Deconstructing the "Russian interference in US elections" myth

I'm getting sick and tired of the nonsense being spouted by the Democratic Party and its progressive and left-wing fellow travelers concerning allegations of Russian interference in US elections.  Its latest manifestation is a frothing-at-the-mouth call for US Attorney-General Jeff Sessions to resign over allegedly sinister meetings with the Russian ambassador.  That's utter nonsense, for two reasons:

1. When still a Senator, Mr. Sessions routinely met with foreign ambassadors as part of his duties on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  He met with about 25 of them last year, AFAIK, including twice with the Russian ambassador.
2. Those meetings with the Russian ambassador were routine, publicly known, and part of his senatorial duties.  They had nothing whatsoever to do with President Trump's election campaign.  New allegations that they were covered up, or some sort of conspiracy, ignore those facts and are nothing more than a blatant attempt to deceive us as to what really happen.

If you want to know what's driving the brouhaha about alleged Russian interference, all you have to do is follow the trail back to George-Soros-funded, far-left-wing, progressive opinion makers such as Media Matters and its ilk.  For weeks they've been fulminating about this, trying to make it a major talking point.  However, they have failed utterly to provide any hard evidence, apart from innuendo.  If they want me to believe anything, let them prove it.  Let them come up with facts that can be tested and independently verified.  Unless and until they do, I'm going to treat their allegations as just more of the same old, same old propaganda.

It gets worse.  This morning, the New York Times reported:

In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

. . .

Sean Spicer, the Trump White House spokesman, said, “The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election.” He added, “There continues to be no there, there.”

As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.

At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies.

There's more at the link.

I think Mr. Spicer has it right.  In the absence of any hard evidence whatsoever - only innuendo, suspicion, allegations and suggestions - there is, indeed, no 'there' there.  All we've seen so far is allegations from the side that lost the election, looking for any excuse to make themselves look better and excuse their defeat.  The actions of Obama administration officials, as described above, are nothing more or less than a part of those activities.  I don't believe for a moment that they were "convinced that the intelligence was damning".  However, I'm entirely prepared to believe that they wanted to imply that it was damning, and thereby use it to damage President Trump as much as possible before his inauguration.

Read the above report in the light of this one, and you'll begin to see what's going on.

Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation's capital - just two miles away from the White House - into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.

Obama's goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.

And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with  the former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.

Jarrett played a vital - if at times low-key - role in the Obama presidency. She lived in the White House, dined with the Obamas, and help shape his domestic and foreign policies.

. . .

On Tuesday, former Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that Obama is indeed getting closer to making his public reappearance in politics.

'It's coming. He's coming,' Holder said speaking to reporters. 'And he's ready to roll.'

Again, more at the link.

What will Jarrett be doing there?  Consider this report from 2014, when she was Senior Adviser to President Obama:

Jarrett made an ally of Rupert Murdoch on immigration reform and soothed Silicon Valley in the tense moments after the NSA revelations. “She has very strong relationships with Facebook and Google,” says her fellow senior adviser, John Podesta.

Jarrett also helped mastermind the public-relations campaign to enroll seven million Americans in Obamacare prior to this March’s deadline. She spent months fine-tuning a plan to reach the uninsured “where they are,” by which she meant enlisting the figures they look to for guidance: community leaders, DJs, pop-culture icons. “I can remember dozens of times going back to her with plans, having this x’d out and that crossed out. This person is a bad idea for this, not that,” recalls an aide. Jarrett excelled at making the biggest asks personally. “When it came to getting other major people involved—you know, Zach Galifianakis, an LL Cool J tweet in the Grammies, Katy Perry—we were like, ‘We need to have Valerie make this call, sit in on this meeting,’” says Anton Gunn, one of the administration officials in charge of the enrollment push.

In so many words, Jarrett will be the éminence grise behind the building of an anti-President-Trump propaganda and political alliance.  Former President Obama looks as if he'll be the figurehead leading it, but the real work will be funded by George Soros and carried out by his figurehead movements.  If you want a real shock, go read this list of organizations he funds.  It's astonishing in its length and breadth, covering a huge part of the US and international political spectrum.  It's nothing more or less than a hidden propaganda network, supporting liberal, far-left-wing and progressive ideals . . . and, as far as I know, the conservative, libertarian and right wing of US politics has nothing to match it.  (Also, look at how many of those Soros-funded organizations are already openly attacking the policies of the Trump administration . . . then draw your own conclusions.)

In short, in my opinion, the brouhaha over alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 US Presidential election has three purposes:

1. To serve as a convenient excuse for why Democrats lost the election;
2. To provide a(nother) talking point around which to rally left-wing, progressive and liberal forces in opposition to President Trump and his policies;
3. To use as a pry-bar with which to lever and wrench at President Trump's administration, trying to disrupt its activities by forcing it to react to allegations, instead of doing what it really needs to do - focus on its job.

That's why the "Russian interference" myth won't go away.  It's too useful to the Left.  Facts have nothing to do with it.




Peter