Unwrapping The Russia Enigma

Trump, it seems, has dug himself into a deep hole with his Russian investments and loans, and with his association with a few shady characters both at home and abroad. This explains, in part, his reluctance to divulge his Federal Income Tax returns. Because of his numerous bankruptcies, law suits and contract violations, Trump is unable to obtain loans in the United States. He has found willing creditors in Russia. American banks, constrained by federal laws and by fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, do not grant loans to poor credit risks. Russian banks take a different approach: if by granting loans to known grifters and cheats, they can advance the strategic interests of the Russian government, they might issue such loans. In addition, these wily Russian are quite willing to ensnare Trump into some highly embarrassing situations (which the Russians call "kompromat"). Has Trump been "compromised" by Russian blackmail, as the Steel dossier contends? Perhaps, but it is too early to tell. We require more evidence.

As Mueller's bloodhounds sniff out this garbage, Trump is well aware that their discoveries might very well cost him his office, his fortune, or even his freedom.

So now Trump is desperately attempting to climb out of the hole that he has dug for himself, in part by "colluding" with Russian banks and billionaires. They have Trump "hooked" in a manner that should not be tolerated in a leader of an independent and sovereign nation. While one might put his assets into a blind trust (as Trump has refused to do), one can not put debts and criminal acts into a blind trust.

In addition, there is that infamous meeting in Trump Tower, in which the Trump family and Trump operatives "colluded" with Russians to obtain damaging information on Hillary Clinton - an unequivocal violation of election laws.

And so, the answer to the first question is "yes:" Donald Trump and his surrogates collude with the Russians. But which Russians? Gangsters and oligarchs to be sure. Russian government officials? Possibly, but not proven. Was this collusion treasonous? That is to say, was it done to deliberately advance the strategic interests of the Russian government? Absent supporting evidence, that charge is unsubstantiated.

However, it should be noted that "collusion" is not necessarily malignant. It can be positive, and even essential. Diplomatic agreements must always be preceded with secret negotiations. Juries deliberate secretly before they announce their verdicts. In 1962, ABC reporter John Scali "colluded" with KGB station chief Alexander Fomin to initiate the secret negotiations (i.e,, "collusion") that led to the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Donald Trump's "collusion" is not of this kind. It is self-serving and likely criminal, and thus it seriously compromises his ability to function as President of the United States.


Issue Two: Did Russia significantly "meddle" in the 2016 Presidential election?

"Everybody knows" that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee's emails, in an attempt to "tilt" the election toward Donald Trump. This "knowledge" has advanced from a suspicion and allegation to an undoubted public truth, through constant repetition unencumbered by supporting evidence and uninhibited by dissent. Patrick Lawrence describes the process supremely well:

Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths... This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

Wake up, America! Your government lies to you, and the mainstream media repeats and amplifies those "official lies" with a unified voice. We know this to be true, because we have all lived through it, however much most of us are determined to forget about it.

Have we all forgotten the Bush/Cheny/Rumsfeld/Powell lies that led us into the Iraq disaster? Have we forgotten the MSM's unanimous and uncritical acceptance of those lies -- for example, Judith Miller's "Aluminum Tubes," the alleged shipment of Niger uranium ore to Iraq, etc.

Have we forgotten Colin Powell's show and tell before the UN Security Council, with CIA chief George "Slam Dunk" Tenant seated behind him, providing an official Intelligence imprimatur upon that disgraceful charade. Once again, the MSM fell solidly behind the official lies. Typical was the remark of Richard Cohen of the Washington Post: Powell's presentation, he wrote, proved "without a doubt" that Iraq retains its weapons of mass destruction. "Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise." That judgment was echoed in the media throughout the land.

Of course, subsequent events proved the fool and the Frenchman to be right.

The Iraq fiasco followed upon a long history of official lies: the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to an escalation of the Viet Nam war; the allegedly eye-witness account of the "incubator babies" incident told to Congress by the Kuwaiti "nurse" who turned out to be a member of the Royal family. And so on.

So now we have Russian hacking of the DNC emails. Another lie? Possibly not. But surely, by now, we have warrant to be skeptical.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).