August 08, 2017
It seems the
“Russian Collusion” investigation had an answer
before it began: It knew who colluded with the
Russians. And it had to be Trump.
The why and the how? There is now a
special counsel appointed to fill in the
But, it is hard to
understand the logic. Russia interfered in the
US presidential election only in 2016? Why
was it Trump who colluded or invited the
interference and not Hillary?
The approach so far is as
if Trump's victory
in 2016 could only depend on the Russians and
nothing else. And that his victory, therefore,
must demand an inquiry.
At the same time,
one is being asked to believe that the Russians
are so astute, to the point of being so magical,
that they could pick winners and losers without
fail in each US presidential elections.
Except, the Russians
never did this in the past! They had to
accomplish this bold, demeaning deed in 2016,
under the historical first black president of
In 2008 and 2012,
Obama won elections with no Russian meddling or
help. The losers of those elections, McCain and
Romney, respectively, just faded away.
Hillary suffered a
resounding defeat in 2016 and the Russians
suddenly became the decisive factor. And
the search light is now on the victor, Trump,
not the vanquished Hillary.
Hillary and her past
misdeeds are glossed over:
A private mail
server which was under subpoena by Congress was
quickly wiped clean, almost 36,000 files
destroyed, no charge for obstruction of justice;
brow raising schemes of “pay to play”, the
uranium deal with Russia and other foreign connections, which
went to benefit the Clinton Foundation while she
was the Secretary of State. No problem.
Hillary, it seems to
many, is not being investigated because of a
necessary political canniness.
Meanwhile, the only
investigation on public display today seems
meant to entrap Trump and people from his
principle against Trump, it seems, is not to ask why
anyone should collude with the Russians to
damage the US, but to redirect our attention
from what was a marvel of democratic electoral
victory by Trump to one of a treasonable act by
notion that Hillary lost because of Russian's
interference in 2016 is, at best, ridiculous.
America and Russia
have been at it, meddling in each others affairs
for as long the modern mind can remember. Both
will continue to do same for a long time to
So, if Russia meddling in US affairs is a
serious charge, we ought to have heard it often
in the past, at least once before 2016.
The "new" in US
internal politics today is something entirely
odd and sinister; the feverish concentration of attacks
on one man, a political outsider, from both
sides of the aisle!
Trump, the man they
predicted couldn't and, therefore, shouldn't,
won the presidency; he defeated 16 Republican
hopefuls and trounced the crown princess of
Democrat America gender/diversity politics, Hillary.
victory, Democrats have sought to de-legitimize
him – propped up the popular vote as the measure
of electoral victory, contrary to the
Constitution; and used the courts to force
recounts in three vital Democrat states
(Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania), hoping
it would reverse the outcome.
They even pressured
the electoral college, the only constitutional
determinant for electing a US president, to
revolt against Trump.
In each of the above
cases, they failed miserably. And now the
The hoax is serious
in its intent. It seeks to harm or impeach
Trump, glaring contradictions notwithstanding.
For one, there is no curiosity on the part of
the investigators to know who else the Russians
got to in the 2016 elections!
Against Trump, a
special counsel is appointed to investigate
Russia collusion. He assembles a team of
lawyers; 16 lawyers in all, eight acknowledged
contributors to Clinton and Obama campaigns, one
has even served as a counsel for Hillary and the
And note this:
Not a single lawyer on the team is known as a
Worst, a Grand Jury
is impanelled. The jurors are picked from
the populace of the District of Columbia where
Trump had less than 5% of the presidential vote
So, is there any reason not to think that this Grand
Jury (lawyers included)
is a hostile
territory for Trump?
What if Trump did
not collude with the Russians?
Yet, the trial goes
on. A sectarian interest is at stake here.
Impeach Trump, as has been openly declared
by Democrats like Congress woman Maxine Waters,
for whom fairness for Trump has never been an afterthought
ever since the Russian collusion theme broke.
Maxine Waters is not
alone. On the other side of the aisle is Senator
John McCain, a Republican.
Long before Hillary
came out with her “deplorable” description of
Trumpers, McCain had already offered a similar
description about Trump's followers, which
description caused Trump to say he preferred
heroes who were not caught as prisoners of war.
The belief about
this statement was that Trump doubted the hero
status on which McCain had built his entire
political career and reputation. For this, McCain never
Some said there was
also the issue of envy: a presidential
seat that McCain, as a consummate and seasoned
politician, contested for and lost in 2008, which
Trump, the outsider and the novice, easily took in
McCain has been part
of the lot that thinks Trump is unfit for the
presidency. And to his credit, he has never
ignored the opportunity to voice his case.
He was the one
who eagerly sought and turned over the
“Russian Dossier” to the FBI. The
dossier has since been debunked.
Reason wrote, “McCain said he turned over the
document out of civic duty.”
Every move McCain
has made against Trump since the "Dossier",
including legislative acts, has been done under
the label of “civic duty.”
“civic duty” has not required McCain to
challenge any of the glaring biases against
Trump in the investigations. He has also
been very silent on achievements of Trump's
first 200 days in office:
The bounce in GDP in
July 2017, increases in job creation to date,
Dow Jones Industrial Average record highs. And
foreign policy wins; for instance, the
unanimous, historic vote against North Korea at
the UN Security Council last week.
interest in “civic duty” has never prompted him
to ask why the FBI never inspected the DNC
computers, which were said to have been broken
into by the Russians - a charge that started the
investigation on Trump's campaign.
His "civic duty"
also, perhaps, caused him to become incomprehensible
when questioning former FBI Director Comey in
the Senate Intelligence Committee.
CNN of all publications, noting the above, reported, "The
strangest moment of the nearly three-hour Senate
intelligence committee hearing featuring
testimony from fired FBI Director James Comey
came at the very end. And it came courtesy of a
somewhat-unlikely source: Arizona Sen. John
The conjecture here is, Director Comey probably
understood better the charade in the state of
Senator McCain's mind.
The same “civic
duty” caused McCain to renege on his promise to
“repeal and replace” Obamacare.
The grandiose manner
McCain took his “civic duty” to the Senate floor
in the Obamacare debate did not obscure the fact
that he wanted to stick it to Trump, so as to
deny the latter a critical legislative victory.
His critical vote
against the measure sank the legislative effort
to “repeal” Obamacare.
Some say McCain did
this with glee, all in the name of a
vainglorious “civic duty”.
like many in Congress, will be pleased to find
any reason to drop the ax on Trump.
The truth or falsity
of the Russian collusion story wouldn't matter, just
as the offering of the “Russian Dossier,” even
though a completely fabricated document, didn't
for the likes of Senator John MaCain.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher,
www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, August 08, 2017
Permission to publish: Please feel free to
publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If
posted at a website, email a copy of the web
page to email@example.com . Or don't
publish at all.