If the standard by which Trump is judged in 2017 is applied to Obama in 2008 and 2012, then being ‘pro-Russia’ was once admired by Democrats. From Obama’s Russian reset to a controversial uranium deal, President Obama presided over the antithesis of a Cold War political environment. It’s impossible to contemplate the notion of Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy approving the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia or a leader like Vladimir Putin. President Obama not only approved this sale, but he and Clinton did so even as cash flowed to the Clinton Foundation.
In 2008, John McCain was the hawk against Russia and Putin openly sided with Barack Obama. Did Bush spy on Obama’s team under the pretext of Putin helping elect Obama?
The New York Times on October 31, 2016 published a piece titled Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia.
No, Obama didn’t personally order the wiretapping of Trump. That Tweet, however, is irrelevant. As stated above by The New York Times, Trump’s team was investigated before Election Day and the FBI saw “No Clear Link to Russia.”
Fast forward to 2016 and Hillary loses $1.2 billion in a failed campaign.
The narrative suddenly becomes “Putin likes Trump, therefore since the NSA is ‘moderately confident’ Russian hackers gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails, Trump must have worked with Russia and WikiLeaks to undermine Clinton and hack the election.”
Does this make sense?
No, it’s complete garbage. But it’s good therapy for people who hate Trump and have already forgotten (or never cared) that Bernie Sanders was cheated by the DNC.
Today, Congressman Adam Schiff has “more than circumstantial evidence” linking Trump to Russia, yet the FBI’s James Comey chose to write the Comey Letter a week before Election Day; apparently keeping the tons of evidence on Trump and Putin stored away within the FBI.
I explain the viewpoint of one CIA officer who states Obama spying on Trump (through the surveillance of his team) is worse than Watergate:
Democrats, struggling to stay relevant as Tim Black writes in The Huffington Post, immediately blamed Russia for Clinton’s loss. However, it wasn’t long ago that President Obama advocated better relations with Moscow. Before Clinton’s election loss, Democrats in 2008 and 2012 opposed the anti-Russia stance of GOP candidates like McCain and Romney.
In 2008, Vladimir Putin sided with Obama over McCain, as illustrated in a Guardian article titled Putin: Obama may ease Russia-US relations:
Russian prime minister suggests administration change will help negotiations between Moscow and Washington
Diplomatic relations between Moscow and Washington should improve once Barack Obama takes office, Vladimir Putin today suggested.
Speaking before an invited audience at a live, televised question and answer session, the Russian prime minister welcomed the imminent handover at the White House.
“Usually… when there is a change of power in any country, and even more so in a superpower such as the United States, some changes occur,” Putin observed.
“We very much hope that these changes will be positive. We are now seeing these positive signals.”
“If it’s not just words, if they are transformed into practical policy, we will respond accordingly, and our American partners will immediately feel that.”
The broadcast, from a Moscow film studio, was the seventh phone-in session staged by the former Russian president. Most of the questions were submitted in advance through a government website.
Imagine the righteous indignation of Democrats in 2016 if Putin stated “We very much hope that these changes will be positive.” Without thinking, Democrats would claim this quote is enough evidence to convict Donald Trump of treason.
Then, after President Obama was elected, America moved away from Bush’s policies and embarked on a Russian reset. This new relationship with Putin was highlighted by NBC News in a piece titled U.S. has ‘reset’ relations with Russia:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared Thursday that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have “succeeded in resetting” the relationship between the former Cold War adversaries that had dipped to a dangerous low in recent years.
Obama directly acknowledged differences in some areas, such as Moscow’s tensions with neighboring Georgia, but said “we addressed those differences candidly.” And he announced that the U.S. and Russia had agreed to expand cooperation on intelligence and the counterterror fight and worked on strengthening economic ties between the nations.
Obama gave Russia perhaps the biggest gift it could have wanted from the meetings: an unqualified, hearty plug for Moscow’s ascension to the World Trade Organization. Russia has long wanted membership but U.S. support in the past has come with conditions.
“Russia belongs in the WTO,” Obama said as the two leaders stood side-by-side in the East Room after several hours of meetings — including an impromptu trip to a nearby burger joint for lunch.
Obama didn’t seem to care about Russia’s military intervention in Georgia. Also, both countries agreed “to expand cooperation on intelligence and the counterterror fight and worked on strengthening economic ties between the nations.”
Doesn’t sound like the enemy Democrats created after Clinton’s loss, right?
Of course, not.
Then in 2012, Obama told Romney that America’s Cold War with Russia was over. The exact quote symbolizes how far Democrats have descended and Obama’s debate zinger is quoted in a 2012 Salon article:
“Gov. Romney, I’m glad you recognize al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida,” Obama said. “You said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policy of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s.”
