Behold, The Latest Russian Collusion Theory Peddled By Democrats That's Backed Up By Zero Evidence

Matt Vespa
|
Posted: Jul 06, 2017 1:35 PM
Behold, The Latest Russian Collusion Theory Peddled By Democrats That's Backed Up By Zero Evidence

Before we get into the latest evidence-free Russian story, let’s rehash a few things. It’s been months since the Left began its unhealthy obsession about Russian collusion. Did the Russians run an interference campaign? Yes, well, that’s the high confidence assessment from the Director of National Intelligence at the time, James Clapper, along with the FBI, CIA, and NSA. It was mostly done through state-funded news outlets and social media trolls that peddled propaganda and fake news. Fake news stories aimed at Hillary Clinton did not play a pivotal role.  Yet, this wasn’t a hack. Vote tallies were not altered during the 2016 election. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch said no “technical interference” occurred on election night. The Department of Homeland Security found no spikes in malicious cyber activity on election night that would suggest an attack.  Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and cyber division chief Samuel Liles both said that no votes were changed. Twenty-one states were reportedly targeted but the systems in question were not related to vote tabulation. A voting systems maker was infiltrated prior to the election, but the leaked top-secret NSA report did not point to a voting machine hack.  

Believe it or not, a majority of Democrats actually believe that Russia messed with the vote tallies. There is zero evidence to suggest that. There’s also zero evidence to suggest any collusion occurred between the Trump campaign and the Russians in order to sink Clinton. Senate Democrats started to come to that conclusion months ago. Even New York Times conservative David Brooks said that the evidence isn’t there, and it’s certainly not enough to suggest this is akin to Watergate. The media has also blasted itself with buckshot constantly with their so-called scoops on the subject. Almost every article either has been debunked, or includes nuggets way down in the story noting that nothing points to wrongdoing or evidence of collusion. Another is the “we’re not sure,” but we printed it because—whatever. That appears to be how the standard has devolved. In May, The New York Times reported that the Russians tried to influence Michael Flynn, who would end up being Trump’s short-lived national security adviser, and Paul Manafort, his former campaign manager.  Oh, my god—it’s happening, right? Nope. 

“It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn,” wrote the Times

Now, there’s a new twist. It’s no longer just the Russians; Americans helped them as well. You know what’s similar between this theory and the others in this Russian hysteria freak-out fest? There’s no evidence to corroborate or prove anything (via Politico):

The cascade of investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election includes a darker undercurrent from some senior Democrats: What if Moscow had American help?

Hillary Clinton, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, have all stoked speculation that American insiders may have helped the Russians orchestrate their wide-ranging hacking and disinformation campaign — including with guidance on which political targets to exploit and what kinds of leaked information would most resonate with swing voters. The Democrats got backup from former FBI Director James Comey, who told lawmakers in June he was sure law enforcement would work to determine “if any Americans were part of helping the Russians.”

But so far, no public evidence has surfaced that any Americans coordinated with Moscow's digital army in selecting targets for hacking, strategically deploying the purloined documents for maximum political impact — a point echoed by research firms investigating the election-year hacks.

And some Republicans say Democrats are playing a dangerous game by stoking such a charged storyline without evidence, saying that if it doesn’t pan out it could unravel public acceptance of the whole notion of Russia meddling. Some also consider it a distraction from the more pressing discussion about protecting future elections.

Clinton’s remark about this at the Recode Conference in California in early June earned the scorn of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who reported that the former first lady and two-time presidential loser just peddled a conspiracy theory. Now, former President Obama is facing some heat from his side for not acting deliberately or swiftly enough to counter the Russian meddling. A Washington Post report had a bombshell story, where they reported that the Obama White House knew about the Russian activities in August of 2016. They may have worked to shore up the security in other states’ electoral systems, which former acting CIA Director Michael Morell complimented them on—but they failed miserably in deterring similar actions in the future. The sanctions package, coupled with the booting of Russian intelligence agents from a couple compounds was seen as a slap on the wrist. As with Syria and Ukraine, Obama got rolled by the Kremlin. Did the president choke on responding to the meddling? Senate Intelligence Committee co-chair Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) says yes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, also said Obama could have done more. 

As we wallow in this nonsense yet again, it appears the American people’s patience in the matter is declining fast; a majority thinks that Congress should focus on other things. Democrats running in 2018 have told National Democrats to quit it with the Russia chatter. No one cares out here. And you especially shouldn’t care when there’s zero evidence to back up the tin foil hats being doled by the Left.