3 thoughts on “The “Collusion” Narrative”

  1. From the start of this, I wondered what the big deal is about Russian collusion. I get why it should be wrong, but I can’t help but remember Obama interfering with the Egyptian and Israeli elections. If Obama gets to do it, why not other countries?

    Further, we already know that the Hillary Campaign and the media (particularly CNN) colluded to win her the primary and almost the general election. If collusion is wrong, shouldn’t it always be wrong?

    Then there is oddity that the Russians might ever find it beneficial for the Republican ticket to win.

    It’s that last part that lead to the other parts, because it always seemed to me that if collusion with Russia occurred, Russia would have wanted Hillary to win. And so it seems the more we learn, the more it seems that is the case. I suspect before this is all over, my first wonderings will be the official line from Hillary and others.

    1. And Russia has been working with the Democrats for decades, especially their activist groups.

      The few studies done about Russian meddling through FB ads showed that Russia bought ads related to causes that were both left and right. They also helped organize protests that were anti-immigrant, where something like 2 people showed up, and for black matters, where thousands of people showed up.

      I think if we had an actual investigation into Russian meddling, we would find that it overwhelmingly supported Democrats but we wont get an investigation into Russian meddling.

  2. The Steele dossier never passed even the most basic smell test, that of fundamental plausibility.

    Had they said Trump paid Russian prostitutes to urinate in his mouth, well, he’s 70 and maybe had gotten a bit jaded?

    But paying them to urinate in Obama’s bed? That’s something only a politcal operative would come up with, and think anyone else would believe.

Comments are closed.