Roger Stone is one of three former Trump campaign associates who have been accused of “colluding” with Russia in order to get Trump elected, and who have agreed to testify before Congress about the matter.
Adam Schiff is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who last week in his opening statement at the congressional hearing regarding alleged Russian interference said that Roger Stone “predicted” WikiLeaks’s release of John Podesta’s emails:
“On August 8th, Roger Stone, a long time Trump political advisor and self-proclaimed political dirty trickster, boasts in his speech that he has communicated with Assange and that more documents would be coming, including an October surprise. In the middle of August, he also communicates with the Russian cut out Guccifer 2.0 and authors a Breitbart piece denying Guccifer’s links to Russian intelligence.
“Then later, in August, Stone does something truly remarkable. When he predicts that John Podesta’s personal e-mails will soon be published, ‘Trust me,’ he says, ‘It will soon be Podesta’s time in the barrel, #crookedHillary.’ In the weeks that follow, Stone shows remarkable prescience. ‘I have total confidence that WikiLeaks and my hero, Julian Assange will educate the American people soon,’ he says, ‘#LockHerUp.’ ‘Payload coming,’ he predicts and two days later it does.”
In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Stone made clear that he never colluded with any Russian entities on Trump’s behalf to get Trump elected. According to Stone, he never even spoke of John Podesta’s emails specifically.
Even if he had spoken with Julian Assange – or a mutual acquaintance or intermediary – that wouldn’t mean that he must have been colluding with Russia to get Trump elected.
Before he sent those tweets referencing Podesta, maybe all he knew was that something – he didn’t know what exactly – would be released on Podesta. He could have gotten that information from an Assange associate. Still, how does that translate into “collusion with Russia?”
I think it’s clear that it doesn’t translate, and that these Russia allegations are nothing more than the Democrats’ and the leftover intelligence community’s strategy to undermine Trump’s presidency by throwing distraction after distraction at the media.
You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to see that. Democrats have said ever since Trump won the election that they have a resistance strategy, and that they would try to obstruct him every step of the way.
That’s not surprising. That’s how the game of politics is played. Most of their time is spent [wasted] on “getting to the bottom of” scandals that either don’t exist or are blown way out of proportion, relative to other real scandals that receive little to no attention.
If Hillary had won, the GOP would be united in their resistance of her. They’d block her every chance they got.
Of course, how would the media portray the GOP in that scenario? They’d probably characterize their resistance as attempts to “undermine our democracy,” or something stupid like that, as if the media has the moral high ground.
It’s the same game every four or eight years. And every time, the players involved claim that the other side’s egregious actions are unprecedented and never-before-seen.
I think this is one reason there was low turnout for the 2016 presidential election. People are sick of the silly, childish, and grandstanding political squabbles that go on between the two major parties, both of whom are owned by lobbyists of giant corporations.
Nothing will ever change as long as politicians in positions of leadership – no matter what letter appears after their name, whether it’s Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, or Paul Ryan – willingly accept what is tantamount to bribes from wealthy corporate interests.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com