Did you hear that Keith Olbermann? The 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back!
On a serious note, it’s important to remember that 96 journalists in Russia were killed between 1991 and 2009.
How did Democrats respond to Russian journalists possibly being murdered by Putin, or people linked to Putin?
The Democratic stance towards numerous human rights abuses in Russia is highlighted in a New York Times piece titled Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal:
When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
Remember the propaganda sold to you about Putin being a thug who murders journalists? Democrats didn’t care, and only started caring when Putin invaded Ukraine. In the Democratic playbook, it’s alright to approve a uranium deal in light of journalists being killed, but certainly not when Russia annexes Crimea.
What about Trump and Russia in 2017?
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper destroyed the Democratic Party’s narrative that Trump helped Russia hack the DNC. Clapper on NBC News made the following statements, undermining Democrats like Adam Schiff, who claim to possess evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia:
Clapper was also asked on “Meet the Press” if he had any evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government while the Kremlin was working to influence the election.
“We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report,” he said. “We had no evidence of such collusion.”
Although Clapper believes Russia wanted Trump, he has no evidence to back up the claim.
Reminds you of Trump’s wiretap Tweet, right?
Now remember, this doesn’t mean Trump’s policies are good.
It simply means Democrats are threatening a renewed Cold War based on the CIA’s highly confident assessments.
Is the NSA more confidence than the CIA?
The NSA only has “moderate confidence” in Russian hacking.
As stated in New York Magazine, “The CIA and FBI have high confidence in these findings, the NSA has moderate confidence.”
The Daily Beast writes “The CIA and FBI have ‘high confidence’ that it was to destroy Clinton and promote Trump; the NSA has only ‘moderate confidence’ in that assessment.”
As for WikiLeaks, please do a word search for “WikiLeaks” or “Julian Assange” within the 13 page DHS and FBI Russian Hacking Report.
Nobody on the planet is certain about Russian hacking, although Congressional Democrats pretend to have gathered enough evidence from Trump’s impeachment.
Trump isn’t getting impeached.
Russia didn’t work with Trump to hack the election.
How do I know?
The NSA’s Admiral Rogers believes the DNC hack didn’t affect the 2016 election outcome and Clinton would have lost even without WikiLeaks DNC emails.
Sorry Democrats, guess you’ll have to focus on breaking up Too Big to Fail Banks and banning fracking, in addition to other progressive policies advocated by Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein.
Also, remember that President Obama was so “pro-Russia” during his presidency that he sold them uranium.
Finally, Reuters explains it was President Obama, not Trump, who communicated policy positions to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev before election results:
President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.
Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him “space” until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.
The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room.
U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield have bedeviled relations between Washington and Moscow despite Obama’s “reset” in ties between the former Cold War foes. Obama’s Republican opponents have accused him of being too open to concessions to Russia on the issue.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seized on Obama’s comment, calling it “alarming and troubling.”
“This is no time for our president to be pulling his punches with the American people,” Romney said in a campaign speech in San Diego.
Even though Obama blatantly opposed his opponent’s Russia policy before the 2012 election, Democrats viewed this telegraphing of foreign policy as strength, not treason. To say that Obama’s actions are different because he was already president ignores the fabricated outrage regarding General Flynn’s intercepted communication with the Russian ambassador. If Obama communicated with Russia before an election, and nobody cared, imagine if Trump does the same thing in 2020.
By the way, why did the DNC refuse the FBI’s request to examine its computer servers? Has anyone in the U.S. government examined those servers?
No, so share this petition everywhere:
The Cold War is over. Obama was right in 2008 and 2012; Russia isn’t the threat it once was, and Democrats shouldn’t demonize Moscow. Russia invading Ukraine isn’t the reason Democrats fear Russia. Trump winning and Clinton losing is the primary reason for today’s renewed Cold War (in addition to neocon influence within the party), and it will not help Democrats defeat Trump. If anything, it will only increase the chances of tension spiraling out of control between two extremely powerful longtime adversaries. If you truly believe Trump worked with Russia, then demand to see the Russian hacker emails implicating Trump and WikiLeaks with the DNC email release.
Unless you have direct evidence of Trump/Russia collusion, then remember your indignation over Trump’s wiretap Tweet and simply focus on progressive policies, not vapid fear mongering. Trump is on his way to winning 2020, primarily because Democrats have put all their energy into a failed narrative. Democrats are calling Russian hacking an act of war, against a nation with just as many nuclear weapons as the U.S. Therefore, be careful what you wish for in your attempts to impeach Trump.