(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:Â Ukraine, and for the purposes of helping Hillary Clinton win.
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 Clintonâ€™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 asÂ The Observer noted, when you take away the obvious partisan angle in the report, there is more to the Ukrainian angle:
Yesterday,Â PoliticoÂ reportedÂ that the Ukrainian Government worked to aidÂ Hillary ClintonÂ during the 2016 presidential elections. The actions taken by government officials included disseminatingÂ â€œdocuments implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clintonâ€™s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.â€
Those documents implicated Trumpâ€™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 werenâ€™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 byÂ ClintonÂ Campaign Chair John Podesta,Â also conductedÂ workÂ for Yanukovych. However,Â the Manafort narrative not only paintedÂ Trump as pro-Russian, but also provided the Clinton campaign with a smear campaign while reaffirming its stanceÂ against Russia. It was in Ukraineâ€™s best interest to tilt the election in support of Clinton,Â who strongly advocatedÂ 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-wingÂ 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 byÂ any nation is striking, as it makes much more sense given whatÂ 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).
TheÂ one thing that’s been missing the entire time from the ‘Russian hacking’ narrative is theÂ 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 thatÂ she would have been tougher on Russia, but that is pure speculation; there is nothing to suggest that, and everything to suggest sheÂ 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 RussiaÂ 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.