention his direct interference in the Brexit campaign.

Is there any evidence at all that would so much as imply a direct connection between Russia and Donald Trump or his campaign? An indirect connection?

Why is Barack Obama, who has been about as weak in response to hostile foreign hacking as it is possible imagining a human being to be, suddenly determined, in his last days in office to get to the bottom of specific instances of alleged Russian hacking, which may or may not have occurred, and which may or may not have any connection to the election, Donald Trump, or anything having any effect on the election?

And what does this, from Fox News, tell us, particularly since we also have reports the CIA and FBI disagree?

The nation’s top intelligence office is not on the same page as the CIA regarding its assessment that Russia interfered in the U.S. elections in a bid to help Donald Trump, a U.S. government source confirmed to Fox News on Tuesday.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community, has not fully embraced the CIA finding.

Of course our enemies engage in hacking. That’s not news, nor worthy of a congressional investigation. Judging from the breathless news accounts, which are all we have at the moment, the bare basic, competent investigation necessary to determine if anything untoward has actually happened has not been done. Therefore, the various suggestions of impropriety are, at best, premature. So are congressional investigations.

Considering all of this, it is reasonable to engage in a bit of “who benefits?” speculation. Who benefits from this furor, from congressional investigations? Clearly, Democrats, never-Trumpers, Obamite bureaucrats burrowed deeply in agencies like the EPA, DOJ, DOE, IRS, etc. benefit in any attack on Donald Trump at any time.

It should go without saying the media benefits, if for no reason other than it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. There is, however, another media motive. Some of the more canny media weasels are beginning to understand their cozy gig is up. Americans no longer believe anything they say, and are irreversibly turning to the Internet for news. Anything the legacy media can do to attract the attention of the public, and to limit Trump’s ability to go around them and directly to the American people, is mere potential salvation.

But what about people like Senators McConnell, McCain and Graham? I believe I mentioned Democrats and never-Trumpers? And what about Mr. Obama? Seeing every element of his legacy about to fall around his considerable ears, he is clutching at any possible straw. He is also known as a man prone to attack anyone he perceives as an enemy. What more impetus does he need?

Mr. Trump called it ridiculous. Absent actual evidence, he may well be right.