One problem with getting systematically assaulted by extraordinarily unscrupulous foes is that their malevolence provides a lazy way to dispense with any puzzles about their motives.
Bad guys gonna be bad, after all.
So, why bother looking for any pattern that might reveal a single underlying thread that connects and illuminates all the many disparate parts of their criminal conspiracy when you can explain as much of it as you like by appealing to pure malice?
Consider, for example, the systematic abuses of power perpetrated by high-ranking Obama administration officials collectively referred to as Spygate.
Why did Comey’s FBI take the extraordinary risk of fraudulently obtaining warrants to spy on Trump’s campaign? The common answer is they thought Hillary Clinton couldn’t possibly lose in November and, hence, didn’t believe they were taking any risk.
But if, as was certainly the case, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey concurred with the rest of the Washington establishment that Trump was an incompetent buffoon without a snowball’s chance in hell of beating Hillary Clinton and her cracker-jack team of seasoned political strategists, why even bother?
Why begin the complex machinations involved in framing George Papadopoulos as an agent of Russia on April 26, 2016 by having international man-of-mystery, Joseph Misfud, tell Trump’s young foreign policy advisor that the Russian’s had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton?
And why have Misfud specifically claim the damaging information was in the form of “thousands of emails”?
Misfud couldn’t have been talking about the DNC emails WikiLeaks started releasing on July 22. The vast majority are dated after April 26 [take note as this will be important later] and, hence, hadn’t even been written when Misfud planted his seed.
Nor is it likely that Misfud was talking about those infamous 30,000 or so emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from her unsecured server. Though we first learned of their existence (or lack thereof) in March of 2015, they didn’t become the big news that we think of them as today until a month after Misfud’s remark, when the State Department Inspector General released a highly critical report on Hillary Clinton’s unsecured email server.
A Google Trends search for “Clinton 30000 emails” reveals, that when Misfud made his remark, searches for the phrase were down to almost zero before trending to their June 2016 peak after the IG report was released. Assuming Misfud was an agent of the deep state, why would he wish to make a scandal of Clinton’s that no one was talking about more prominent? Bringing Clinton’s lost emails into plays in no way added to the perception he was presumably trying to create that Russia was out to get Trump elected.
But, if not those 30,000 lost emails or those WikiLeaks would later release most of which had yet to be even written, what seed was Misfud trying to plant?
What could Brennan, Clapper, and Comey even hope to gain by siccing Misfud on Papadopoulus given that the political establishment on both sides of the aisle was uniting in believing that Republican voters had given Hillary Clinton the greatest possible gift and committed electoral suicide by nominating Trump?
And how could Mrs. Clinton’s three stooges have known that Papadopoulos would mention Misfud’s remark to an Australian diplomat or anyone else by means of whom it could get officially relayed back to the FBI several months later and used as a justification to open an investigation and start their spying?
What if Papadopoulos kept the remark to himself?
Or told no one willing to lend a hand and pass the information on?
How could they know Papadopoulos wouldn’t simply forget about a piece of completely unsubstantiated political gossip mentioned over drinks by a man he barely knew?
Why go to such extraordinary lengths to frame General Michael Flynn weeks before he was about to begin his tenure as Trump’s National Security Advisor?
And once their despicable work was done and Flynn was fired because everyone falsely believed he’d lied to incoming vice president Pence about his contact with the Russian ambassador, why did Robert Mueller still make it a point to take up the cudgel once again and do everything in his power to completely destroy General Flynn?
Why the extraordinary efforts to completely crush Paul Manafort and Roger Stone as well, for crimes that were at best trivial and at worst non-existent?
Mueller’s gang of thugs are corrupt and wicked men, not rabid dogs, as striking as the resemblance sometimes seemed. When they go to great effort to obliterate a man, there’s likely more at work than mere spleen.
For that matter, what was Mueller’s gang even trying to accomplish at all? Whoever was running the show for the oafish, Shemp-like, fourth stooge, Mueller revealed himself to be when finally forced to say a few words knew better than anyone that there was no collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign to find.
So why begin an investigation that would inevitably terminate in a report exonerating Trump, showing the whole thing to have been an unjustified waste of time and money?
Was the gang Mueller fronted just trying to keep the Russian collusion hoax alive while conducting a fishing expedition to see if they could dig up something else, unconcerned that the hoax they were propping up would inevitably collapse?
Or might there have been a more specific purpose behind the systematic leaks to the press and indictments that regularly emanated from the Special Counsel’s office that all the focus on the obviously non-existent collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia distracted everyone from noticing?
Though the incessant coverage of COVID-19 wound up burying the news, in early May acting Director of National Security, Richard Grenell released a document that, along with some supplementary information obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, points to the answer the hidden thread running through all the nefarious activities mentioned above.
Not only was there never any proof that the DNC files WikiLeaks released in the runup to the 2016 election were hacked by Russian intelligence. The forensic evidence the DNC’s tech firm CrowdStrike claims they found which we were all supposed to be absolutely certain contained such proof, in fact, proves the exact opposite.
Unless those Russian spies Mueller indicted knowing full well he’d never have to prove his case in court had access to time travel technology, it’s impossible they could have been responsible for stealing WikiLeaks DNC emails as Mueller claimed.
The vast majority weren’t even written on the date CrowdStrike president Shawn Henry testified that the Russian spies he claims to have found lurking on the DNC servers whom Mueller identified as the culprits “staged them for exfiltration” and somehow managed to steal without leaving any evidence while CrowdStrike was monitoring their activity.
But that’s just a small part of how Henry’s testimony to congress completely obliterates the story he and Hillary Clinton’s four stooges have spent as many years peddling and the media abusing doubters into submission as “conspiracy theorists.”
We now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the infamous Russian hack of the DNC servers we were incessantly assured had netted WikiLeaks DNC emails never occurred.
Convincing Congress and the American public it had was one of the greatest political crimes in American history.
And it turns out that all the puzzling extraordinary effort mentioned above, in one way or another, served to make sure it would never be exposed.
