By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold -
Disclaimer: This article is, of course, moot if evidence is revealed showing collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. However, this is unlikely because such evidence would have been gathered early in the inquiry and used to deny Trump the presidency. This article is therefore an attempt to show the gaps in the logic posed by the Democrats, which may otherwise fool non-logically trained voters.
In case you have been wondering what Henry Waxman has been doing since he retired from Congress, wonder no longer. Like every other hack who has ever come down with a case of Potomac fever, he opened an influence-peddling outfit called Waxman Strategies. Henry is the Chairman; his son Michael is the President and CEO.
Waxman exemplifies why Trump’s efforts to drain the swamp, no matter how sincere, are doomed to failure. Even though Trump will do everything in his power to prevent ex-office holders from hanging out a shingle as a registered lobbyist, the riffraff will simply hire themselves out as lawyers, consultants or strategists. Whatever the title, the coin of the realm is the access to their former colleagues they can offer their well-heeled clients.
Speaking of President Trump, the Democrats keep calling for an investigation into Russian influence with this administration, but nary a scolding word did they or the media ever utter about the fact that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned over 20% of America’s uranium to the Kremlin in exchange for a bribe to the Clinton Foundation.
In the meantime, Rep. Maxine Waters and some of her colleagues are calling for Trump’s impeachment because foreign dignitaries might book rooms at his Washington hotel. Oh, really? They're worried that the President is going to sell out America for the price of a hotel reservation? Or are they really that concerned that if Putin comes to town, he might get a few extra mints on his pillow?
How quickly Democrats forget that just a few short years ago they and their supreme leader, Barack Hussein Obama, were ridiculing Mitt Romney for even suggesting that Russia posed a threat to the U.S.
Are you surprised that the media and Democrats are constructing a false syllogism out of Trump's relationship with the Russians which goes like this:
- All birds have wings
- A crow is a bird
- Therefore a crow has wings
Whereas a false syllogism on the same topic would be
- All Birds have wings
- A crow has wings
- Therefore a crow is a bird (Hint: insects have wings, but are not birds)
Even with sound logic, a syllogism fails if either premise is false. In the case in point:
- The Russians hacked the DNC emails to benefit the Trump campaign (their motive is at this point, speculation)
- Members of the Trump campaign corresponded with Russian “agents” (Most Russian officials and many businessmen have Intelligence backgrounds or connections, in addition to more conventional activities.)
- Therefore the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians (no proof of collusion has been revealed)
Obama seems obsessed with the idea that any dialog with the Russians is criminal in nature. This is because of his toxic relationship with Putin, which follows Obama’s weak response to the rebellion in Syria, and before that, in Ukraine. Putin clearly despises Obama, and has taken many measures to humiliate him publicly. To Obama, any attempt to normalize our relationship with Russia is an attack on his “legacy.” The perceived involvement with the election is merely a convenient excuse to poison Trump’s diplomatic efforts, and to excuse Hillary’s loss in her badly implemented campaign.
The key to a resolution is evidence that collusion did, in fact, occur between Russia and the Trump campaign. The fact that no such connection has even been leaked during the last 10 months is telling. On the other hand, if there is evidence that Obama spied on the Trump campaign without legal cause, it would constitute a conspiracy well beyond the level of Watergate. There is (so far) anecdotal evidence that Obama reduced the security level of these intercepts and disseminated them to 16 or 17 agencies. This action almost guarantees leaks, and makes the source very difficult to trace. In the non-Obama world, this information would be highly restricted (eyes only), and shared with the FBI if actionable.
