The Russia Narrative Begins to Unravel

RUSH: Folks, I tell you, I really believe, I weighed very carefully whether or not to say this today, but I really believe the progressive-led attempt, the agenda of delegitimizing the Trump presidency, is beginning to unravel. We’re not there yet, but it is beginning to fall apart. Take a look Carter Page. He’s somebody that knew Trump on the periphery.

The media has been telling the Democrats ever since the election, “You gotta go get Carter Page. You gotta go get Michael Flynn. You gotta get Paul Manafort. Because those three are where you’re gonna find the link to the Russians. That’s where you’re gonna find the collusion. That’s where we’re gonna be able to prove that Trump worked with Putin to steal the election from Hillary.”

Despite all of it, as you know, there is no evidence of any collusion. Collusion is not a crime even if there were evidence of it, but there is no crime that can be found, and there is no collusion. There’s nothing there. Carter Page, zip. The news on Carter Page is the Democrat committee gonna be looking into this has been salivating over his upcoming testimony. Their tongues have been on the sidewalk panting earnestly awaiting his arrival because he had the goods.

Remember Sally Yates was gonna drop the bombshell. Sally Yates had the goods and she bombed out. And then Comey was gonna drop the bombshell that was gonna do all of this in. And he’s lost his reputation as having the most impeccable reputation in Washington. His integrity was beyond reproach. That’s not the case.

So now Carter Page testimony has been postponed indefinitely, and Trump’s out there tweeting that’s ’cause they’ve got nothing. In fact, it could well be that what Carter Page would say would embarrass the Democrats rather than nail Trump. So the Democrats now don’t want to hear from Carter Page and Trump is all over it tweeting to the effect that the Democrats bit off more than they can chew here. That Page doesn’t know anything ’cause there isn’t anything to know in terms of collusion.

So Comey, nothing there. Manafort, nothing there. Flynn, he’s offered to give documents to a committee, but there’s nothing there. So they go for Jared Kushner. And the reason they go for Jared Kushner is ’cause they’re bombing out on all these other people, and they are 1,000 percent invested in this story. Don’t forget, Democrats are so worried that they’re trying to talk their base supporters off the edge of the cliff, because the day’s gonna come when they have to announce that there will not be any impeachment.

Maxine Waters is out there saying that voters are getting fed up with the fact that there hasn’t been an impeachment yet, and they’re desperately waiting for an impeachment. The LA Times is running front-page stories to benefit anti-Trumpists on how to maintain their sanity while waiting for impeachment, essentially. There isn’t gonna be impeachment, at least on this, and if there is it’s gonna be trumped up. I don’t mean to be double entendre there or issuing a pun, but it really is starting to unravel on them.

And Andy McCarthy made a brilliant point on the tube last night. Grab audio sound bite number 17. He was on with Eric Bolling on the Fox News Specialists and Eric Bolling said, “Andy, you’re a friend of Rush Limbaugh,” it makes you a great guy. He didn’t say that. I just threw that in. He said, “You’re a prosecutor. Is there any ‘there’ there?”

MCCARTHY: There’s no “there” there as far as the collusion conspiracy is concerned, but I think the thing that happened this weekend that’s really important that people miss because they’re so giddy about this story about Kushner, is it blew up the collusion conspiracy. Because if there had actually been a collusion conspiracy, there would already be back channels to Russia. There’d be no reason for Kushner in December, weeks after the election, to need to set up a back channel to Russia had there been one during the campaign. So I know for the moment they’re loving the story. But I think it’s kind of exploded the story that they’ve been telling us for six months.

RUSH: And that is exactly right. If Jared Kushner had to set up a back channel with the Russians, then what were they using to collude with the Russians when the collusion was going on during the campaign? Why would Kushner have to set up another back channel if they already had one? If the back channel they had was so effective that nobody could find any evidence of it, that would have meant it was a hellaciously great back channel because everybody and their uncle in Washington has been looking for evidence of collusion between Trump, the campaign, and the Russians.

And they haven’t found diddly-squat because there isn’t diddly-squat. And all the three or four people they thought were gonna have dynamite information are now kind of flittering away, Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn. So they drudge up Kushner as a last-ditch effort here, close to Trump, son-in-law, all of that. And the left, if you put a bag of manure in front of them, they’ll eventually step in it. And, in this case, they may have, because as Andy points out, why would you try to set up a back channel in December if you already had one that’s so good nobody can find it?

Now, it’s a shame that we have to use logic like this to make the point, but whatever it takes is necessary. All of this is so ridiculous.

RUSH: The media has so focused on this, they have gone wall-to-wall with it, particularly CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, that they have created in the minds of a certain percentage of the population in this country that there was collusion. That Trump is illegitimate. That his presidency is not real because it was fake, the election was fraudulent.

