Woman To GOP Senator: How Many Russian Spies Have To Infiltrate the White House Before You Investigate

Matt Vespa
|
Posted: Apr 18, 2017 2:15 PM
Woman To GOP Senator: How Many Russian Spies Have To Infiltrate the White House Before You Investigate

It’s tin foil hat time again. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), the most vulnerable Republican senator running for re-election next year (and by the most, I mean the only), faced a tough crowd at a town hall event in Reno yesterday. Questions about the EPA, the cuts to the agency, and Planned Parenthood were all hurled at Heller. It was a red meat progressive buffet. Yet, one woman took to the microphone and yelled “How many Russian spies do we have to have in the White House before you investigate it?” The question drew loud applause from the liberals in the audience.

Yeah, this is insane. There is no evidence of Russian spies infiltrating the White House. Moreover, we have two congressional probes, one in the House, the other in the Senate—investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the 2016 election. So far, there’s been zero evidence to suggest such collusions too place. None of the meetings that Trump officials had with the Russians during the campaign were improper or wrong. Again, members of Congress meeting with foreign officials are not uncommon on the Hill. Moreover, ambassadors, like Sergey Kislyak of Russia, were doing their jobs when they met with Trump officials. At the time, Donald Trump could be one of two people to be elected the next president of the United States. Getting to know his staff was critical. It’s usually vanilla aspects of D.C. political life, which gained notoriety after liberals and their allies in the media were looking anxiously to find something to explain the greatest political upset in American history: maybe the Russians hacked our election. The progressives took it, ran with it, and now we’re dealing with the fallout from this bath salt-induced reason for why Hillary Clinton lost the election.

It wasn’t because she didn’t visit key Rust Belt states, or that she called tens of millions of Americans deplorable, or that she had no economic message, or that she came off as inauthentic. It was the Russians. Oh, and never mind the unauthorized and unsecure email server she used as secretary of state that possibly put our national security at risk. And the fact that every explanation for the server’s existence turned out to be a half-truth at best and a total lie at worst; it sunk her on character issues. Could it be that she couldn’t get the Obama coalition to side with her because a) she wasn’t young and charismatic, like the former president; and b) the young people wanted Bernie Sanders? We may never know because Hillary Clinton refuses to take responsibility for her part in the stinging loss for Democrats. But enough about this two-time presidential loser.

Senate Democrats have admitted that they may not find solid evidence of collusion. Over on the House side, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)—the ranking member of the intelligence committee, sort of walked back on his remarks that there’s circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception. He now says there’s no definitive proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Even the Rolling Stone noted that the Russia-Trump obsession with the Left is devolving into mass hysteria. Even progressive editor and publisher of The Nation—Katrina Vanden Heuvel—mentioned that the Democratic antics over these alleged Trump-Russia ties is taking a neo-McCarthyite life of its own. In short, even some die-hard lefties, people with whom any right-leaning voter or I would have a hard time finding areas of agreement, have noted that this quasi-Russophobia from Democrats is becoming an unhinged exercise. And it is.