The Kislyak Conundrum: Everything you need to know about the Russia Investigation into the Trump campaign

Let’s face it, the Russia story as it has been instilled to the Donald Trump presidency had nothing to do with justice, or any kind of pursuit of the truth. Otherwise the advocates of injustice would see the clear hypocrisy, and I don’t think they do. It’s safe to say at this point that nobody in the Donald Trump campaign for president nor his transition team conspired with the Russians to win the election in the United States and even if they had, the Russians couldn’t have helped them. The Russians did not and still do not have the methods or tactics to inflict change in an American republic. Any conversations with the Russian ambassador Kislyak were harmless exchanges that any member of an incoming administration would speak with to pave the way for more formal talks later. Functionaries working in such positions talk to lots of ambassadors of many nations, so it is ridiculous to assume that the correspondence did anything to alter in any way the American election. Yet the hatred of Donald Trump’s victory by some go much further than any one person could possibly fathom. The Beltway culture that is most in opposition of Trump is a professional class of bureaucrats more interested in job security than in solving problems, and they see in Trump and in the way he was elected by pure democratic methods as a violation to everything they stand for and for them this first year of his presidency was their last stand. The Kislyak story was only one last hope for them to keep things the way they were. Meanwhile the real collusion story occurred under terms of massive law breaking and manipulation by our top law enforcement—something many people like me suggested—and now we know it was the truth bringing us all to the infinite precipice of decision-making.

The whole Russian case was laid out by Franklin Foer in Slate on July 4th 2016. At that time Brexit was all the talk in Europe, Hillary Clinton had turned in her destroyed evidence to the FBI and had her unsworn testimony contributed to the record, and the police were at my house because I had launched a firework show that had terrified some of my neighbors too far down the road to know me very well. Foer wrote the story to plant a seed just in case Trump gained much ground in the upcoming election. At that point Trump was going to be the Republican nominee and people opposing him were getting worried. Foer got the idea for the article himself when Trump feeling good about getting down to just a few remaining Republican challengers to win the nomination held a press conference and asked the Russians to give us the deleted emails of Hillary Clinton which was threatening to destroy her candidacy before her own nomination process at the Democratic Convention. He was kidding of course. At the time it wasn’t looking good for Hillary. The DNC had been caught rigging the election in her favor pushing out Bernie Sanders and Wikileaks was unloading many emails from the Clinton Campaign that was very disturbing and painting a picture of the Democratic candidate that would put chills down the spine of anybody. So to try to even the field and create some kind of controversy that Trump would have to deal with, Foer used his imagination to connect the dots to the Russians and the Trump campaign. Likely, he figured that at the very least Trump wouldn’t ask the Russians to unleash the Clinton emails any more just in case they really had them—because it would put the presidential candidate on his heels in defense.

On January 6, 2017 nearly six months to the day of the Slate article the CIA, FBI, and NSA announced in a joint conclusion that “Vladimir Putin had ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.” Their statement was produced based on the provocation of the Democrat funded Christopher Steele dossier and leaks from the U.S. intelligence community. And by “leaks by U.S. intelligence we are talking about pussy hat wearing anti-Trump lunatic feminists working at the DOJ who would do and say anything to keep the Republican challenger out of the White House—even if it meant abusing their power. After all, as women with these new fangs of sexual harassment that they make every five seconds they leveraged in their minds that nobody would call them on their bogus leaks—especially if their notorious feminist leader Hillary Clinton was in the White House. So what did they have to lose? They threw their credibility behind the Slate article in a last-ditch effort to wreck the Trump presidency before inauguration day within a few weeks of the joint statement on Russia and Trump.

It was that same dossier which we now know led to the FISA abuse and spying that went on looking for any way to trap any member of the Trump campaign and destroy them entirely to preserve their comfortable Beltway structure—the life at the Four Season and those who had not yet earned the right to dine there. They had created a Kislyak conundrum that was far too complicated for average Americans to digest designed to cover their crimes of actually trying to overthrow an elected representative into the White House—and they did this knowing they were breaking the law and betting that they’d get away with it, which proposes the obvious question as to why. Why would they go to all this trouble?

Trump brought to Washington a management method developed in his business practices which terrify most human beings. Our education methods utilize front of the class learning where authority figures such as parents and teachers instruct us what to do, when to do it and how. In these exchanges the sharing of information between peers is highly encouraged, but a strict chain of command is also meant to keep everything in line based on authority figures. Managers like Trump are very laissez-faire seeking to get the most out of people based on identifying the self-interest of their employees and align them with those interests. That to a structured person, and by means of “structure” a person trained to function within the pecking order of classic education methods—top down enforcement of information flow through the rank and file—but the threat from any member of the private sector trying to bring such recklessness to Washington D.C. politics is a real threat to their lives—to everything they know. When Trump was elected basically by following his own gut instincts and pushing aside all the advice of lawyers, professional strategists and the pundits who make a living selling access to the Beltway everyone in Washington who made a living off that crazy system found Trump to be a threat to their very way of life—so they proposed to join together no matter which side of politics they were all on and destroy him.

It didn’t matter if there was an ounce of truth in what they accused Trump of, they figured that the American people would just write everything off as the same kind of conspiracies that were leveled at Obama, the birth certificate issue, the connection to Islam, and the desire to throw America to Socialist International and be ruled by the United Nations. But this time it was different, because the Trump case wasn’t even connected to any truth, it was just a made-up Slate article designed to take the heat off the Clinton campaign at a critical time. What’s really embarrassing is that in a last-ditch effort to keep Trump out of the White House our supposedly neutral intelligence agencies with all the resources at their disposal retreated back to that silly Slate article that Foer had written as their last-ditch effort not to save the nation, but to save themselves, which is incredibly pathetic. And those are the facts.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

2 thoughts on “The Kislyak Conundrum: Everything you need to know about the Russia Investigation into the Trump campaign

  1. You may have already seen this since you read so extensively, but I thought that this piece from National Review was interesting. Things that make no sense start to be reasonable when one thinks like a bureaucrat who is CONVINCED that Hilary is the next President and wants to do things that will enhance your career since everybody knows that Hilary rewards loyalty, not being right. Of course, making sense of their actions, still means that they are in hot water, but at least it helps me understand why people in law enforcement would go so far out in left field. Have a good day.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.