LOADING CLOSE

053018 Clapper, Brennan, et. al.

053018 Clapper, Brennan, et. al.

This just in from the lightning-bolt department.  Or perhaps it was forwarded from the two-by-four-upside-the-head bureau.  At any rate, it just occurred to me that we should apply the Russia motive framework to the threat assessment by the intelligence community.

Remember the five examples of Clinton and Obama giving the Russians everything they wanted?  Iran – all the sanctions lifted and all the assets unfrozen.  Iran is a client state of Russia.  Russia sells a lot of equipment and technology to Iran, particularly for their nuclear program.  So with the sanctions lifted and assets unfrozen, Iran could buy a lot more stuff from Russia.  Iraq – complete pullout by Clinton and Obama, leaving a power vacuum in the Middle East into which Russia could step and increase her influence. Ukraine – no opposition from Clinton and Obama to Russia’s takeover of parts of Ukraine.  Syria – no opposition from Clinton and Obama to atrocities committed by Russia’s client state of Syria.  Uranium mines – “YES!” from Clinton and Obama to purchase uranium mines in America.

So if the intelligence community were genuinely concerned about the risk of a Presidential candidate getting cozy with the Russians … wouldn’t they look even harder at Clinton than Trump?  She had a freaking track record of getting cozy with the Russians, for crying out loud!

So if Clapper, Brennan, et. al. say that after surveying the situation because of their concern about the risk of a Presidential candidate getting cozy with the Russians, they concluded that Trump was the greater risk while Clinton triggered no concern … then we know they are lying.

Combining the money Russians paid to campaign advisors, with the candidates’ track records, here’s the risk assessment evidently made by the intelligence community:

Long, consistent track record of giving the Russians everything they wanted + $500,000 paid by the Russians to a campaign advisor + over $100 million placed at the disposal of a campaign advisor (Clinton Foundation) = nothing to worry about, no risk of anyone in this campaign getting cozy with the Russians!

Zero track record of giving the Russians anything + $45,000 paid by the Russians to a campaign advisor = SEVENTEEN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES going FRANTIC about a GRAVE THREAT to NATIONAL SECURITY!

There’s no way any honest assessment can ignore the Clinton and Obama track record to arrive at the conclusion above.  And thus we know the intelligence community was carrying out a political witch hunt.

 

ERpundit  –  05/30/18

Comments are closed.