Opinion: Democrats, not Russia, to blame for Trump



Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton delivers her concession speech on Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016 from the New Yorker Hotel’s Grand Ballroom in New York City, N.Y. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS)

Nick Reimann


Turn on cable news and that’s all you’ll hear. Any time, 24/7, it’s all about how Russia “influenced” the election or even “changed the outcome.” The horror!

Well, guess what, it’s not Russia’s fault that Donald Trump is the next president of the United States. The fault solely lies with the Democratic Party in their fervent effort to nominate a flawed and dangerous candidate at all costs.

People might realize this if the media focused a little more on the content of the “Russian hack” rather than the hacking itself.

Look no further than the interview with Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) on this week’s edition of Meet the Press.

In the interview, Feinstein stated that based on her viewing of the unclassified intelligence report, she was “astonished” at Russia’s long-term effort to provide “propaganda” wherever it really could and that this played a role in changing the outcome of the election.

Well Ms. Feinstein, here’s how Russia influenced the election: they showed the American people that the Democratic Party is the same grossly corrupt machine it always has been.

It showed a party that was willing to go to all lengths to coronate their queen Hillary Clinton from day one, using threats and manipulation to ensure they met their desired outcome.

In other words, they really put the “democracy” in “Democrat.”

Well then, you may ask: Why would Russia expose the Democrats’ dark secrets but not the Republicans’ (who surely have some)?

Maybe it’s because the Democratic nominee posed a serious, tangible threat to them.

During the campaign, Hillary Clinton doubled down again and again on the issue of Russia in Syria.

Clinton seemed more than willing to begin World War III by using America’s arsenal of military resources to aid “moderate rebels” (who definitely aren’t terrorists or anything) over the Russian-backed Assad.

If Clinton was elected, the best case scenario geopolitically would have basically been a return to the heart of the Cold War. Russia, rationally, realized this was not in their interests, so they did a little bit of investigative journalism (ethics aside, of course) and exposed the Democrats for what they are: corrupt.

This, in turn, may or may not have influenced the election by making the American people aware of the true nature of the Democratic nominee and her party. It also, in turn, may or may not have prevented World War III.

And now we see the hypocrisy of Democrats, joined by their war-mongering GOP cheerleader John McCain, diving into their witch hunt to investigate and prosecute anyone who has ever spoken to Putin, been to Russia or simply looked at a map, and said: “Hey, look, that country’s bigger than ours!”

Here’s the fact of the matter: none of them would have had any problem interfering in Russia’s election. In fact, they probably did, but failed.

Maybe next time, they should think before nominating someone under FBI investigation.