Jilted at The Alter: How Putin Played the Democrats

On what was supposed to be her big day, the lady of the hour wore a white pantsuit. She had waited a lifetime for her coronation and had been dutifully assisted by a loyal media. But on election day, as she waited to be officially crowned the 45th President of the United States, Hillary Clinton had been ditched- by Russia.

The accusations levelled against the Russian government is that it helped expose the private emails of the Clinton campaign in an effort to humiliate the candidate and ultimately cost her the Electoral College. But even if you accept as fact that Russia somehow influenced the American voter, it does not immediately follow that the Trump campaign was party to the conspiracy. The Democrat’s insistence on connecting the two — evidence-be-damned- stems from the desire for political revenge.

Indeed if you believe that Putin chose to help Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton you must remain perplexed as to why the Russians chose to gamble on an unknown. That’s because despite all the damaging innuendo, Congressional investigations and sneaky media suggestions, no clear evidence of a connection with the Trump team has yet to appear. Reporters clamoring to pin Putin on Trump’s back have been coming up short. Strange that with all that effort not a single Trump enterprise with ties to Russia has yet to be named. We’re looking at the wrong Party.

True investigative reporters, if any still exist, would be far more useful examining the real story of the 2016 election: What went wrong in the long running diplomatic affair between America’s Left and the Russian government? Why did Putin switch teams?

If you are looking for an American connection to the Kremlin, you need to look instead to the Democrats, and specifically at the Clinton operatives whose hands have been caught deep in the Ruble jar. The Democrat- Russian connection predates the Clintons, of course. Russia had long been the darling of liberals who through the 90s and beyond remained steadfast in their support, even as socialist ideals were crushed at the designer-clad feet of capitalist oligarchs.

Obama, both as candidate and President, provided Russian leadership with much needed political legitimacy and diplomatic cover. In early 2012, just prior to his re-election, he promised then President Medvedev “ more flexibility” towards Russia. The exchange was caught on open mic but failed to inspire the kind of uproar the media manages to summon these days. Then, shortly afterwards, during the 2012 Presidential debates, Obama was quick to mock his Republican opponent for calling Russia the greatest geopolitical threat. When Obama retorted, “ the 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back”, Democrats delighted at that funny quip. No one is laughing now.

But while Obama was merely amenable to Russia, it was Hillary Clinton who laid the golden Faberge eggs. As Obama’s Secretary of State, Clinton approved the sale of twenty per cent of U.S uranium to a Russian state actor. A complex deal involving Canadian and Russian private firms, it came to be the largest sale of natural resources to a foreign entity in American history.

This was not a mere gift by a well- meaning and naïve Secretary of State. This was big lucrative business. At the same time that Secretary Clinton pushed through the approval, her husband Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech he gave in Moscow. Their Clinton foundation, a slush fund for the Clinton lifestyle, also received $145 Million in donations from Russian parties to the deal. Explosive story? The media didn’t seem to think so.

Nor was there much journalistic appetite for the revelation that Clinton’s operatives were embedded with Russia. John Podesta, Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Chairman and the infamous target of the Wikileaks email scandal, had served as a board member of Joule Unlimited Technologies, a Kremlin financed firm. When he left his post in 2014 to join the Obama administration, he received a parting gift of 75,000 shares, which he was required by law to report. Podesta’s failure to disclose this foreign investment was not a simple oversight. He went to the trouble of setting up a shell corporation in his daughter’s name, presumably to conceal his indebtedness to the Russian government or, perhaps, to protect it.

Clinton’s candidacy was the pinnacle of Russian involvement in U.S politics. Never before had the Russians held such substantial shares of American natural resources nor had senior campaign officials on their payroll. Perhaps Putin felt the Democrat party had reached its full potential for Russia, and it was time to give the others a shot. This is a question that can only be answered with a full examination of Russian connections to both parties. For now all we know is that the Clinton dynasty was dumped for a political nobody like Donald Trump. As Democrats feverishly deflect their Russian transgressions onto Trump, they hope to forget that it was they who opened the gates to the Trojan horse of Russian interference. With a hysterical media insisting on the existence of a connection to his campaign, Trump has been placed in the impossible position of proving the absence of something. Like a man attempting to prove to his wife that he is not having an affair, he has no more tools than to endlessly repeat his denials of ties to Russia hoping he’ll ultimately be believed. Good luck with that. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.