The New York Times and the Democrats are at it again. The Times is running articles with screaming headlines about how Russia is trying to influence the 2020 election to help Trump and Trump fired the acting Director of National Intelligence because he had the temerity to war the House. Let's see....Trump collusion with Russia...Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
It's amazing that the Times and the Democrats would launch yet another Russia collusion hoax, and it's even more amazing that they would do it in a way that is so obviously phony.
Remember, the Times and the Washington Post and the rest of the Democrat media spent close to three years pushing the story that in 2016, the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the election. That turned out to be total nonsense, completely unsupported by the actual facts. We even had a special prosecutor with a staff of only Democrats (wonder why that was) that had to announce after a two year investigation that there was no such collusion. For years, there were stories about leaks from anonymous sources that this or that had happened that "proved" collusion. After the prosecutor checked these all out, however, none of them proved true. People like Adam Schiff even went on TV repeatedly and said that he had absolute proof of collusion by the Trump campaign only for it later to be revealed that Schiff was just making it all up. There was no collusion. So why would the Times trot this story out again but update it to 2020?
Let's look at the story. Note that there are only anonymous sources. Supposedly, there was a classified briefing in the House Intelligence Committee (chaired, of course, by Adam Schiff -- how convenient) about how Russia was trying to get Trump re-elected in 2020. After that briefing supposedly five different "sources" broke the law by leaking classified information to the Times. The result of this crime wave is that the Times publishes the story about the supposed classified briefing. Isn't it amazing that only this House committee was briefed. No one told the Senate. Nope, the acting DNI went to the one committee he could be sure would leak like a sieve and supposedly said all this. Not likely.
But consider the substance of the story. According to the Times and the Democrats, Russia and Putin would rather have Trump in office than one of the Democrats. That's rather strange. Think of the difference in how Russia has fared in its relations with the USA since Trump has been in office.
In the decade before Trump took office, Russia overran about 30% of the neighboring country of Georgia. President Bush immediately put sanctions on the Russians, but as soon as Obama the Democrat took office, he announced the "Russian Reset" which is a nice way of saying Obama got rid of all the sanctions on Russia. The Russians got Georgia without any consequences. Then a few years later, Russia conquered Crimea from Ukraine. Obama took no action. Russia then started an invasion of Eastern Ukraine with fierce fighting near cities like Donetsk. Again, Obama did essentially nothing to help Ukraine stop the invasion. The Ukrainians begged for defensive weapons to help stop the Russian tanks and soldiers, but Obama refused. Obama allowed the Russians to run wild and took no action to stop the Russians from taking territory from their neighbors.
Then Trump took office. In the three plus years since Trump took office, the Russians have not gotten one square inch of additional territory. Trump sent defensive weapons to the Ukrainians. That stopped the Russian onslaught in the eastern part of Ukraine. Trump also put rather severe sanctions on Russians involved in the attack on Ukraine.
Beyond the weapons, however, Trump shook the foundations of the Russian economy. Obama restricted drilling, exploration and production of America's oil and gas resources. That had the effect of keeping world prices high. Since about half of Russia's economy depends on the export of oil and gas, those high prices gave Putin the money needed to support his military adventures. Trump unleashed America's energy resources. He also approved export licenses for major liquified natural gas facilities. The result is that the world price of oil and gas are both way down. For a country like Russia which is so heavily dependent on oil and gas, this has been a disaster.
And let's not forget Syria. In Syria, the Russians moved into that country while Obama just sat and watched. Once Trump got into office, small American forces moved into Syria to coordinate the fight against ISIS. More important, the US Air Force controlled the skies over Syria and kept ISIS on the defensive until is was wiped out. At one point, however, the Russians sent their forces to attack installations in eastern Syria where America's allies and American advisers were stationed. The Americans warned the approaching force to retreat, but they didn't. As a result, US planes were called in and the attacking force was destroyed from the air. The Russians suffered over 300 dead and they never again threatened American or allied forces.
So why would Putin want Trump to continue in office? The simple answer is that Putin would NOT want that. He'd rather see Bernie Sanders as president so that the military of the USA could be severely degraded. In fact, NONE of the Democrats want to confront Russian aggression against their neighbors. Putin could go back to taking territory just like he did when Obama was in power.