There are people who really believe this, above and beyond the Democrat base. And when there isn’t gonna be anything resulting from this in terms of prosecutions, criminal allegations, or what have you — well, we’ve got that, but there isn’t gonna be teeth to it — this over-the-top behavior is gonna come back and bite these people, and they’re going to continue to lose elections.

Now, the media isn’t gonna be affected by it. That’s the one thing. The media is not gonna be harmed. The media is not — well, I say that, but they are. I mean, the media reputation is already in the gutter. But that doesn’t matter. They are still there and they are going to continue to be who they are no matter how embarrassing something turns out to be for them. Because they’re the ones that write the narrative each day, so they’ll be able to massage this, as they’ve been doing for a year.

The latest on the Kushner situation is a letter, supposedly the Washington Post has had since December. But they don’t know if it’s real. And it talks about Kushner’s back channel stuff. And apparently they’ve had the letter, somebody read it to ’em and gave it to ’em, but they will not divulge it. They will not explain anything in the letter. It’s a source. It’s something they’ve been using to claim that Kushner was the one charged with setting up the back channel for Trump to Putin and so forth. They won’t release the letter.

Now people are beginning to ask, “Is there a letter?” Just like people are beginning to ask, “Is there a James Comey memo?” All this stuff that we hear, are there really Comey memos? Is there really a letter that the Washington Post has? And if it exists, why didn’t they use it in December? Why are they waiting till now? They’re waiting until now because everything else has bombed out.

How the Clintons Sold Out U.S. National Interests to Russia
by Deroy Murdock, NTL REVIEW, April 7, 2017

EDITED EXCERPT--Democrats and drive-bys are pathologically obsessed with the hypothesis that Team Trump and Russia rigged last November’s presidential election.

Yet, the Trump haters snored as Hillary and Bill made Russia great again.

If Donald J. Trump so much as played Tchaikovsky’s Marche Slav on his stereo, these leftists deduce, he was in cahoots with the Kremlin. Meanwhile, the same folks who spy a KGB agent behind every filing cabinet in Trump’s White House are aggressively apathetic about Hillary and Bill Clinton’s policies, decisions, and actions that gave aid and comfort to Russia.

Hillary’s much-mocked “Russian reset” established the tone for the Clintons’ coziness with the Kremlin.

On March 6, 2009, during a trip to Geneva, Hillary presented Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov a small, red button. Hillary thought it was emblazoned with the Russian word for “reset.” Her team mistranslated and the button actually read “overload.” Nonetheless, Clinton and Lavrov jointly pressed the symbolic button. And a new era in U.S.–Russian relations erupted.

.....visiting Moscow on March 24, 2010, Hillary explained the Reset’s purpose: “Our goal (meaning she and the Obama Admin) is to help strengthen Russia”......

cont

CONT

How the Clintons Sold Out U.S. National Interests to Russia
by Deroy Murdock, NTL REVIEW, April 7, 2017

The shadiest deal that the Clintons hatched with Russia is called Uranium One.

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining mogul and major Clinton Foundation donor (100 million and more), led a group of investors in an enterprise called Uranium One. On June 8, 2010, Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans to purchase a 51.4 percent stake in the Canadian company, whose international assets included some 20 percent of America’s uranium capacity. Because this active ingredient in atomic reactors and nuclear weapons is a strategic commodity.

This $1.3 billion deal required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel.

On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech.

While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, “a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One” began. “These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

The donors included Uranium One’s then-chairman, Ian Telfer, whose donations to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) totaled $3.1 million. Giustra himself gave $131.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. Before, during, and after CFIUS’s review, Schweizer calculates, “shareholders involved in this transaction had transferred approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives.” Others were less enthused about this deal.

“Russia’s record of transferring dangerous materials and technologies to rogue regimes, such as those in Iran and Syria, is very troubling,” Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, wrote to CFIUS’s then-chairman, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

The top Republicans on the Financial Services, Homeland Security, and Armed Services Committees also signed Ros-Lehtinen’s letter of October 5, 2010. “We believe that this potential takeover of U.S. nuclear resources by a Russian government–owned agency would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States,” the letter read, “and we urge the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to block the sale.”

As a CFIUS member, Hillary could have heeded this warning and stopped Vladimir Putin from controlling a fifth of U.S. uranium supplies. America’s chief diplomat and former first lady either welcomed this prospect or was too uncharacteristically demure to make her objections stick.

In either case, on October 23, 2010, within three weeks of that letter, CFIUS approved Rosatom’s purchase of a majority stake in Uranium One. Thanks to subsequent investments, Rosatom’s share of Uranium One --SNIP

SOURCE Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446526/clinton-russia-ties-bill-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime&hl=en&geo=US? utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202017-04-07&u

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.