Yesterday’s House of Representative Intelligence Committee hearing proved how adroit Democrats have become at fomenting disingenuous talking points and outright falsehoods in their attempt to paint President Trump as an impeachable charlatan. Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff provides an excellent analysis: (Powerline)
“…the hearing was worthwhile for me because it provided an opportunity to hear the Democrats explain why they suspect, or purport to suspect, the Trump campaign of colluding with the Russians. Ranking Member Adam Schiff set forth that case in his 15 minute opening statement. Rep. Jim Himes added a few points later on. I now have a better understanding of what former acting CIA director Mike Morell means by “the smoke” regarding “the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians.” Morell made it clear that he sees “no fire, at all,” not even “a spark.” (Emphasis Mine)
Although no accusation was presented with anything close to evidence, what was evident was their prep work in presenting a coherent if not viable “connect the dots” circumstantial argument. Mr. Mirengoff continues:
“To support an inference of collusion, the Democrats need to show that Russia received (or was promised) something by the Trump campaign in exchange for interfering with the election. Rep. Schiff pointed to two benefits he says Trump has bestowed on Russia: (1) the softening of a plank on Ukraine at the GOP convention and (2) Trump’s call on NATO members to meet their monetary commitments. Questions asked by some Democratic members this morning seemed to bolster the view that certain key members of the Trump team have long been more sympathetic to the Russian position on Ukraine than many in the GOP are. Rep. Schiff also emphasized that Roger Stone predicted the release of John Podesta’s emails before it happened.”
This is where the Dems run into a brick wall of a problem. Their own spy director James Clapper admitted no evidence exists pointing to any Russia Trump Campaign collusion: (NBC Transcript MTP)
CHUCK TODD: Well, that’s an important revelation at this point. Let me ask you this. Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?
JAMES CLAPPER: We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, “our,” that’s N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.
CHUCK TODD: I understand that. But does it exist?
JAMES CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.
CHUCK TODD: If it existed, it would have been in this report?
JAMES CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.
CHUCK TODD: At some–
JAMES CLAPPER: But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.
CHUCK TODD: There’s a lot of smoke, but there hasn’t been that smoking gun yet. At what point should the public start to wonder if this is all just smoke?
JAMES CLAPPER: Well, that’s a good question. I don’t know. I do think, though, it is in everyone’s interest, in the current President’s interests, in the Democrats’ interests, in the Republican interest, in the country’s interest, to get to the bottom of all this. Because it’s such a distraction. And certainly the Russians have to be chortling about the success of their efforts to sow dissention in this country.
CHUCK TODD: So you feel like your report does not get to the bottom– you admit your report that you released in January doesn’t get to the bottom of this?
JAMES CLAPPER: It did– well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent of the evidence we had at the time. Whether there is more evidence that’s become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don’t know.
CHUCK TODD: There was a conclusion that said, “It’s clear that the Russians interfered and did so in an attempt to help Donald Trump.” Do you still believe that conclusion?
JAMES CLAPPER: Yes, I do.
CHUCK TODD: But at this point, what’s not proven is the idea of collusion
JAMES CLAPPER: That’s correct.
Having been thwarted in their ability to directly tie President Trump to Russia, the Democrats on the committee focused on Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Carter Paige, and their dealings within Russia and the Ukraine. All to no effect: (Townhall):
“It has now been officially confirmed, with the permission of the Justice Department, that the FBI is engaged in an investigation into the Kremlin’s activities, including whether or not anyone in Trump’s orbit was coordinating or colluding with Russia during the campaign. That probe is active and ongoing, with an undetermined termination date. So far there is zero evidence of improper collusion; even the very media reports that have fueled various rumors and accusations quoted unnamed official sources who’ve conceded as much, and who’ve further stated that the alleged contacts were not even necessarily unusual in nature.”
Without the bother of fact, the Democrats were able to accomplish their objectives,
1) Provide a series of TV sized sound bites suitable for the edit happy newsrooms of CNN, CBS and MSNBC.
2) Ignore the felonious intelligence leaks provided by Obama sycophants meanwhile changing the narrative from “felon” to “respected and admired whistleblower”.
That is all they wanted to accomplish yesterday. Provide talking points to continue propagating their “Red Scare Meets Donald Trump” scenario. Create smoke. Pull the fire alarm. Scream fire. Hope for some of the dirt to stick. Rinse. Repeat. The one positive in the midst of all of this artificial smoke is the fact that President Trump continues to enact his conservative governing agenda without successful MSM resistance.