Special Report: Russia Collusion
Introduction
"The acknowledgment by James Comey, the F.B.I. director, on Monday that the bureau is investigating possible connections between President Trump's campaign and Russia's efforts to sabotage Hillary Clinton's chances is a breathtaking admission." - from Comey's Haunting News on Trump and Russia by the Editorial Board of the New York Times on March 20, 2017.
That is not the first time that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has investigated foreign interference in a US election. In the 1990s, the FBI investigated then President Bill Clinton for colluding with communist China. In that case it involved millions of dollars in illegal donations to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign, and even Clinton himself. That case also contained staggering amounts of hard evidence
including eyewitnesses, sworn testimony, confessions, admissions, and videotape.
In a side-by-side comparison, the evidence against Bill Clinton makes what the Democrats claim to have on President Trump look like a comic book. And based on what we have seen so far, the Democrats' claims wilt in the sunlight once exposed and appear as a cheap diversion to hide something far worse that they know some in their Party have done.
The reason for writing this special report on so-called Trump-Russia collusion is that there is not only very little evidence that candidate and now President Donald Trump colluded with Russia, but also thin evidence that Russia wanted Trump to win the 2016 election at all. There is, however, a considerable amount of evidence that Democrats have been colluding with foreign nations for years to subvert US elections. This report presents evidence that directly contradicts Democrats and their media operatives' claims that President Trump may have "colluded" with Russia and committed an act of "treason" in doing so.
Furthermore, this report will show that if the standard of evidence for making claims about Trump were ever applied to Presidents Obama and Clinton, they could both be convicted of the Democrat Party concocted crime of "collusion" -- and in the case of Bill Clinton, treason as well. This report also does not contain any conspiracy theories, internet rumors, or any other type of speculation, it is direct evidence and explanations of its relevance to the cases.
The Case Against Republican Collusion with Russia:
"Donald J. Trump traveled Thursday to the heart of America's oil and gas boom, where he called for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations while vowing to 'cancel the Paris climate agreement,' the 2015 accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to curb climate change. Laying out his positions on energy and the environment at an oil industry conference in North Dakota, he vowed to rescind President Obama's signature climate change rules and revive construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring petroleum from Canada's oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries." - from Donald Trump's Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules by the Ashley Parker and Coral Davenport of the New York Times on May 26, 2016.
Russian Economy
The Times article lays out that if Trump is elected president, it would mean a vast expansion of domestic oil production and other fossil fuels, including the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline that had been shut down by the Obama Administration. What does this have to do with Russia one might ask. To begin with, Russia's economy is heavily reliant on petroleum exports. According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook :
"Russia is one of the world's leading producers of oil and natural gas, and is also a top exporter of metals such as steel and primary aluminum. Russia's reliance on commodity exports makes it vulnerable to boom and bust cycles that follow the volatile swings in global prices."
The same CIA report on the Russian economy explains that petroleum was one of the industries that the Russian Government and Oligarchs maintain control of. It is central to their survival. Then candidate Trump's plans for US energy expansion and the cancellation of Obama's environmental rules intended to restrict energy production would mean more petroleum on the open market. More oil means lower oil prices and that spells disaster for the Russian economy says the CIA:
"Russia is heavily dependent on the movement of world commodity prices and the Central Bank of Russia estimates that if oil prices remain below $40 per barrel in 2017, the resulting shock would cause GDP to fall by up to 5%."
In other words, US increases in oil production would contribute to a $60 billion loss of revenue for the Russian economy. It is difficult to see how
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Oligarchs (the ones Democrats accuse of helping Trump in the election and who most benefit from Russian petroleum) could have possibly seen a Trump presidency as an advantage for them.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton, according to many sources, campaigned on an energy policy that could only help Putin and the energy oligarchs. Clinton campaigned vigorously on cutting oil and gas subsidies which would have driven up the price of oil and gas and thus made Russian oil and gas more valuable. For example, Business Insider reported:
"Clinton's campaign has the stated goal of generating half of the US's electricity from renewable resources by the end of her first term. Clinton opposes Arctic drilling and has expressed skepticism for oil production off the southeastern Atlantic coast. The Clinton campaign opposes construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, saying that the project, 'distracts from U.S. efforts to combat climate change.' Clinton has remained silent on the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline."
