For some time now, the Democrats, Hollywood, academia, and the left-wing media, our Axis of Lunacy (Hey, if Hillary can say “basket of deplorables,” I can say “axis of lunacy.” Fair is fair.), have been insisting that the Russians made Donald Trump president.  This is just a modern version of slinging a lot of horse manure against the side of the barn figuring that some of it will stick.  But, sadly, some of it does.

Ultimately, liberals seem more interested in getting Donald Trump than in discovering what Russia may or may not have done.  And, to get Trump, they’re attacking everyone around him, some of whom, admittedly, deserve criticism more than others.  Death by a thousand cuts.  Reince Priebus, Steve Bannon, Jared and Ivanka Kushner, Jeff Sessions, Sebastian Gorka, Mike Flynn, Monica Crowley, Neil Gorsuch, even Melania Trump and her ten-year old son have been attacked by these folks.

Now President Trump has accused ex-President Obama of using the FBI to wiretap his campaign.  Liberals believe that Trump has made a big mistake because 1) Obama didn’t do it and 2) the results of his wire-tapping will prove collusion between Trump and Putin to steal the election.  Never mind that 1 and 2 can’t both be possible.  That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.

As to number 1, raise your hand if you’re really naïve enough to believe that Barack Obama would not order the surveillance of a political opponent.   He is, after all, the guy who referred to his political opponents as “enemies.”  And, given his widely known partisan misuse of the IRS, the EPA, and the DoJ (ask James Rosen), it should be clear that Trump’s accusation is credible on that basis alone.

And then there’s this Inauguration Day New York Times headline:  “Wiretap Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.”  So even the venerable old gray lady admits that Trump’s accusation had some merit though she has been back-tracking ever since.  Liberals are saying, probably correctly, that Obama himself didn’t personally order the surveillance but that is disingenuous.  And the distinction they’re making between “Trump” and “Trump aides” in this context is a non-existent one.  Obama’s administration was (legally) investigating alleged Russian ties of several Trump associates; wiretaps included.  Trump was essentially correct.

What about claim number 2?  If it proves collusion, it also proves Trump’s accusation.  If it doesn’t prove collusion, it still proves Trump’s accusation.  And, as National Review’s Andrew McCarthy has asked, how, if not by wiretap, did the government initially get all the information that has been leaked (illegally) to the press? 

Given all the sound and fury signifying nothing very much, what is happening is what conservative journalist Stephen Hayes calls “the public version of an elaborate game of ‘telephone’ that’s taking place behind the scenes.”

And since when have Democrats been concerned about the Russians anyway?  Didn’t Obama make fun of Mitt Romney in 2012 for pointing out that threat?  And wasn’t it Obama who told the Russians that he would have “more flexibility” after the 2012 election (and then proceeded to demonstrate by doing nothing while Putin gobbled up half of Ukraine)?  Yet Democrats believe in and are loudly complaining about some nefarious Trump-Putin partnership.  The FBI, by the way, has said several times that there is absolutely no evidence of collusion and no evidence that the Russians hacking into John Podesta’s email had any effect on the outcome of the election.  Still, the Democrats continue to push that narrative.  Why?

The daily drumbeat of unsourced accusations to the contrary reflects the Democrats’ ongoing, panic-driven fury over having lost an election they expected to win.  Their reaction has been this full-blown, out-of-control, hold-your-breath-til-you’re-blue-in-the-face temper tantrum.  The best that can be said for it is that it is juvenile.  That’s it in a nutshell – and in a nutshell is where it belongs.