Gæsteskribent



Netop som ‘Trump- Putin collusion’ historien så ud til at dø under vægten af ingen beviser, er det kommet frem at Trumps søn Jr. har haft kontakt til en russisk advokat. Denne advokat havde i løbet af præsidentvalgkampen taget kontakt til Jr. med et løfte om at ligge inde med viden, der kunne skade Hillary Clinton. Guy Benson skriver i Townhall

Trump Jr’s associate alerted him to the supposed existence of highly sensitive information regarding wrongdoing tied to Mrs. Clinton, telling him that it would be furnished by a “Russian government attorney” who was representing “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” (who now claims she wasn’t tied to the Kremlin).  To which Trump Jr. replied, “if it’s what you say I love it.” This couldn’t be much clearer:

(…)

Some are now saying that this isn’t collusion, but merely “opposition research.”  It’s both, isn’t it?  Here we have top Trump lieutenants (including Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, who were, ahem, looped into this email chain) meeting in person, eyes wide open, with someone at least one of them believed to be a Russian government intermediary promising harmful opposition research on Hillary Clinton.  That’s not the same as colluding to hack the DNC’s emails, for example, but it’s certainly a form collusion.

Teknisk set er det ikke collusion, da der ikke kom noget ud af mødet. Hvis man går tomhændet fra Netto har man ikke handlet der. Beskyldningerne mod Trump og hans hold har på en gang været hysteriske og vagt formulerede. Ordet ‘collusion’ er et gummibegreb og vidner ikke om ulovligheder. Og hvem er ‘russerne’ og ‘Rusland’ når disse begreber står i stedet for en konkret partner som KGB eller Putin personligt? Alligevel har Jr. på vegne af Trump holdet overspillet sin troværdighed fordi de ikke længere kan sige, at der ingen kontakt har været. Og hvis man har løjet en gang…

Jr har vist sig ukritisk med, hvorfra han får sine informationer, ganske som det er kutyme i en amerikansk valgkamp. I Januar skrev Politico

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

(…)

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.

Det er en lang og læseværdig baggrundsartikel om hvorledes alle blander sig i alt som hævn for hvad som helst. Og ingen glemmer vel Saudiarabiens donationer til Clintons kampagne.

ANNONSE

Indtil videre er der stadig tale om en nothing-burger. At Jr. og centrale folk har været interesseret i snavs på en modstander, om så det kom fra en russer med eller uden forbindelse til den russiske regering er ikke samarbejde. Det er måske upassende, men næppe ulovligt og er fjernt fra den indledende fortælling om, at Trump og Putin havde kapret præsidentvalget.

Men medierne er stadigt stærke, når det gælder om at præge offentligheden og den overordnede debat. Og dette ligner en sejr for venstrefløjen, der endog kan indeholde potentiale for mere. For medierne er lykkedes med en historie om, at enhver indiskretion fra Trump-holdets side, er endnu et bevis på Trumps manglende legitimitet som præsident. Tag blot disse ‘russere’; hvornår holdt 80´erne op med at ringe og forlange deres udenrigspolitik tilbage? Allen West mindes i Townhall de glade dage under Obama

If Russia is such a great threat, then why was it that President Obama in an off microphone moment, he thought, whispered over to then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that after his reelection, he would have more flexibility? Now, why would anyone want to have more flexibility with a Nation that is a threat? Then again, when in the final 2012 presidential election debate, it was Governor Romney who answered to Bob Schieffer that Russia was our greatest geopolitical adversary. Barack Obama ridiculed him stating that the 80’s was calling for its foreign policy back. And subsequently, it was future Secretary of State John Kerry, and others, who derided Romney for saying that Russia was a threat.

Now we know that President Obama and his minions knew about the Russian hacking into the Democrat National Committee (DNC) website, along with John Podesta’s email – which any ten-year-old could have done. However, they did nothing to resolve the issue and the DNC allegedly refused to turn over the evidence to the DoJ…why? Were Russia, and Vladimir Putin, not a clear and present danger? a threat to our democracy?

So, rhetorically, I put forth the same question, when did Russia become a threat?

Simply answered, Russia became a threat when it served the progressive socialist left and their liberal progressive media allies’ purpose. With all that occurred under the tenure of Barack Obama, Russia was NEVER deemed a threat. Consider the collusion of the Obama administration with Putin and Russia over Syria, you know, the whole chemical weapons agreement. Did anyone find it rather odd that Bashar Assad recently fired chemical weapons on his own people? And, that John Kerry said, or rather the Russians told him, they had removed all the chemical weapons from Syria. Red lines, lines in the sand, no threat then, why now?

På samme måde blev Trump til en racist det øjeblik han vandt kandidatposten for Republikanerne.

 

 

Drokles blogger på www.monokultur.dk

ANNONSE