The reality is that Russia could not and cannot afford a Trump presidency based on economics alone. In fact, one of the great divides between Republicans and Democrats is over environmental policy. Democrats favor crippling US oil and gas production because they say it would help the environment and Republicans believe in drastic increases in oil and gas production -- this is divided by party lines more than almost any other issue. And approximately one third of the Russian economy is more likely to thrive when Democrats are in power, and economic calamity when Republicans are.
Russian Security
The Democrat narrative that Russia wanted Trump to win the 2016 election is ridiculous from an economic standpoint, but from the perspective of Russia's national security interests and ambitions it is even more absurd. The Clinton and Obama record on Russia is shocking, especially in the context of how dangerous Democrats say Russia and Putin are now. Clinton and Obama would be guilty of treason for what they did for Putin, by the standards in which Democrats and the media have measured Trump's supposed "collusion".
The Case For Democrat Collusion with Russia:
"This is not the first time [the Russians have] done things like this. We have records of their attempts to interfere in our electoral process going back to the 1960s. There's always been this ambient level of Soviet or Russian activity, involvement, and attempts to influence our election. Never before have we seen an effort like this. This was unprecedented." - froman interview by former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper with CNN's Dana Bash.
So now is it fair to ask: "Who did Russia prefer in the 2008 election?" Perhaps that is an easy choice considering Republican candidate John McCain had been warning about Russia since Putin came into power there. On the other hand, President Obama considered Russia and Putin an ally. In hindsight, and through the "collusion" lens, Obama looks rather guilty of it himself. The list of things Obama and Clinton did to damage US national security on behalf of Russia is long, but some of the highlights follow:
Russian Whispers
In March of 2012 towards the end of Obama's first term, in a scene that can only be described as bizarre and chilling, Obama was making private remarks to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev unbeknownst to Obama, the hot microphones of reporters captured a glimpse of the sheer cynicism and dastardliness of then President Obama:
Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space."
Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you..."
Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
What an ominous event, and yet the media and Democrats were unmoved by this revelation, but just four years later the same people would be accusing Donald Trump of "treason" based on no more evidence than Trump publicly saying something flattering about Putin and a marginal campaign advisor who had done business in Russia. Any American president who would tell the leader of another country that he needed "space" to mislead his own citizens in order to be re-elected and then have more room to accommodate that nation's interest is scandalous enough, but this was not even the first time Obama had taken drastic steps to help Russia at the expense of American national security interests and those of our true allies.
Russian Spies
A year and a half before the surreptitiously taped conversation between Obama and the Russian premier, Medvedev awarded Russia's highest honor to ten spies that had penetrated the U.S. and gotten close to both Obama and Clinton. In late June 2010, the FBI captured the ten Russians, who had been living and working inside United States for at least ten years under deep cover as part of a sleeper cell. According to the Washington Post , the agents established contact with both Obama and Clinton officials: "Their mission was to gather information and identify potential future government employees who could be helpful, officials said."
Little did they know, Obama would eventually prove to be shockingly helpful on his own. Other reports said the spies were tasked to gather information about what possible negotiating positions the administration might have regarding treaties and arms control agreements. Obama made it clear that Russia didn't need spies for that, under his "reset" policy he would just whisper to Medvedev that as long as he could feign toughness to get re-elected he would be extremely flexible regarding missile defense, and basically everything else.
Usually, captured spies face years in prison and intense interrogation in an effort to discover exactly what the infiltrators know, who they answer to in their own country, and who they have been in contact with inside the U.S. -- the type of information that is vital to national security. But that didn't happen in this case. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former head of U.S. Counterintelligence, Michelle Van Cleave expressed concern over Obama's reaction to such devastating penetration:
"In 2010, the FBI rolled up 10 'illegals' - all Russian citizens living here under deep cover, part of a clandestine espionage support network under tightly held investigation for over a decade. Their long-awaited in-custody interviews promised rare insights into Russian intelligence operations in this country. Instead, all 10 were sent off to Moscow in a pre-emptive 'spy swap' before they could even get debriefed."