Simply put, this whole story from the Times and the Democrats is just an obvious lie. Interestingly enough, though, this Fake News isn't even a good lie. No one with any sense would believe it.
It's amazing that the Times and the Democrats would launch yet another Russia collusion hoax, and it's even more amazing that they would do it in a way that is so obviously phony.
Remember, the Times and the Washington Post and the rest of the Democrat media spent close to three years pushing the story that in 2016, the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the election. That turned out to be total nonsense, completely unsupported by the actual facts. We even had a special prosecutor with a staff of only Democrats (wonder why that was) that had to announce after a two year investigation that there was no such collusion. For years, there were stories about leaks from anonymous sources that this or that had happened that "proved" collusion. After the prosecutor checked these all out, however, none of them proved true. People like Adam Schiff even went on TV repeatedly and said that he had absolute proof of collusion by the Trump campaign only for it later to be revealed that Schiff was just making it all up. There was no collusion. So why would the Times trot this story out again but update it to 2020?
Let's look at the story. Note that there are only anonymous sources. Supposedly, there was a classified briefing in the House Intelligence Committee (chaired, of course, by Adam Schiff -- how convenient) about how Russia was trying to get Trump re-elected in 2020. After that briefing supposedly five different "sources" broke the law by leaking classified information to the Times. The result of this crime wave is that the Times publishes the story about the supposed classified briefing. Isn't it amazing that only this House committee was briefed. No one told the Senate. Nope, the acting DNI went to the one committee he could be sure would leak like a sieve and supposedly said all this. Not likely.
But consider the substance of the story. According to the Times and the Democrats, Russia and Putin would rather have Trump in office than one of the Democrats. That's rather strange. Think of the difference in how Russia has fared in its relations with the USA since Trump has been in office.
In the decade before Trump took office, Russia overran about 30% of the neighboring country of Georgia. President Bush immediately put sanctions on the Russians, but as soon as Obama the Democrat took office, he announced the "Russian Reset" which is a nice way of saying Obama got rid of all the sanctions on Russia. The Russians got Georgia without any consequences. Then a few years later, Russia conquered Crimea from Ukraine. Obama took no action. Russia then started an invasion of Eastern Ukraine with fierce fighting near cities like Donetsk. Again, Obama did essentially nothing to help Ukraine stop the invasion. The Ukrainians begged for defensive weapons to help stop the Russian tanks and soldiers, but Obama refused. Obama allowed the Russians to run wild and took no action to stop the Russians from taking territory from their neighbors.
Then Trump took office. In the three plus years since Trump took office, the Russians have not gotten one square inch of additional territory. Trump sent defensive weapons to the Ukrainians. That stopped the Russian onslaught in the eastern part of Ukraine. Trump also put rather severe sanctions on Russians involved in the attack on Ukraine.
Beyond the weapons, however, Trump shook the foundations of the Russian economy. Obama restricted drilling, exploration and production of America's oil and gas resources. That had the effect of keeping world prices high. Since about half of Russia's economy depends on the export of oil and gas, those high prices gave Putin the money needed to support his military adventures. Trump unleashed America's energy resources. He also approved export licenses for major liquified natural gas facilities. The result is that the world price of oil and gas are both way down. For a country like Russia which is so heavily dependent on oil and gas, this has been a disaster.
And let's not forget Syria. In Syria, the Russians moved into that country while Obama just sat and watched. Once Trump got into office, small American forces moved into Syria to coordinate the fight against ISIS. More important, the US Air Force controlled the skies over Syria and kept ISIS on the defensive until is was wiped out. At one point, however, the Russians sent their forces to attack installations in eastern Syria where America's allies and American advisers were stationed. The Americans warned the approaching force to retreat, but they didn't. As a result, US planes were called in and the attacking force was destroyed from the air. The Russians suffered over 300 dead and they never again threatened American or allied forces.
So why would Putin want Trump to continue in office? The simple answer is that Putin would NOT want that. He'd rather see Bernie Sanders as president so that the military of the USA could be severely degraded. In fact, NONE of the Democrats want to confront Russian aggression against their neighbors. Putin could go back to taking territory just like he did when Obama was in power.
Simply put, this whole story from the Times and the Democrats is just an obvious lie. Interestingly enough, though, this Fake News isn't even a good lie. No one with any sense would believe it.
No comments:
Post a Comment