As the smoke cleared after Hillary Clinton’s surprise upset by Donald Trump, liberals, true to form, avoided the hard truths that their candidate was corrupt or unlikable or that voters were tired of Obama’s policies, or, all of the above, in exchange for a desperate search for a more satisfying explanation.
For a while, and this was shared by the shell-shocked Clintons, the culprit who put Trump over the top was FBI director James Comey, who in the waning days of the campaign “deliberately” and “unfairly” dealt Hillary a death blow by announcing that he was re-opening the Bureau’s investigation of the allegedly classified nature of the Democratic candidate’s private emails.
Even though Comey called off the investigation before election day–and was praised at the time by Clintonistas for “doing his duty”–liberals after Clinton’s loss resumed their attacks on the FBI director as some kind of heavy lifter for the Trump campaign.
Lately, however, Comey and his supposed Trump-sympathizing FBI has been dropped off the liberal radar screen in favor of a more serviceable and more politically satisfying narrative: that the Putin-plaything Trump was put into office by Russian hacking.
From Al Sharpton to Chuck Schumer—if you consider that a leap– the message is that Putin loved Trump, hated Clinton and thus put in the candidate most favorable to the Russian’s dark designs. This affords liberals a two-pronged narrative: that Trump has treasonous ties to Russia and that the president was not elected by the democratic process.
Hence, Sharpton speaks for all liberals when he declares that Trump is “not a legitimate president because of the Russian thing.”
Even before the election, Democrat Harry Reid was readying up this narrative. Less than a month before the election Reid claimed that the FBI had information that the Russians were hacking the election, or were preparing to.
Liberals, opposed to the CIA when it is under Republican administrations, expressed joy back in December when the agency allegedly told lawmakers that the Russians may indeed have hacked the election.
Last month a new addition to the narrative appeared in which intelligence agencies allegedly were so concerned about pro-Russian influences within the White House that they withheld classified information from the new president out of fears it would make it into Putin’s hands.
The narrative seemed locked in place and was being readied for Democratic campaign use in their upcoming congressional elections.
But Comey is back, however, and dashes yet again a Democratic narrative. And he brings such bad tidings that even the mainstream media can’t put a lid on it.
Liberals should have noticed him, even back during the high tide of their conspiracy theory when the CIA in December confirmed Russian hacking. In that same month, the FBI told lawmakers they disagreed with CIA’s assessment. CIA-FBI disagreements are common and can have everything to do with turf wars or simply attaching different meanings to sources and analysis. But in the partisan aftermath of 2016, who sided with either the CIA or FBI was based on party. The Democrats sided with the Agency because it gave them what they needed in their narrative, and blasted Comey because he was a danger to said narrative.
Now Comey, supported by non-FBI intelligence officials, has concluded that thus far in the ongoing FBI investigation of Russian-Trump collusion, no evidence has come to light.