Smells like evidence of "collusion" doesn't it? Or worse. It seems rather odd that Obama and Clinton had no interest in Russian espionage in 2010. And this was the real type of espionage, not what is passing for "espionage" now where Democrats claim that Russian hackers, through surrogates "bought ads on Facebook that could have helped Trump". No, this was "deep penetrating" espionage according to the FBI.
In less than two weeks after being caught these Russian moles were whisked off to a hero's welcome back in Moscow. Eric Holder's Justice Department immediately returned them to Russia before our counter-intelligence officials could interrogate the spies, thereby undermining a criminal case, which a federal court in Manhattan was planning to bring against them.
Because of this act, investigators will never know the true extent to which these Russian agents were able to carry out their mission of infiltrating policymaking circles in Washington and New York to collect intelligence on the state of American politics and foreign policy to guide Russian relations with the U.S. We will also never know how effective the Russians were in recruiting Americans inside the U.S. government and in the Obama administration into their espionage ring. This whole deal smelled so bad that even the Washington Post had to acknowledge it:
"John L. Martin, who supervised dozens of espionage cases during a 26-year career at the Justice Department, said earlier spy exchanges took years to work out. The speed at which the latest one occurred was 'absolutely unprecedented.'"
The Post also recognized the severity of Obama's actions regarding the case by summing it up in political terms referring to the swap of ten newly apprehended covert agents in exchange for four Russians, some of whom were merely accused of illegal contacts with Americans, and had been in Russian jails for years: "Indeed,"writes the Post , "the swap could feed Republican criticism that the Obama administration is too accommodating toward Russia."
In 2016 Democrats and their media allies began stressing over and over again just how dangerous Russia is and how they are a national security threat to the U.S. If that is the case, why have the House and Senate Committees not called Obama and Clinton to testify as to why they did this? This was much more than "accommodating."
The Obama Administration approached Russia on bended knee. It was almost as though the United States had done something wrong by rounding up their spies in our country. According to the Post article: "Obama administration officials said the deal illustrated the good working relationship between the former Cold War enemies. After initially denying that the agents worked for Moscow, the Russian government did an about-face and was willing to deal, U.S. officials said."
The Russians plant deep moles into the U.S. and after we catch them in the act of spying, we immediately return them, without any interrogation, and the Obama administration called that a "good working relationship"? That could raise serious questions about precisely for whom Obama and Clinton were "working".
The Post also reveals an almost delusional view from Obama insiders about the spy swap: "'We drove the terms of this arrangement, which was based on national security as well as humanitarian grounds,' said one of the U.S. officials." Also according to the Post: "The quick agreement suggested both Washington and Moscow wanted to move beyond the scandal, which occurred as the Senate is weighing a new bilateral nuclear arms-control accord."
Russian Arms
It makes perfect sense why Moscow would want to sweep this under the rug; but why would the U.S. have any interest in protecting a country caught spying on us? Unless, of course, Obama was planning to hand Moscow everything it desires with regards to American unilateral disarmament. In that case, Obama wouldn't want the American people to dwell on the fact that Russia is treating us like their Cold War adversary and the Obama Administration was treating them like they won the Cold War.
Several months later, immediately following the 2010 elections where Republicans gained seats in the Senate, Obama rushed the New START Treaty through the lame-duck Senate in a manner that was legally dubious at best. The Senate quickly ratified this treaty with "no changes," per the demands of the Russian government. Like its predecessor, New START heavily favored Russia's national security at great cost to that of the U.S. by including no provisions for Russian disarmament of its tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia has a significant advantage over the U.S.
