(NationalSentinel) The Obama administration, top Democrats and even some Republican establishment types have been pushing the false narrative that “Russia hacked the election” to assist Donald J. Trump. Not a shred of proof has been offered to substantiate this claim, though many fake news stories attempting to push the narrative have been identified.

Now we learn that there was a former Soviet country involved in actively trying to influence the outcome of the election: Ukraine, and for the purposes of helping Hillary Clinton win.

From Politico:

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

The piece began typically-by still claiming that Russia interfered in an attempt to help Trump. But as The Observer noted, when you take away the obvious partisan angle in the report, there is more to the Ukrainian angle:

Yesterday, Politico reported that the Ukrainian Government worked to aid Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential elections. The actions taken by government officials included disseminating “documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.”

Those documents implicated Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who worked as an adviser for now-ousted Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych. However, the concerns that the documents raised weren’t in fact over any quasi-Russian ties, though partisan reporting pushed his narrative. Rather, the documents raised the question of whether Manafort declared the income that he had received from the position. The Podesta Group, a lobbying firm co-founded by Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta, also conducted work for Yanukovych. However, the Manafort narrative not only painted Trump as pro-Russian, but also provided the Clinton campaign with a smear campaign while reaffirming its stance against Russia. It was in Ukraine’s best interest to tilt the election in support of Clinton, who strongly advocated for providing Ukraine with military aid and financial support in order to fight Russian separatists in the country.

There’s much more, and it involves all of the political intrigue you might expect from such high-level espionage. But suffice to say that while Left-wing Politico continues to push the Obama administration’s false narrative of ‘Russian hacking’ as much more pervasive than any Ukrainian effort, the fact that there was any effort at all to influence Clinton’s outcome by any nation is striking, as it makes much more sense given what she brings to the table in terms of being legitimately compromised (say, through donations to her family foundation or perhaps via blackmail with information hacked/stolen from her unsecured personal email server).

The one thing that’s been missing the entire time from the ‘Russian hacking’ narrative is the why-why does Russian President Vladimir Putin think a President Trump is more favorable to Russia than a President Hillary Clinton? The idea being pushed by some Clinton sycophants is that she would have been tougher on Russia, but that is pure speculation; there is nothing to suggest that, and everything to suggest she wouldn’t be. After all, she was the presidential candidate with the most to lose in terms of being compromised; Trump, on the other hand, is owned by no special interest and has zero ties to Moscow. Plus, given the serious players Trump is adding to his foreign policy team, Putin has to respect those choices.

Yes, Trump ‘finally admitted’ recently that perhaps Russia ‘hacked’ the DNC, but that is not the same as admitting that Russia influenced the outcome of the election, which is what Democrats, #nevertrump careerists in the intelligence community and the Obama administration are asserting. There is zero evidence to support that.

The point is, Clinton had something of value to offer Ukraine (and, to another extent, Russia), which makes that angle much more believable. Trump brings nothing to the table for Russia, with the possible exception of better relations. That alone might be reason enough for Moscow to have interfered, but again, there’s no evidence to support the claim.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x