Media’s ‘Russia Wanted Trump To Win’ Lie Is A Cockroach That Will Survive Mueller’s Blast & Must Be Crushed

Now that the media-led conspiracy theory about Donald Trump being a Russian spy has been debunked, they’ve got one last shred of that insane story that they’re sticking to.

The claim is that Russia wanted to help Donald Trump become President.

I’ve already tried to clean that lie up a few times.

Back in May 2018 I took a closer look at the actual evidence that the media and Democrats were using to justify their dangerous, destructive lie:

When you hear someone claim that the intelligence community determined the Russians wanted Trump to win, ask them what evidence they have.

If they point to the January 6th Intelligence Community Assessment, ask them why that same report is peppered with the caveat that attacks on Hillary were escalated only after it became apparent that she would win.

Take this one:

When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.

Or this:

When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.

Or this:

When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the presidency the Russian influence campaign focused more on undercutting Secretary Clinton’s legitimacy and crippling her presidency from its start, including by impugning the fairness of the election.

Each of these statements, taken directly from the IC’s report on Russian interference, support the far more plausible but entirely ignored reality that the Russians were not interested in helping Trump. They were interested in hurting the presumptive winner, whoever that may have been. And that’s an enormous distinction. If the Russians wanted to help Trump, that’s a big deal. But if the Russians were focused not on Trump but on whoever the front-runner was, it’s a much different ballgame. The distinction destroys the media’s entire Trump/Russia narrative, which is of course why you never hear about it.

How about the Mueller indictment of the 13 Russians? In that document we see another interesting morsel that the media conveniently choose to ignore:

Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on “politics in the USA” and to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).”

If they had said “except Trump — we support him,” then you could start to make the case that the Russians expressly wanted to help Trump. But per the indictment they also “supported” Sanders, who is Trump’s polar opposite both politically and socially. So the logical conclusion is that they didn’t actually support either one of them. What they did support were candidates who promised to shake things up; candidates they saw as political agitators who weren’t going to win but still inspired vocal and ferocious supporters often painted as “fringe” by the media. It wasn’t about Trump or Sanders personally. It was about exploiting what the Russians perceived to be our nation’s most vulnerable fractures.

And they would have been doing it with or without Donald Trump in the race. And whoever was up, and whoever was down, would’ve gotten the exact same treatment.

The critical point: Contrary to what the media alleges, it had nothing to do with Donald Trump specifically.

In July 2018 I was still looking for any actual evidence that the media could hold up to justify the brutality they were inflicting on our nation with these smears. And around that time the media got a gift from Vladimir Putin: He said he personally was rooting for Trump over Clinton. I addressed that as well.

I’m still waiting for evidence — real, actual evidence — that Russia actually wanted to help Trump win the election. Right now the only evidence we’ve seen is that they wanted to hurt Hillary. That means helping Trump was a byproduct of the meddling, as opposed to the purpose for it. The media and their pro-Resistance allies say evidence of Russia’s pro-Trump intent exists in an Intelligence Community report from January 2017, and in Mueller’s indictment of the 13 Russians. No such evidence exists in those documents. And the more recent Senate Intelligence Committee finding, which also asserts that the Russians wanted to help Trump, leans on those same documents. No new evidence is presented. The evidence we do have suggests that if Trump were the front-runner, then the Russians would have tried to hurt him (and thus, as a byproduct, help Hillary). But since Hillary was the front-runner, the Russians tried to hurt her (and thus, as a byproduct, helped Trump). But there’s an enormous difference between Russia wanting to help Trump, versus Russia wanting to hurt the front-runner, whomever that may have been. It’s not a small, semantic distinction. It’s a landscape-shifting one. If they wanted to “help Trump,” it implies that they thought he’d be valuable to them as POTUS. And that’s a big deal. And I want to see what the actual evidence is for the claim. But as it stands right now, the only actual evidence we have is that they wanted to hurt the front-runner regardless of who it was. And since it was Hillary, she’s the one they went after harder. Had it been Trump, the evidence we do have suggests it would have been him they went after.

I want to see the smoking gun where it’s revealed that Russia was meddling in our election to help Trump because they wanted him to be POTUS, or anything even close to it. Russia’s goal, as most of us know by now, was to sow distrust and disunity. And when the media and their pro-Resistance swamp dependents dishonestly say the goal was actually to get Trump elected, they’re only creating more distrust and disunity — which is exactly what Russia actually wanted. Granted, there may be evidence I haven’t seen. And that’s what I’m asking for. If it’s out there, please share it. But if the evidence is “It’s clear they wanted to hurt Hillary, and that means they must have wanted Trump to be POTUS,” that’s not good enough. If the evidence is “They once said a great way to create disunity is to prop up Trump and Bernie while others get attacked,” that’s not good enough either. And guesswork from the Obama-era IC that purport an ability to read Putin’s mind and way overuse phrases like “he probably wanted to [x],” aren’t good enough.

Saying Russia wanted Trump to become POTUS because they thought it’d be good for them is an explosive accusation, and I’d like to see some evidence beyond speculation or conjecture that actually backs it up. I’ll wait.

UPDATE, 7/17/18 at 12:36PM ET (2 weeks after original publishing of this piece): At a press conference with President Trump yesterday Putin said he wanted Trump to win because Trump talked about repairing relations with Russia. That concession is not the evidence I’m looking for. That is Putin on a stage in front of microphones telling the whole world that good relations with the US matter to him, and that he envisioned a better shot with Trump than with Hillary and her reset buttons. But in terms of Russia’s covert operations to sow discord, distrust and disunity — the only evidence we have still suggests that if Trump were the front-runner, then Russia would have gone after him with more vigor than they went after Hillary. Ultimately: What Putin says in front of the cameras and what Russian intelligence/spies are doing behind the scenes, are two very different things. So no. Putin’s diplomatic and probably even personally true answer still doesn’t prove that Russia’s operation was designed or even intended to elect Trump. It was designed to mess with our nation, and it started long before Trump came along. It’s a distinction that matters. And apparently our IC and Congress has evidence to the contrary. I simply want to see/know what that evidence is, besides “It’s obvious because they wanted to hurt Hillary.”

As noted above, the accusation that Russians meddled in our election with the specific intent to get Donald Trump elected is an explosive one.

And now that President Trump has been exonerated in the insane conspiracy theory that he is actually a Russian spy who colluded with adversarial foreign governments to steal the election, it’s the last lie left that the media will be able to cling to.

“Well, sure, he’s been exonerated of collusion. But it’s still a fact that Russia wanted Trump to win. I mean that’s just a fact.”

That’s what they’re going to say just so they don’t have to entirely concede defeat.

Don’t let them.

Don’t let James Clapper’s intelligence community get away with planting that bomb in the media with the express intent of trying to destroy President Trump and disenfranchise his 63,000,000+ voters.

It’s yet another in the long list of lies the media tell so much, they become generally accepted in the public discourse. And that’s dangerous and unfortunate. But specifically with respect to the Trump / Russia conspiracy theory, the “Russia wanted Trump to win!” lie is like a cockroach. It will manage to survive the Mueller nuclear bomb, and so it’ll be on us to crush it.


CNN’s Dana Bash Threatens Trump: Make Policy Choices We Want Or We’ll Keep Lying About You

This Part Of The Mueller Report Will Hurt CNN The Most [VIDEO]

Media & Democrats Prove Trump’s Point: It’s A Witch Hunt

The 3 Types Of ‘Journalists’ Who Destroyed The Media’s Credibility

Make sure to check out WhatFinger News for all the best right-minded media content from around the web.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s