The excuses for Obama to push through the New START were pathetic. Basically those in favor insisted that the treaty would allow U.S. inspectors back into Russia to make sure the Russians are eliminating their nuclear stockpile in accordance with the treaty. Mitigating that, however, is the fact that our inspectors can only look at the sites that the Russians tell us we can inspect. That's it. That's the best argument Obama had for supporting the treaty. On the other hand, you could write a thick book about the reasons to reject it.
Russia desperately wanted the U.S. to sign this treaty; in fact, Russian leaders even warned us that we had better not tamper with the language of the treaty while it was being considered during the lame-duck (illegitimate) Senate session. One of the reasons they couldn't contain their participatory enthusiasm is that the treaty limits our ability to deploy a missile defense system. And we just might need that missile defense system because the treaty calls for reductions in our arsenal of nuclear-armed missiles, which puts Russia at an even greater strategic offensive advantage.
It is complicated to explain, but to simplify the effect of the New START treaty, imagine that the U.S. has a handgun and five bullets, and the Russians have a handgun and ten bullets. Russian Premier Medvedev says to Obama that he will throw away five of his bullets if Obama throws away five of his. Only an idiot would take that deal. Well, an idiot or someone who doesn't mind selling out his country.
But there is a precedent to this stupidity. In 1998, the Russians made the outlandish argument that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty did not apply to them because they were no longer the USSR, but it did apply to us because we were still the United States. Communist China, which was never involved in the ABM Treaty, also asserted that the U.S. should be bound by it. Most observers at the time were sure the Russians and Chinese were being wildly provocative to see what would happen. President Clinton somehow agreed with their outrageous proposition. In short, Clinton "colluded" with the two most dangerous countries on the planet against his own country. No wonder many senior people who worked in national security in the 90s were quietly saying Clinton was a traitor (not kidding).
The Russians, and their previous incarnation the Soviet Union, were notorious for not abiding by any of these agreements they signed with the United States. In fact, at the very moment the Obama Administration was bum-rushing this treaty through the Senate, the Russians had already been refusing to comply with another agreement, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). The CFE treaty was signed in 1990 and was intended to "establish military parity and stability in the conventional military forces and equipment of Europe between the NATO countries and those of the Warsaw bloc." According to an Agence France Presse report, "Russia suspended its observance of the treaty in 2007" while the U.S. continued to meet its obligations under the treaty for four years before the State Department began, reluctantly, to reconsider unilateral adherence to the treaty.
In 2009, while Russia was failing to comply with the CFE Treaty, Obama, without a single objection from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sold out our allies, Poland and the Czech Republic, by announcing that we were pulling out our missile defense systems from those two countries, a drastic move that Moscow had demanded the Obama administration take. The Bush administration had developed the system and provided for its deployment in the two eastern European allies who were once members of the Soviet Bloc, ostensibly to defend against long range Iranian missiles. But the Poles and Czechs saw the defense system and the strategic relationship with the U.S., as insurance against Russia's nostalgia for its hegemony in the region. And with good reason. Only months earlier Russia had invaded Georgia and was at the time fighting for increased control in Ukraine. This announcement came despite the fact that the two countries had welcomed the presence of those systems, which we had promised to build in response to Iran's recent testing of a ballistic missile that could reach Poland.
The Czechs and the Poles acknowledged that they had been sold out by Obama.
Fox News reported on the reaction from Poland:
"Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama's new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous 'gray zone' between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere."
A similar reaction came from the Czech Republic according to the Fox News report:
"An editorial in Hospodarske Novine, a respected pro-business Czech newspaper, stated: 'An ally we rely on has betrayed us, and exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid.'"
It was bad enough that Obama caved to Russia's demands and abandoned two staunch U.S. allies, but he did it on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, as if to celebrate the re-emergence of Russia to its position of dominance over these now free and democratic nations. That kind of treachery goes well beyond "collusion" -- but for some reason Democrats and the media were not bothered at all by it.
