Why It’s So Hard to Take the Democrats Seriously on Russian Collusion

Of late it seems that Democrats have become almost paranoid schizophrenic in the way that they speak of Russian meddling from one day to the next. Either Trump is in Putin’s pocket or his response to events in Syria and Putin’s ally Assad’s are too aggressive and could lead us to open conflict.

So why the Democrats obsession with Trump and Russia and their inability to have a consistent policy toward our old Cold War adversary?

One thing is certain – Deroy Murdock of National Review says it all in the title of his recent editorial, The Russians Colluded Massively — with Democrats.

The reason for this delusional insistence on accusing Trump for something of which there is no evidence is because many Democrats, especially those in the media and young voters, genuinely believe that Vladimir Putin is the only reason Hillary Clinton did not become America’s first female president.

Murdock notes of the current Mueller investigation:

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his investigators resemble axe-wielding firefighters frantically stomping through a house and not finding so much as a lit birthday candle. Meanwhile, the home next door burns to the basement.

Team Mueller’s never-ending hunt for reds in October 2016 has found zero evidence of Russian collusion among Team Trump. In contrast, Russian collusion among Democrats has been as hard to miss as a California wildfire. And yet they still miss it. …The Russian meddling began in 2014, well before Donald J. Trump’s campaign commenced.

No Democrat wants to talk about how Russians promoted Bernie Sanders’s Democratic-primary bid and Green-party nominee Jill Stein’s general-election effort. Nor do you hear progressives saying much about some of the post-election anti-Trump demonstrations being organized by Russians now under indictment by none other than the Mueller investigation.

What’s missed by most is that Russian meddling that might have affected the election all began long before Donald Trump was president. Instead, it had gone on for a long time under Barack Obama’s watch. He did little to nothing about this Russian penetration of America’s political process, other than to tell Putin to “cut it out” during his September 2016 meeting in China. It’s been suggested that the Russians were emboldened after their hack into Sony went unpunished by Obama.

No wonder conservatives don’t take liberal outrage about Russia seriously. Most of the people waffling 180 degrees from week to week about what impact Russia had on our process spent eight years blindly supporting Barack Obama, whose default mode with Moscow was nothing but accommodation.

Liberals want us to believe that they’ve always been well aware of the Kremlin’s mischief. But they can’t admit that because their President made light of such things and continually lectured those who warned of Russia’s intentions. That and they display selective amnesia when it comes Obama’s record of serial collusion.

Team Mueller has to ignore Democrat’s collusion with Russia because the narrative must stay focused on Trump. Just a few examples of Obama’s collusion with Russia include:

  • In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, and together they pressed the “reset” button for U.S.- Russia relations. Once pushed, that red button came to symbolize a red dawn of growing cozy U.S.–Russian affairs.
  • When Obama announced that he intended to cancel President George W. Bush’s plan to station missile-defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland he said:

“The traditional divisions between nations of the south and the north make no sense in an interconnected world nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.”

When Mitt Romney said that Russia was America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe,” Obama ridiculed him saying, “The 1980s are now calling and they want their foreign policy back.”

In 2012 a reporter asked Obama if Romney’s statement had proven correct to which he tersely dismissed Russia as “a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength but out of weakness.”

As Poltico noted:

Truly. Russia is such a “regional power” that it reached across the Atlantic Ocean and intervened in the American presidential election.

For their current attacks on Trump to have a cohesive impact, the evidence they present can only point to one president and it isn’t Trump. They would have to renounce almost the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both misjudged and appeased Russia at every turn.

The Democratic paranoia on Russia is motivated almost entirely over the (erroneous) belief that Putin cost Hillary Clinton the election. Now you know why it’s so hard to take Democrats seriously on this issue.

~ American Liberty Report