Political author and commentator Mark Steyn didn’t mince words in his characterization of what the Democrats and the FBI are doing in making Vladimir Putin into some kind of ‘Bond villain.’
During the hearing, NSA Director Mike Rogers made clear that there is no evidence that Russian actors played any part whatsoever in changing vote tallies in the 2016 presidential election.
Yet, even assuming for the sake of argument that Russians were involved in some way to sway the election, even the intelligence community will acknowledge that it didn’t change the outcome.
Democrats will point out that Vladimir Putin despised Hillary Clinton, and that shows motive on Russia’s part to interfere with our election. I’m sure lots of foreign leaders despised Hillary Clinton. Even a lot of Democrats despised her. That’s why she lost.
But I don’t think that means that if you despised her, that you must have secretly hatched a plan to undermine her campaign and prop up Donald Trump.
So what if Putin didn’t like Hillary? Mark Steyn wondered, “Why the hell is the FBI wasting its time figuring out what Vladimir Putin thinks of some washed-up has-been presidential candidate?”
I think Democrats are aware of this inconsistency. So, there must be ulterior motives in targeting Russia in a more antagonistic way than they ever have before. I don’t think Democrats actually believe Putin to be the ‘bond villain’ that they’re desperately trying to paint him as. If they actually believed that, they’d condemn Hugo Chavez, and we know that will never happen.
Steyn explained that the Democrats are “mad at Russia, because they want to believe that they did not lose the election, that somebody stole it from them.” But again, why Russia? Were they essentially picked at random to be the Democrats’ scapegoat? Or does it have to do with differing geopolitical strategies in that region of the world?
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com