And More
In light of Obama's apparent strategy of allowing Russia to think they won the Cold War, it should come as no surprise that he also handed over top-secret weapons technology. So not only did Obama remove our missile defense system from our allies Poland and the Czech Republic, he has now told Russia exactly how to attack not just those allies, but America itself. In January 2012, the Washington Times reported Obama's intentions in his signing statement attached to the 2012 defense authorization bill, "Mr. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on U.S. Standard Missile-3 velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority."
An earlier Washington Times report stated that:
"U.S. officials are planning to provide Moscow with the SM-3 data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. The weapons are considered some of the most effective high-speed interceptors in the U.S. missile defense arsenal."
For anyone who doubts the damage Obama and his Democrat predecessor, Bill Clinton, has done to America's national security or how it will make the entire free world less safe in the future, just look at what is happening on the Korean Peninsula right now. North Korea has nuclear weapons today because of the Clinton administration's 1994 "Agreed Framework," a fool's bargain that was supposed to ensure that North Korea did not get nuclear weapons. But instead of preventing them from getting nukes, it managed to accelerate their nuclear program.
Throughout the rest of the Clinton years, career intelligence analysts were advising them in no uncertain terms that North Korea was cheating on the agreement and pursuing nukes more rapidly with technology we provided them under terms of the agreement. But, instead of acknowledging the failure of the "Agreed Framework" and fixing it, Clinton and his people crowed about its success in stopping the dangerous Kim Jong-il from getting the very bomb that his son, Kim
Jong Un, threatens the U.S. with now.
Duplicitous Democrats such as Clinton and Obama cannot be trusted to negotiate sensitive national security agreements. They have proven too many times that they will sell America out for a piece of paper that they say will "denuclearize the world" or "will ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon".
Conclusion
Obama's and Hillary Clinton's words and actions in their dealings with Russia were dangerous and, at times, borderline treasonous. In his own words to Russian President Medvedev, Obama revealed that his re-election would usher in new U.S. policies under which Russia would be allowed to strengthen its military capabilities at the direct expense of U.S. national defense.
He all but said, "I am only pretending to be looking after my own country." And regardless of his intentions for our national security, Obama's acknowledgement that he could not be honest about his intentions in an election year drives home the additional point that he did not want Americans to go to the polls with accurate information about his plans to placate Russia. So far, that hot mic discussion Obama had with Medvedev represents far more "collusion" than anything Democrats have been able to throw at Trump.
This all represents the "collusion" Democrats say they have been looking for with regard to Trump. And this isn't even a little collusion, this is massive scale sell-off of American national security to the interests of Putin and Russia. While Democrats are pretending to look for some subtle sign that Trump tipped Putin to release some emails embarrassing to Clinton, Obama and Clinton were handing Russia everything they wanted. Why would Russia want Trump to win the election? It simply makes no sense on any level.
Which brings us back to the new Clinton-Democrat-media pose that Russia and Putin are a threat to U.S. national security. Of course, there is no doubt that they are a threat. Republicans have been warning about this for years. Which raises questions about Obama and Clinton's loyalty to Russia for four and eight years. The Obama-Clinton collusion with Russia really does look like treason, but only now that Democrats need to use Putin as a foil against President Trump do they feign concern.
The idea that has been sold to the American people is that somehow Vladimir Putin was out to get Hillary Clinton and help Trump win the election. That is a manufactured political lie concocted so Democrats can attempt to impeach President Trump. The reality is that there is practically nothing that Trump could do for Russia that would be worse for the U.S. and the world than what Clinton and Obama have already done.
Yet still, the Democrats pose as concerned oversight investigators as though none of these things happened. And most so-called journalists play along with this charade as though the authorities now promulgating theories that Russia wanted Trump to win the election hadn't just tricked them into believing Obama administration lies about the deal with Iran.
Scott Wheeler is an investigative journalist and the executive director of the National Republican Trust PAC.
The Democrats and their media allies spent the last two years lying, sliming, and smearing President Trump and those of us who support him, now we need to spend the next two years telling the truth about them. Putting the corrupt Democrats and phoney journalists on notice that we have their number.
We must keep this project going from now until 2020. We cannot wait or it will be too late.