In the past week, the New York Times launched yet another attack on President Trump based solely on supposed anonymous sources leaked from the House Intelligence Committee headed by Adam Schiff. The story this time was a repeat; President Trump was being helped in his re-election campaign by the Russians, or so the Schiff said (anonymously). Schiff, of course, was exposed as a complete liar on the subject of Russian collusion during the first installment of the Russia collusion hoax. Schiff claimed he had overwhelming and complete proof of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Indeed, Schiff said this over and over again; he had the proof. Then, when the Mueller Report was issued and found absolutely no evidence of any collusion, Schiff never offered any evidence nor did he even explain why he kept claiming that there was evidence of any collusion. He just moved on to Ukraine and the impeachment mess. That didn't stop the Times, though. It published this hit piece about Russia helping Trump based upon anonymous sources that all came from Schiff.
This morning, the Times' story is unraveling. The National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien, was asked by CBS News if he had seen the intelligence indicating that the Russians were helping Trump. O'Brien responded,
“I haven’t seen any intelligence to support the reports that were leaked out of the House."
O'Brien was quick to add that he wasn't at the briefing in the House committee that is the supposed source of the Times' report. He has discussed the briefing with some of the congressmen who were present. They told him that they asked about intelligence that formed the basis for conclusions about whom, if anyone, the Russians were helping in the election, and the congressmen told O'Brien that there wasn't any such intelligence.
So the guy at the top of our intelligence apparatus says he hasn't seen any intelligence to support what the Times' reported and the people briefing the congressmen didn't have any.
It seems that the Times and Schiff are just back to trying the Russia collusion hoax once again.
But it gets worse. The Washington Post is reporting that Bernie Sanders was briefed that the Russians are helping his campaign. Sanders confirms that this briefing took place about a month ago. You can be sure that the people who leaked this are part of the group that wants to keep Sanders from the nomination.
The truth is that this briefing, at least, makes some sense. Trump has been a major problem for the Russians during the last three years. Sanders wants to disengage American power from the world scene, something that would give the Russians an easy path to doing whatever they want. Sanders reacted to the reports by telling the Russians to keep out. And let's be quick to add that we know of nothing that ties Sanders to the Russians (other than that they all used to be Communists.) Even the briefing about which the Post reported was only saying that the Russians were helping Bernie's campaign, not that there was any involvement by that campaign with the Russians.
But with the Times back in on the Trump Russia story, many of the usual suspects are claiming again that Trump is a Russian asset. Just yesterday, Hillary Clinton took time away from her afternoon cocktails to tweet that out, for example. We know that's not true. But does that make Bernie Sanders a Russian asset?
Just who is the Russian asset? Is there one? Is this all a big mistake by the Russian leaders -- you know it's Putin on the fritz? Let's hope this whole story gets the quick burial it deserves.
This morning, the Times' story is unraveling. The National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien, was asked by CBS News if he had seen the intelligence indicating that the Russians were helping Trump. O'Brien responded,
“I haven’t seen any intelligence to support the reports that were leaked out of the House."
O'Brien was quick to add that he wasn't at the briefing in the House committee that is the supposed source of the Times' report. He has discussed the briefing with some of the congressmen who were present. They told him that they asked about intelligence that formed the basis for conclusions about whom, if anyone, the Russians were helping in the election, and the congressmen told O'Brien that there wasn't any such intelligence.
So the guy at the top of our intelligence apparatus says he hasn't seen any intelligence to support what the Times' reported and the people briefing the congressmen didn't have any.
It seems that the Times and Schiff are just back to trying the Russia collusion hoax once again.
But it gets worse. The Washington Post is reporting that Bernie Sanders was briefed that the Russians are helping his campaign. Sanders confirms that this briefing took place about a month ago. You can be sure that the people who leaked this are part of the group that wants to keep Sanders from the nomination.
The truth is that this briefing, at least, makes some sense. Trump has been a major problem for the Russians during the last three years. Sanders wants to disengage American power from the world scene, something that would give the Russians an easy path to doing whatever they want. Sanders reacted to the reports by telling the Russians to keep out. And let's be quick to add that we know of nothing that ties Sanders to the Russians (other than that they all used to be Communists.) Even the briefing about which the Post reported was only saying that the Russians were helping Bernie's campaign, not that there was any involvement by that campaign with the Russians.
But with the Times back in on the Trump Russia story, many of the usual suspects are claiming again that Trump is a Russian asset. Just yesterday, Hillary Clinton took time away from her afternoon cocktails to tweet that out, for example. We know that's not true. But does that make Bernie Sanders a Russian asset?
Just who is the Russian asset? Is there one? Is this all a big mistake by the Russian leaders -- you know it's Putin on the fritz? Let's hope this whole story gets the quick burial it deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment