It is hardly a revelation that Russia persists in its efforts to disrupt our political system. Since Lenin took control in Russia and declared war on the western capitalist world in 1917, the Russians have consistently and persistently worked to undermine American democracy. As Americans, we should all be rightly concerned about the recent actions of the Russians to meddle in our domestic politics, and insist that strong measures be taken to counter such Russian aggression. Regrettably, until a year ago, anyone making that point was derided by Democrats in this country as militaristic and unenlightened. President Obama was celebrated by the left for his clever put-down of Mitt Romney during the presidential debates when Romney named Russia as a prime threat to this country. So the question is why, only now, has the American left had an epiphany about Russia? Are Democrats the new cold-warriors, determined to ferret out and combat Russian influence, or is their new-found interest in Russia simply their latest device to foster suspicion and undermine President Trump?
If the Democrats are serious about focusing on Russian rather than Trump, they could begin by demanding a special investigation of the people who were in charge of national security when these latest Russian transgressions took place. If the Russians were so successful that they were able to influence the election to favor one candidate over another, why are the persons responsible for allowing this to happen not being held accountable? Clearly, if the allegations concerning Russia are true, Mr. Comey as head of the FBI, Mr. Clapper as Director of National Intelligence and Mr. Brennan as head of the CIA each failed in their jobs. Rather than explain their own actions, they are each anxious to shift focus away from how they failed and instead infer wrongdoing on behalf of the Trump campaign. Like every other conservative I know, I want the truth as to whether there was wrongdoing by anyone on the Trump team, but after a full year’s investigation headed by a team of dedicated anti-Trump agents, using pre-dawn raids, electronic surveillance, and spies who infiltrated and reported on the Trump campaign- in other words, after using the full force and all the assets of the US law enforcement and intelligence communities- we have yet to see any evidence that the Trump campaign had any involvement with Russia’s efforts. This lack of evidence does not stop Messrs. Comey, Clapper and Brennan from leaking half-truths and making self-serving statements on a near daily basis to distract from their own actions and inactions. It would be a positive step if Democrats on investigative committees charged with overseeing the FBI, CIA and DOJ stopped running interference for these three and instead took them to task.
There is also the possibility that the intelligence community did its job, but the politicians in charge failed to do theirs. We know President Obama was briefed on Russian activities before the election, and the National Security Council recommended counter-measures against the Russians. Why did President Obama fail to act, and then tell the American public that the notion of anyone “rigging” the election was a reckless idea that then-candidate Trump had no basis to suggest? Why did Susan Rice, the Obama administration’s National Security Adviser, give a “stand down” order in response to the counter-measures against the Russians recommended by the National Security Council? These were the people in charge; shouldn’t we know the answers to these questions?
Do we even know the truth about the purported hack of the DNC email server, purportedly by the Russians? Because I have limited space, I refer readers to an intriguing article from August 8, 2017, in the Nation magazine, a liberal publication: https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/. To summarize the article, an independent group of intelligence and technical experts, including the former technical director of NSA, examined the volume of data downloaded from the DNC server (1,976 megabytes), and the time it took to download the data (87 seconds) and calculated that the necessary transfer rate for the data was 22.7 megabytes per second, a speed according to these experts “much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.” Based on this analysis they conclude the DNC was not hacked by means of accessing the server over the internet. Rather, the download was accomplished using a thumb drive or similar device physically attached to the DNC server. According to the Nation, the experts concluded that “the DNC data theft was an inside job by someone with physical access to the server.” Considering the source, I think anyone serious about investigating Russian interference would want to know whether the DNC emails were taken by an insider and if so, was that person working for the Russians? The obvious first step would be to examine the DNC server, but when the FBI sought access to the server, the DNC refused. Why would the DNC withhold evidence from the FBI, and why would the FBI allow this to happen?
Lastly, after a year of investigating all things Trump, if the Democrats want to prove this is not a partisan witch hunt, Senator Warner could lead that effort by asking Senator Kaine and Mrs. Clinton, under oath, what they know about the Clinton/Kaine campaign paying Michael Steele, a foreign national, to solicit Russian sources to compile anti-Trump disinformation, and the use of that Russian disinformation to influence the 2016 election. He would ask Loretta Lynch what she knew about the surveillance operation by the FBI and DOJ against the Trump campaign. I have little confidence Senator Warner will make these inquiries. Maybe if the media could tear themselves away from Stormy Daniels, they could ask. One thing is sure if Mrs. Clinton had been elected, the Russian operation, the Clinton campaign’s purchase and use of Russian disinformation, and most importantly, the domestic spying operation run by the Obama administration against the Trump campaign would never have seen the light of day.