Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of BizPac Review.
The Left does not have many happy moments these days, so leftists were almost giddy Friday after ABC News reported a confidant of Mike Flynn would testify that President Trump “instructed (Flynn) to contact Russian officials during the campaign.” But then the curtain came thudding down on the euphoria of biased ABC news hosts, and others, who had been discussing the need to remove Trump from office before it became apparent their media fishing net was empty and the Trumpfish had swum away.
Let’s back up and understand the accurate perspective and full story as the issue broke about Flynn’s statement and the false ABC News report. First, what became clear is that Flynn’s meetings with a Russian ambassador happened after the election, not during. Second, the statement that a “senior Trump official” told Flynn what he should say to the Russian ambassador during the transition process is not unusual, not illegal, not even scandalous—there is nothing improper about an incoming president talking to leaders of other global powers. And it is common for transition teams to communicate with foreign governments, especially when the topic is to find ways “to work together to fight ISIS in Syria.” Diplomacy with Russia after an election, to improve relations, is a far cry from collusion before an election.
To save even a shred of credibility, ABC News suspended its investigative reporter, Brian Ross, who announced the inaccurate Flynn news. He has inaccurately reported before, including falsely tying a tea party group to the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting.
What we have here is a glaring example of how clever investigators and journalists with biased agendas can make the most innocuous communications appear as “evidence of guilt” by twisting it. And a meeting between a Trump representative and a Russian official can be turned into a treasonous act by scoundrels. If an investigator pokes around in nooks and crannies long enough, and talks to enough Trump-haters, something will be found that can be distorted. These days, we have a glut of investigations going on, poking into Clinton, Trump, Manafort, Papadopoulos, Comey, Flynn, Podesta. Everybody’s being investigated, it seems. Even the FBI has unclean hands, as they threaten people with culpability or prison so they can tempt witnesses to have “creative” memories that help the FBI’s case. Some witnesses easily turn into lying scumbags to reduce their exposure or prison time.
Here’s a useful exercise: contrast what Flynn and Democrat partisans are claiming about Trump’s ties to Russia, against what Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee actually did. Clinton’s campaign and the DNC partially paid for research to link Trump and/or his campaign to the Kremlin. They hired Fusion GPS in April 2016, and continued to pay Fusion through late October, a short time before Election Day. Fusion prepared a controversial 35-page dossier containing several unverifiable accusations about Trump’s connections to Russia. Fusion also admitted they had done work “for years related to a Russian attorney,” Sergei Magnitsky, who was killed in prison. Fusion said also it had performed work for a law firm that represented a Russian holding company named Prevezon.
Further, Fusion’s founder, Glenn Simpson, “met with a Russian lawyer (Natalia Veselnitskaya) before and after a key meeting she had last year with Trump’s son,” stated Fox News. Catherine Herridge of Fox also said “Fox News learned Simpson met with Veselnitskaya over a 72-hour period before and after the Trump Tower meeting” in June 2016.
So who’s the most culpable here? 1) Democrats who financed mostly phony research on Trump, related to their accusations and investigation of collusion between Russia’s Kremlin and the Trump campaign, and conducted by a firm with ties to Russia? Or 2) an Obama administration that refused to act in the fall of 2016 when Obama learned Russia had violated American sovereignty by meddling during the presidential election via CIA-known cyberattacks and hacking of DNC computers? Or 3) a Trump campaign hit by conspiracy theories alleging business dealings and investments, secret communications channels, and collusion with Russia?
Here’s a clue: There’s no crime if America has diplomatic relations and engages in foreign policy discussions with Russia, or if Trump advisers meet with various Russians.
Latest posts by John R. Smith (see all)
- Paul Krugman the lord of wrong predictions - January 22, 2018
- Leftist lawmakers are either stupid or putting on an act - January 15, 2018
- Is it too late for the New York Times? - December 31, 2017